"I understand your disgust, Baker, but I think it's misguided on this particular thread. Brad doesn't strike me as a 'sky is falling' alarmist (or bigot, religious or otherwise) and he's drawn no conclusions in the article itself." I like Brad, you know that, but you can't be blind to the TITLE of the article, or, again, the line: "That those who belief in this "religion" seem to have dramatically different world views
I'm not bitter about it. I just see you making meaningless distictions trying to distance yourself from Phelps, when in reality you say the same things. Phelps believes that God punishes the innocent along with the good. You take issue with the word hate, but you'll just ignore it when I post scripture that says God, indeed, does hate PEOPLE, not just sin. Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity," H
My focus was based upon the focus of the blog, and the conclusions drawn, obvious by the sarcastic continuance of the "Religion of Peace" junk. I don't doubt that there is good information in the survey, I'm answering the blog, not the survey. My suspicious nature about surveys in general is an attempt not to be a hypocrite, since I, as others here, scoff at them when they make Americans out to be stupid, brainwashed, or bloodthirsty. I agree that most Americans aren't anti-Muslim on
P.S. I'm not going back and forth over it. I let this insipidness ruin JU for me, and I'm not going to let it bother me anymore. Believe what you want. A guy killed a woman and her two daughters here in KY here the other day. Burned one of them alive. We've had a rash of home invasions, rapes, etc. People want to be worried about Muslims, when there are probably dozens of registered sex offenders, child-predators, bent-out-of-shape businessmen ready to pop, etc., in your zi
I mean, KFC, you just basically summed up Phelps in one line: "As far as Falwell.....well then we'll agree to disagree. I don't think he credited God so much for the catastrophes so much as he believed that our not honoring or following God will bring these things on. God will not help us. It's our own doing, basically we're thumbing our noses at the blessings we could be having instead of what we are experiencing. " You don't go to funera
"Why do you call everyone that you don't agree with in a religious context a Phelps relation? You've called me that as well even tho I strongly disagree with his whole philosophy." No, you don't. You've argued his points over and over and over. Do you believe that God killed every firstborn in Egypt? Do you believe God told Israel to do what it did to the people of Canaan? Do you believe that the Bible is right when it
I defy anyone here to tell me that if Christians were polled that there wouldn't be AT LEAST as many who said they were Christians first and Americans second. Country before God? What planet do you live on? Christians, especially evangelicals, have a martyr syndrome. Go read the "Left Behind" crap. They believe that their governments will turn against them and they'll all have to oppose the government and refuse the mark of the beast, etc. The "black UN helicopter" militia crowd
All those points cut into your use of that scripture to prove an eternal, unbroken chain of apostolic succession. They didn't say "the multitudes will pick and we'll give the final okay". They didn't say "go choose our successors". They simply said they didn't have time to handle the squabbles over charity and told people to go find others to do the job. I find nothing there that claims these men were successors, or that those men had any task to pass the succession on to anyone else
"Remember the evoloutionary thought out there is much more represented than the Creation side. Creationism is well represented in religion, and science isn't. Should scientists start opening churches? Apples and oranges. Like I said, a creationism class is like an Amish computer science class. Keep your philosophy out of science, especially if you don't like scientists sticking theirs in it. I don't want my kid going to a natural science mus
"again...how much conflict has isreal and egypt had since the agreement?" How much conflict has Israel had on the state level with anyone since then? The ongoing Arab war against Israel is being fought through proxies. You know that. It's just convenient to ignore it in terms of this. Egypt supported Arafat's terrorist side of it, just like Hamas and Hezbollah and the rest are basically tools of other nations. You made the claim that no one,
No one else has done what? I seem to recall Arafat smiling a goofy smile and shaking hands at the white house a few years back. History is full of empty, garbage moments like that, usually one side smearing the blood of innocent people on whatever worthless document they are signing. How about Carter on... cambodia? Central America? How about, say Mugabe as a Carter legacy? This is a man who says that Palestine is as bad as the Rwandan genocide. This is a guy that has no problems s
"one more note...if we're gonna skewer carter, who is still the only president to broker a peace deal with isreal and anyone (which still stands today with egypt) then ya can't let hoover off the hook." Walter Cronkite had about as much to do with that. Carter was in the right place at the right time, and didn't deserve the credit for it, as evidenced by his flaccid diplomatic record since. People try to cast him as another Nixon in terms of ex-preside
Re: Bhag, it is a a Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal. Falwell borrowed the phrase from someone else, I dunno who. It is a relatively new word, though. I never heard it once before the Internet.
"So now we're talking creation vs evolution not belief in God." Nope, we're talking about someone who believes that the world is a few thousand years old. I'd feel the same way about someone who was teaching that the world was flat, or that your relative goodness somehow impacted your success in life. I wouldn't really appreciate people who taught that to kids, either. A myth isn't a choice in terms of science. If he didn't shroud it in scien
You know that I know a lot about Ham, and I know what Ham believes, and why he believes it. Should I expect something different than his widely documented views of natural history? I doubt seriously that there is anything in his little show that contradicts what he believes, is there? If they made a Satanic themepark, I doubt you'd need to go scrutinize before deciding what you thought of it. After all, you know the source material the work is based upon. Granted, if Ham's sidesho
Oh, and I'd add in terms of "strategery", both Lincoln and Truman were complete novices who had abysmal relationships with their military commanders. If I recall Lincoln went through at least 5 military commanders in a short time. One he fired for not slaughtering retreating troops. Truman's adolescent relationship with McCarthur is legend. Imagine what a bobblehead McCarthur (dick though he was) would be for the anti-presidential media now. Imagine Bush getting caught writing
Given the modern standards that Bush is now being held to, few Presidents would have escaped impeachment, frankly. *One name that leaps immediately to mind is Lincoln. Compared to Bush, Lincoln was incompetent as a commander-in-chief and his election was basically a death sentence for hundreds of thousands of Americans. It took the nation decades to recover, and Black Americans suffered for another hundred years. If anything he took a broken toaster apart, at horrible costs, and th
Maher: Nothing new. This is the guy who said that flying an airplane into a building was much less cowardly than bombing someone from the safety of a stealth bomber. He has his own brand of logic. But... have you watched it ? I don't agree with a good part of it, but he wasn't saying anything worse than I heard people say irl, and he definitely wasn't saying what Catholics think he was saying. He honestly has a point about Falwell.
"Bishops are by divine right the successors of the Apostles." Meaning, evidently, that you can buy "divine right" if you have the ducats...
If you are going to quote 2-7, lula quote it all... Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables . Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the minist
I linked facts that make it questionable. Like I said, if abortion reduced crime by weeding out criminals ahead of time, then the result would show the reduced crime as they age. So far I have seen no one that can show that in terms of NYC or anywhere in terms of abortion vs. crime. In almost every case crime decreased across the board. Correlating a single fact with a change in a system as complex as America society isn't "highly questionable", it's intellectual negligence. Worse,
...and as I pointed out, your perception of what constitutes a "fact" is highly questionable, considering the assumptions made are bogus. There are lots of people, like, say, Pat Robertson, who correlate things that are pretty obviously not related to cause.
"You are truly DUMB. The data was on CNN last night. It was also reported several weeks ago that independents had more registered voters then EITHER Democrats or Republicans" I remember reading about how the occurrence of the name "Adolf" spiraled to almost nothing after WW2. I'm betting it had little to do with the Nazi Party's economic policies.
Gid is thinking fine, you aren't. YOU are making the argument that abortion decreases crime. Meaning of course that if we provide the "lesser" classes and races with a cheap way to kill their kids, i.e. reproduce less, that there will be less crime. That idea has been around for a while; it's called social eugenics and most people find it repellent. Anyway, the conclusions drawn are stretch and often bogus</A
JoeUser Forums
"For those who claim that "all we do is bash the President" should read this. And those who have read some of my past articles and comments on other blogs know that I have been critical of the leadership and called for Harry Reid to resign months ago. " No, you and Keith are blasting Dems... for not blasting Bush enough. Damning Dems for not being, well, "Dem" enough doesn't mean you aren't a Dem...