Thanks.
it's just too bad you've condemned yourself to an eternity in the fiery pits of !!!!!!
That's what I gathered after the reading on some of their decisions. Judgepedia.org had quite a bit of info. I was a bit apprehensive when it said that one of them was appointed by Bush and replace Gonzalez, but after reading on his opinions on certain cases it seemed like he made good decisions.
Propositions however are another story.
If you have trouble voting for a Bush appointee; you're really limiting yourself; dude was Gov. for a few years; then Perry since....
I know I said the last post was my last one, but I need to say the following- to everyone and particulary to Pee Wee.
I want to apologise for mentioning my stated concerns about Senator Obama.
I said what I did because I was asked a direct question and felt responsible to answer it directly and truthfully.
While I do not regret my attempts at completely honest disclosure , I have no proof that Senator Obama is not a good person and have no business making suggestions about anyone, especially things I cannot substansiate.
So regarding my personal comments about the Senator, I do apologise. I was out of line.
This really is my last post in this thread.
Mission Accomplished
A George bush mission accomplished or a real one?
Brovo! And so it comes full circle.
Then you are not following the word of Christ.
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!
When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.
He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.
Not only did Jesus confirm the historicity of these accounts, He also authenticated some of the passages that are most disputed today. Many modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, but Jesus did (see Matthew 19:8, 9; John 7:19; Mark 12:29-31).
Some modern scholars also assume the existence of more than one Isaiah, but Jesus believed in only one. In Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2 (the so-called second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah) while in Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9) without the slightest hint of more than one author.
The account of Daniel is rejected today by many as actually coming from the pen of Daniel, but the Lord Jesus believed him to be a prophet (Matthew 24:15). The account of Adam and Eve often is ridiculed today as legend, but Jesus believed the story to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).
Likewise, the narrative of Noah and the great flood not only is authenticated by Jesus (Matthew 24:37), it also is used as an example of His second coming. Finally, the most unbelievable of all-the account of Jonah and the great fish-is used by Jesus as a sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:39ff).
If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His at ude toward it was nothing less than total trust.
Nah, I don't. It just made me think about it harder. I wouldn't limit myself like that. I'm just new to Texas politics (only lived in Austin for 6 years). I'm just not as familar with all the players in this state. I voted for Bush in 2000, so an appointee doesn't scare me that much
No one said "Vote for Obama" or "Vote for McCain", just vote with your reason and intellect first and your heart and your faith second.
Dammit, you're going to ruin the fun
Good post though.
Almost.Brovo! And so it comes full circle.
Why? What else you got in store for making epic threads?
I'm ridiculously new to this forum, so I don't dare speak for anyone but myself, but I really don't think you've done anything to apologize for. Personally, I'm glad you were honest because it generated several good discussions and I doubt I'd have joined this forum if I hadn't been directed to this thread.
I admit, I found it difficult at first to accept the sincerity of your concerns simply because they seemed so unusual and because you seemed to ask for information only to discard it in favor of sticking to a single "feeling."
Just my take, but I don't think you were at all out of line, no matter how much I question your mindset, and I thank you for taking the time to continue the conversation for as long as you did.
In reality its "Matthew believed that Jesus believes..." or "Paul believed that Jesus believed..."
because Jesus died years before Paul came into existance. Each of the gospel described Jesus Christ in their own way depending on their audience. Thats why you got so many different versions of Jesuses(?). Which one is the real one dammit!?!
just thought I'd throw that little tidbit in there.
Also, how come we got evidence of historic people that was born waaay before Jesus but we never have any evidence of famous biblical characters like Jesus or Moses?
So...the teachings of Jesus are hearsay and couldn't be admitted in a court of law. Well...maybe whatever he said on the cross under the outcry witness exception....
Brilliant!
My work here is done, but this bad boy of a hijacked thread keeps chugging along.
Hence why many acclaimed historians now believe in the very real possibility that Jesus himself is a myth.
Do you find it strange that it took a full 40 years after his death before anyone wrote anything about Jesus? Furthermore, in those early Christian writings there is not any mention of the history of Jesus as a man that we now know of in the NT Gospels. If Jesus was really walking around performing miracles in front of thousands of people it would have been do ented by someone. The fact that even the earliest writings of Christian followers make no mention to any of this has to be alarming to someone who is willing to look objectively at the Bible. What's more logical, that Christian followers beefed up their religion many years later with fantastical stories of miracles and what not or that the earliest followers of Jesus simply forgot to mention the most amazing feats that Jesus performed?
I'm telling you, do some research on the historicity of the Bible. It will blow your mind how many things we accept as truth today about the Bible that are simply not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination.
Sources:
On I Nicaea:
Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History
Eusthasius of Antioch, Writings of Theodoret
Athanasius of Alexandria, de Decretis
Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret, Ecclesiastical Histories
These are the original and ancient primary sources. All are available in English translation at ccel.org.
On the development of the canon:
Muratorian Canon (AD 200)
Patristic citations from: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius of Salamis, Eusebius of Caeserea, and Athanasius of Alexandria, and from Marcion, Valentinius, and Origen (the heretics)
The Diatesseron (AD 150)
Say what? A theory is inherently not factual until all the claims have been verified. You can't apply that little magical 'faith' dust to it, and all of a sudden believe it's fact. That's not the scientific method. You need to apply rigorous testing to it. THAT, is the scientific method.
What the ? The fact that it requires further study means that the theory requires further study. How the heck you arrived to the conclusion that it has a major flaw, if you did not conduct the 'further studies'? What you just said makes no sense AT ALL.
What is being taught is evolutionary theory (emphasis mine).
That is a theory that is testable and can be scrutinized. Not a single scientist that knows how the scientific method works will tell you it's a irrefutable scientific fact.
It could have been an exceptional event. I can see an impact of two bodies generating both the heat and pressure differentials in the time you have suggested. What are the odds of that exceptional event happening? Without further research, I don't know. But to lazily disregard it as 'impossible' without actually conducting testing is not the scientific method.
The problem with your take on this is that you don't have factual proof that it's not possible. That's why it actually warrants further testing.
It would require you to have an education or google. Whatever is more handily available. Once you are educated, then you have the answer to your question. Faith didn't enter the equation at all.
One problem is that you discount exceptional events, like I stated above.
The other problem with your argument is that you believe science is entirely restricted to this planet. How do you know another planet does not have the preconditions to create such polymers?
What you naively forget is that the bag was shaken for millions of years, and that the 50 piece lego figure built is only a part of a million different sets inside the bag. The odds are actually not as small as you think they are.
Wrong again. The supernatural doesn't attempt to explain or substantiate anything. Thus, it's not a theory at all.
Why would I want you to believe it came from a natural process, when both you and I factually know it was built by humans? I mean, there's factual evidence to that. All it takes you is education to know, not faith.
I'm glad you engaged in the conversation anyways. Thanks!
No need to apologize Angelluv. None at all.
My answers to rascal do not add any possibility. It's implicit in the VERY SIMPLE question. Please explain what outside variable was introduced?
This is priceless, please continue.
Did you discuss this thread with your pastor?
I know you said this was your last reply, but I'm just curious.
And BTW, freedom of speech is a fundamental right of our nation, so no need to apologize for speaking your mind.
You acknowledged the possibility of you using your toes. yes or no? Yuor original question was how many fingers, there were no toes mentioned in the original question then we go from 10 possible answers in your original question to 11. that increase from ten to 11 comes from the added toe variable not in your original question.
My answers to rascal do not add any possibility. It's implicit in the VERY SIMPLE question. Please explain what outside variable was introduced?
This is priceless, please continue.
Let me give you an example you're gonna start adding new things not in the original question, how do i know you didn't hold onto a pencil with three fingers type it out with the eraser end of said pencil. And then you could argue you typed it out with zero fingers or three.
Last edited by Trainwreck2100; 10-23-2008 at 03:38 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
