"it does, but if you don't wish to use it in context, or use selective scripture than you can make it into whatever you wish it to be." And she couldn't say the same thing about you? Your point has always been the 'duh' point, that it would just make sense that Christ wasn't literally a door. Yet, here we are with someone saying the Christ was literally food. She sees the same context that you do. Again, it doesn't seem to be so easily transl
bakerstreet
I think you are missing the point. If the Bible translates itself, and the truth is apparent, then why are you sitting here differing with someone who believes as diligently in its inerrancy as you do? Why did she come to a difference conclusion? It doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of translating itself, huh?
"We were NOT IN DANGER from Saddam in 2002." And we weren't in danger from Hitler in 1941. Yet, you admit that addressing potential dangers in the future are worthy acts of war. Except, of course, when Bush does it. The same way you only fault Bush for things other presidents have done in reference to the economy, etc. After a while, it should become apparent what this is really about.
"Prove this lie The only things you can say are slanderings or quasi-religious moto from the right." It isn't a lie. Canadian law can prosecute people who speak publicly, on the Internet, in newspapers, etc., and "willfully promotes hatred". They've used it to bully Google much in the same way that France and Germany bullied Ebay. Canada a
"The Manhattan project disproves the idea that "Super Weapons" were a as you put it a Hazy Possibility. " Again, you show your ignorance of history. The further Hitler got into the war the more he gave up on the super weapons. He had functioning jet technology in his hands and instead of putting the resources into perfecting it decided to throw more of what was then conventional at his enemies. The "nuclear bomb" Hitler is supposed to have mad
"We are borrowing every cent we gave the oil companied in tax credits." LMAO.. there it is in black and white. NOT taking TAX money is GIVING money. Why? Because the money we earn isn't ours, it is "the people's" or some such nonsense.
"So if capitalism is short-lived but effective, is it so ludicrous to suggest that maybe communism is a viable framework that has never been implemented properly?" It's been almost a century now. Dismal failure after dismal failure. This week we hear that Venezuela's wilting socialist mess isn't even able to keep food on the table. Communism and Socialism will be possible in the large scale IF people evolve in that direction. Right now we sim
We expended huge amounts of resources fighting Hitler in Europe. With those resources intact, and Hitler expended trying to hold Europe and bouncing off Russia every time it snowed... there would have been no way, no way possible that he would have been a problem here. Until he got nuclear weapons. But then that was a big ole question mark, and not even one that was really considered in 1941 much. Much like Hussein, "super weapons" were just a hazy possibility that no one could reall
"No my proposal would not bring a person with 50K equal to a person with a 100K income. I am not talking about salaries in those ranges. I am talking about people making above $500,000 per year for an increased tax bracket. " But WHY aren't you? I can live just fine on about 40k a year. Why they hell should you need 100k? If you make twice as much as me, I deserve the benefit of the other half, right? OH, BUT WAIT. YOU get to nail the people
Wow, KFC, it doesn't look like she's ignoring your verses at all. Apparently people can be just as diligent in the "inerrant" word and come to completely different conclusions. Do you really think the Bible translates itself?
"Let's just say, that all God wants to save, will be saved." The Phelps folks have their own little take on that too.
"Again the HS was moving and moving fast. God was doing the work, but he was using his people to do it for him." And 1000 years later the majority of the world still hadn't heard about Jesus. I know that it is easy to dismiss the Chinese, South Americans, etc., but they have souls, too, right? It seems odd that men were given the duty of spreading the message and not given the means to disperse it in any way that could ensure a wide dispersal. <br/
You do realize that there were riots in the NORTH during the civil war, and against it. If you think that the civil war was an agreed upon, popular war, and that Lincoln was a hero at the time, you haven't studied your history.
Can you really laud the merits of lethargy? Aimlessness? Apathy?
" Killing American Military in an a war that was not justified is more then what is needed to remove Bush from office!' Then we should stop celebrating Lincoln's presidency. He killed a heck of a lot more.
"but that's just it Baker. The test wasn't for God. He did know. It was for Job and it was for us. Job was an example for us. I think that was the crux of Tova's reply as well. Job's faith was strengthened and we are encouraged when we go thru our own trials. I know alot of people that use Job as their guide book when they are struggling with death and disease." So you were just joking when you said it was for god's glory? I wonder if you'd feel satisfi
Having a bad day? Just needed to toss a little 'fek you'? That's about all you're doing, really; nothing new here, same old whine. Thank you, self-centered critics, for not giving a damn what happens until something blows up in YOUR neighborhood.
"well you have to look at why Jesus asked the question." And you have to look at why Paul was saying what he was saying to PARTICULAR PEOPLE, not all mankind until the end of time. "Yes. Again why did Paul say that? What Paul was saying was God put men in the leadership role to not only rule their homes but also the churches. Paul later in the Pastoral Epistles outlined the qualifications for Pastors and one is they ha
That was a long rant, there Col, but it doesn't say anything that remotely approaches an impeachable offense. Nada. Johnson, Nixon, FDR, Lincoln, anyone could have been impeached by that standard, and many were MORE deserving. You'd lose a president every time we have a war wherein the Congress is controlled by the other party.
Here's the thing Col. I live quite comfortably on less than 50k a year. I have neighbors that make in excess of 100k. By your rationale, I should be demanding that they be cut to the level of my existence. Sure, I can't go take extended European vacations, but GOD man, there are hungry people out there, social security is in TROUBLE!!!! We're bleeding interest on the national debt!!!! How DARE anyone want to go on an extended European vacation when there are all these problems???
"But we know that God works for good all things......and has a purpose and plan that can be hard for us to understand especially when we see it from afar. " I know GOD does. Not the character in your story. The character in your story kills and plagues people to show off, for "his glory". There is no way that is the behavior of a perfect God. It does look an awful lot like the old gods of that era, playing tricks, being jealous, having contests with
Another problem is one of propaganda. I've mentioned this in terms of the abortion debate before, but western cultures have over the last 30 years been trying their best to end teen pregnancies. Nothing wrong with that, right? BUT... it is how it is being done. Consider all the commercials you've seen that portrayed kids as a 'life ender'. The haggard looking 20 year old in a bathrobe with the drunk husband and the wailin
"so God is just going to come down and speak verbally to them? You sit by and watch them sin knowing how it will hurt them? If God has placed you in their lives, you have a responsibility so says God to reach out to them, if they are willing to listen." And Jesus told someone to sell all they had. Do you advise people to do that, too? Acts is recounting Paul talking to particular people. A mortal man's words to other mortal men. Paul often talked in
"So again, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't with you Baker. Because you just like to argue. " No, it's a no-win situation because you are defending something that is heinous. God and Satan betting that if they kill off a guy's family that he won't be righteous. Arguing the merits of that situation will always be a no-win situation.
This goes back to oldschool Marxist thinking. Exploitation of the working class in terms of the subject of labor is some sort of ultimate sin, yet... how often would the subjects of labor come together and build successful enterprises spontaneously? Ever? It's like imagining that a body can come together and work in its own interest without a brain. Perhaps someday, way down the road in human evolution, it will be possible. Right now, though, people won't work if it isn't in THEIR inte