Comments
241 - 260 of 319 Comments Last updated Mar 29, 2013

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#245 Mar 20, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
My point for the Treaty of Tripoli, be that 1797 or 1805, is the fear mongering of being taken over by Islam is centuries long.
And your saying the future of this country looking dim was not for the threat of Islam sure didn't read that way;
"You may be right. We could go the way of ancient Rome where anything goes. Or like Europe, Islam could eventually take over.
Either way the future of the country is pretty dim."
It surely read like the fear of Islamic take over was part and parcel to the dim future projection.
And though Article XI in the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli wasn't in the Arabic version is irrelevant. That it was in the English version that the Senate ratified and President Adams signed and made the law of the land is relevant.
I happen to agree with;
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."
As Islamic countries have always been Theocracies.
I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic and leave the theism to the people's private lives. As the people should run their private lives with respect for others living theirs. This is where separate but equal has a place.
But, the nuances of such "public" interactions with respect to others theistic viewpoints is far too intricate to be getting into on a venue such as this one.
Oh, and I disagree with your take on the Crusades. That was all about European Christians being out to secure "the holly land" for Christianity.
And the Islamic leaders were pissed off at the United States for being behind in their tribute and the subsequent war that led to the Treaty of 1805.
I don’t recall “fear” coming into this, especially since in either the Rome or Islam future, I, my kids and my grandkids will be long dead. There are multiple other scenarios that are much more likely than Islam taking over, none of which present a bright and rosy future.

If the article in question wasn’t in the Arabic version than what was the real purpose? It’s stated purpose was to “allay the fears of the Muslim state” but if it wasn’t in their treaty then they never saw it. How would it allay their fears if they didn’t know about it?

As you pointed out, it was the law of the land. For 8 years and then was rescinded by Jefferson. The idea has never been affirmed again.

If by “I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic” you mean that governments should not be turned over to the local religious leaders to run I agree. If you mean that governments should operate as atheistic bodies without consideration to religion, then I strongly disagree.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#246 Mar 20, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what you mean by the Trinity. If meaning Jesus was God incarnate there is nowhere in the Bible that points to God taking on human form in the body of Jesus.
Thorough study points out Jesus saying many times to not pray to Him but to the Father. One specific example is in Jesus speaking to the Jews;
John 5:37  And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38  And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40  And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41  I receive not honour from men.
42  But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43  I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
If they had never seen God's shape nor heard His voice at any time how could Jesus be God while they were looking at Jesus and hearing Jesus' voice.
According to the text Jesus was not God and not simply a prophet. Beyond a prophet. Yet not God.
And while you never heard of anyone talking about Reagan being a Presbyterian or Nixon being a Quaker they sure did about Kennedy being a Catholic.
There are hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject of the Trinity. I'm not here to argue Christian doctrine. I'm sure there are lots of places you can do so.

Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh (Jn 10:33), and again there are plenty of books going back thousands of years that cover this.

The conversation regarding Kennedy wasn't whether he was a Christian, it was how much influence the Church/Pope would have on his administration. Different supject than Romney.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#247 Mar 20, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably a local chieftain or someone appointed by him.
It wasn't religion based.
<quoted text>
Not surprised you would resort to the no-true-scotsman fallacy, since your claim that marriage started as a religious contract was completely debunked.
Sorry, but it hasn't been debunked. In fact every question that has been asked of me I have responded to. However every question, even something as basic as "how do you define marriage" has been ignored in order to just make meaningless points and call names.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#248 Mar 20, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
Morality is a construct of man. Always has been, always will be.
We know that, that isn't the issue being discussed.

What's the foundation?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#249 Mar 20, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t recall “fear” coming into this, especially since in either the Rome or Islam future, I, my kids and my grandkids will be long dead. There are multiple other scenarios that are much more likely than Islam taking over, none of which present a bright and rosy future.
If the article in question wasn’t in the Arabic version than what was the real purpose? It’s stated purpose was to “allay the fears of the Muslim state” but if it wasn’t in their treaty then they never saw it. How would it allay their fears if they didn’t know about it?
As you pointed out, it was the law of the land. For 8 years and then was rescinded by Jefferson. The idea has never been affirmed again.
If by “I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic” you mean that governments should not be turned over to the local religious leaders to run I agree. If you mean that governments should operate as atheistic bodies without consideration to religion, then I strongly disagree.
Yes. I do not believe governments should be run by religious leaders. Or leaders that want to run them under a religious doctrine.

I believe governments should be more agnostic in their running the country. With respecting all religious beliefs in as long as those beliefs are not used to embattle any other for supremacy. I do not believe "morals" are intrinsic to religious beliefs alone. Where morals originated is for another discussion.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#250 Mar 20, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject of the Trinity. I'm not here to argue Christian doctrine. I'm sure there are lots of places you can do so.
Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh (Jn 10:33), and again there are plenty of books going back thousands of years that cover this.
The conversation regarding Kennedy wasn't whether he was a Christian, it was how much influence the Church/Pope would have on his administration. Different supject than Romney.
KJV
John 9:33  If this man were not OF God, he could do nothing.
Being of God and being God, or is God are two separate meanings.

BBE
John 9:33  If this man did not come FROM God he would be unable to do anything.
Again, the meaning and definition of from.

From God is also found in the STV, Wb, WBE and the YLT versions.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#251 Mar 20, 2013
Ooops. I quoted John 9:33 not John 10:33.

John 10:33 speaks to the Jews believing he said he was God. Not Jesus saying He was.

John 10:36  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37  If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Pretty clear.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#252 Mar 20, 2013
Matthew 26:63-64:

But Jesus remaided silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say,"
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#253 Mar 20, 2013
free thinker wrote:
Matthew 26:63-64:
But Jesus remaided silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say,"
Well I don't know which Bible it is you are referencing.
KJV
Matthew 26:60  But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
61  And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
62  And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
63  But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64  Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

YLT version
Matthew 26:60  and they did not find; and many false witnesses having come near, they did not find; and at last two false witnesses having come near,
61  said, "This one said, I am able to throw down the sanctuary of God, and after three days to build it."
62  And the chief priest having stood up, said to him, "Nothing thou dost answer! what do these witness against thee?
63  and Jesus was silent. And the chief priest answering said to him, "I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou mayest say to us, if thou art the Christ -- the Son of God."
64  Jesus saith to him, "Thou hast said; nevertheless I say to you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power, and coming upon the clouds, of the heaven."

Jesus remained silent against false witnesses accusations.
Kind of like pleading the Fifth Amendment.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#254 Mar 20, 2013
Your reading and comprehension skills seem a little weak:

"I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say,"

And I'll throw this one in also:

"but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Matthew 10:33

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#255 Mar 20, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. I do not believe governments should be run by religious leaders. Or leaders that want to run them under a religious doctrine.
I believe governments should be more agnostic in their running the country. With respecting all religious beliefs in as long as those beliefs are not used to embattle any other for supremacy. I do not believe "morals" are intrinsic to religious beliefs alone. Where morals originated is for another discussion.
While that sounds good in theory, let's talk about the reality of it. For example, based on some religious beliefs, both murder and homosexual behavior is wrong. One can easily make the argument that both are wrong without any form of religious beliefs at all as well.

Yet if I were to say I'm against murder, that's ok but if I were to say I'm against homosexuality, that becomes my forcing my religion on another person. So why is it if we agree that something is wrong (murder) then my belief is fine, but if we disagree, why is your (and I'm not specifically meaning you in this example) belief ok and mine is suddenly "religious"?

If someone were to make the argument that homosexuality is ok based on religious beliefs now what? If homosexuality is ok based on person A's religious beliefs but wrong based on person B's religious beliefs, why does A win?

Other than things that are truly religious, like say water baptism, most belief that someone says is a "religious" belief can also be made in a non-religious fashion.

The second question here is why? Shouldn't the government, which is supposed to represent the people, represent them? If a district is 60% poor, shouldn't their representative vote for programs favored by the poor? If 60% of the district works in the auto industry, shouldn't their representative support the auto industry? If 60% are religious, why should their representative ignore that? Saying that the representative should support their demographics but not their spiritual beliefs is silly.

You said that government should respect all religions "as long as those beliefs are not used to embattle any other for supremacy." Can you give an example of what you mean? I can't think of a time when the government tried to force say water baptism on one group or tried to get another group to accept the authority of the Pope.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#256 Mar 20, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
KJV
John 9:33  If this man were not OF God, he could do nothing.
Being of God and being God, or is God are two separate meanings.
BBE
John 9:33  If this man did not come FROM God he would be unable to do anything.
Again, the meaning and definition of from.
From God is also found in the STV, Wb, WBE and the YLT versions.
As I said there are hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject of the Trinity. I'm not here to argue Christian doctrine. I'm sure there are lots of places you can do so. If you do a search for "Doctrine of the Trinity" you'll get almost 2,000,000 hits. And I'm sure there are hundreds of churches within driving distance you can go to. If you want to learn rather than argue.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#257 Mar 20, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
Your reading and comprehension skills seem a little weak:
"I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say,"
And I'll throw this one in also:
"but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
Matthew 10:33
So what you are saying is by Jesus affirming He was the Son of God, He was therefore God?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#258 Mar 20, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said there are hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject of the Trinity. I'm not here to argue Christian doctrine. I'm sure there are lots of places you can do so. If you do a search for "Doctrine of the Trinity" you'll get almost 2,000,000 hits. And I'm sure there are hundreds of churches within driving distance you can go to. If you want to learn rather than argue.
I am not getting any of what I am saying from the internet. It has come from, once again, very in-depth study of the Bible.

I could very well say the same thing of you. If you want to learn rather than argue study precept upon precept precept upon precept line upon line line upon line.
Isaiah 28:11  For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12  To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13  But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

Not just going to as many churches as you like and listening to sermons.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#259 Mar 20, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
While that sounds good in theory, let's talk about the reality of it. For example, based on some religious beliefs, both murder and homosexual behavior is wrong. One can easily make the argument that both are wrong without any form of religious beliefs at all as well.
Yet if I were to say I'm against murder, that's ok but if I were to say I'm against homosexuality, that becomes my forcing my religion on another person. So why is it if we agree that something is wrong (murder) then my belief is fine, but if we disagree, why is your (and I'm not specifically meaning you in this example) belief ok and mine is suddenly "religious"?
If someone were to make the argument that homosexuality is ok based on religious beliefs now what? If homosexuality is ok based on person A's religious beliefs but wrong based on person B's religious beliefs, why does A win?
Other than things that are truly religious, like say water baptism, most belief that someone says is a "religious" belief can also be made in a non-religious fashion.
The second question here is why? Shouldn't the government, which is supposed to represent the people, represent them? If a district is 60% poor, shouldn't their representative vote for programs favored by the poor? If 60% of the district works in the auto industry, shouldn't their representative support the auto industry? If 60% are religious, why should their representative ignore that? Saying that the representative should support their demographics but not their spiritual beliefs is silly.
You said that government should respect all religions "as long as those beliefs are not used to embattle any other for supremacy." Can you give an example of what you mean? I can't think of a time when the government tried to force say water baptism on one group or tried to get another group to accept the authority of the Pope.
As you have pointed out, there are many doctrines in the Christian religion. Most varying in some ways from the others.
Which doctrine do you want ruling the country? Baptist? Southern Baptist? Catholic? Roman Catholic? Lutheran? Protestant? Presbyterian? Do I need listing the rest?

And for a group of people that believe in the government staying out of people's private lives they have no issue with things such as gay marriage. Because they will have the same rights as everyone else when they believe civil unions can do the same thing as marriage but it's not marriage? So now marriage is a holly word?

By government banning the legal right of marriage based on religious grounds it is a short step to whatever else they will ban under the same auspices. Such as birth control. Or if children should be baptized and when. Some believe in infant baptism while others not until they are of sufficient age to be able to make that decision for themselves.

So just whom under religious governmental representation will be reperesented and how by which doctrine?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#260 Mar 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not getting any of what I am saying from the internet. It has come from, once again, very in-depth study of the Bible.
I could very well say the same thing of you. If you want to learn rather than argue study precept upon precept precept upon precept line upon line line upon line.
Isaiah 28:11  For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12  To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13  But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Not just going to as many churches as you like and listening to sermons.
If you truly had a "very in-depth study of the Bible" you wouldn't need to ask "So what you are saying is by Jesus affirming He was the Son of God, He was therefore God?"

Unfortunately it sounds like you have been self-taught and you know what that means. There seem to be a number of seminaries and Christian colleges around here. You should take advantage of them and, assuming you could go in with an open mind, take some classes and see how well you would do on a Theology 1 test.

"for the most part, the issue of the Trinity was settled at Nicea and, by the fifth century, never again became a focus of serious controversy."

Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
* Arianism (4th century)
* Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
* Jehovah's Witnesses
* Mormonism
* Unitarianism

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/bel...

Oh, and I didn't get my understanding from just going from church to church. I got it at a seminary, admittedly 20 years ago but I don't think anything has changed, other than I used a library and real books.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#261 Mar 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have pointed out, there are many doctrines in the Christian religion. Most varying in some ways from the others.
Which doctrine do you want ruling the country? Baptist? Southern Baptist? Catholic? Roman Catholic? Lutheran? Protestant? Presbyterian? Do I need listing the rest?
And for a group of people that believe in the government staying out of people's private lives they have no issue with things such as gay marriage. Because they will have the same rights as everyone else when they believe civil unions can do the same thing as marriage but it's not marriage? So now marriage is a holly word?
By government banning the legal right of marriage based on religious grounds it is a short step to whatever else they will ban under the same auspices. Such as birth control. Or if children should be baptized and when. Some believe in infant baptism while others not until they are of sufficient age to be able to make that decision for themselves.
So just whom under religious governmental representation will be reperesented and how by which doctrine?
As I said earlier "If by “I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic” you mean that governments should not be turned over to the local religious leaders to run I agree." I don't want any of those doctrines RULING the country but they should all be influencing and impacting the country.

If someone wants to have sex with another person of the same sex, or six people or two people and a goat, that's fine. I'm staying out of their life. But keep it private. The advocation of marriage takes it out of the privacy of one's own life and makes it a public acceptance of the behavior. If you want me to stay out of your private life, don't make your private life public.

Just as brothers and sisters are prevented from getting married for scientific reasons, so too can a non-religious case be made against gay marriage. But you assume that the only reason is religious which just shows your bias.

You seem to be so concerned that some denomination is going to take over and force you to do something you don't want to do. Can you give me an example of a denomination that exists today and in this country FORCES people to do things they don't want to do? Catholics use birth control even though it is against church teachings. Biden and Pelosi take communion even thought they are not supposed to. I can give a lot more examples so I'd appreciate you giving some examples of where your fear is currently a reality.

Next question. You seem to be afraid of some church placing a spiritual framework around people's behavior. Why is that worse than eliminating the framework and advocating an 'anything goes' framework?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#262 Mar 21, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
If you truly had a "very in-depth study of the Bible" you wouldn't need to ask "So what you are saying is by Jesus affirming He was the Son of God, He was therefore God?"
Unfortunately it sounds like you have been self-taught and you know what that means. There seem to be a number of seminaries and Christian colleges around here. You should take advantage of them and, assuming you could go in with an open mind, take some classes and see how well you would do on a Theology 1 test.
"for the most part, the issue of the Trinity was settled at Nicea and, by the fifth century, never again became a focus of serious controversy."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
* Arianism (4th century)
* Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
* Jehovah's Witnesses
* Mormonism
* Unitarianism
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/bel...
Oh, and I didn't get my understanding from just going from church to church. I got it at a seminary, admittedly 20 years ago but I don't think anything has changed, other than I used a library and real books.
I was asking if what he was saying is (he believes) God and Jesus are one in the same. Seeing as you have this problem with understanding what words actually mean I see where you get so confused and get argumentative.

So as you are following the decision at Nicea why are you arguing with me? The decision was that the Trinity being Father, Son and Holy ghost. Three distinct persons with the same divine essence. You do understand the definition of distinct? Not that Jesus was God in human form. That Jesus possessed the same essence of God. Not being God Himself.
I'll quote from the same place you got your copy/paste from:
"However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct "persons" constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, "three")."
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/bel...
Again, three distinct "persons" constitute the one God."

To pass a test only means one can put down the same answer as was taught. Not necessarily the full understanding of what was taught or what was taught is the answer in entirety.

I'll leave this with your believing that Jesus was God in a human body.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#263 Mar 21, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said earlier "If by “I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic” you mean that governments should not be turned over to the local religious leaders to run I agree." I don't want any of those doctrines RULING the country but they should all be influencing and impacting the country.
If someone wants to have sex with another person of the same sex, or six people or two people and a goat, that's fine. I'm staying out of their life. But keep it private. The advocation of marriage takes it out of the privacy of one's own life and makes it a public acceptance of the behavior. If you want me to stay out of your private life, don't make your private life public.
Just as brothers and sisters are prevented from getting married for scientific reasons, so too can a non-religious case be made against gay marriage. But you assume that the only reason is religious which just shows your bias.
You seem to be so concerned that some denomination is going to take over and force you to do something you don't want to do. Can you give me an example of a denomination that exists today and in this country FORCES people to do things they don't want to do? Catholics use birth control even though it is against church teachings. Biden and Pelosi take communion even thought they are not supposed to. I can give a lot more examples so I'd appreciate you giving some examples of where your fear is currently a reality.
Next question. You seem to be afraid of some church placing a spiritual framework around people's behavior. Why is that worse than eliminating the framework and advocating an 'anything goes' framework?
That gays should not marry because of religious reasons is not MY bias. It is the entire crux of the argument given by the right-wing protagonists.

If I want you to stay out of my private life then keep it private? So you have the "right" to delve into the sex lives of married men and women? You have the "right" to dictate what they do in the bedroom? You don't have a darn good idea of what married men and women do?

What????? I have no problem with a church placing a spiritual framework around people's behavior that understand and voluntarily agree with it. You of all people are going to tell me that those "frameworks" being law wouldn't be an entirely different situation?

Oh, and do tell me why Pelosi and Biden shouldn't take communion.

Catholics using birth control is against Catholic doctrine. They can be banned by the church if discovered.

So tell me. To what religious affiliation did Jesus to? There were after all established religious orders then.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#264 Mar 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
So what you are saying is by Jesus affirming He was the Son of God, He was therefore God?
If they are, they're in good company. Most Christian theologians would agree with them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ada Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 45 min Gville Jim 4
The cheerleaders with their tight skirts are v... 17 hr Phil 1
why war with isis? 18 hr Phil 17
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 19 hr Buffalo Bull 1,326
Liberty University Law School Dean: Gay Marriag... Thu Batch 37 Pain Is ... 314
Plafkin Brothers-McDonalds, Home of the Famous ... (Jun '13) Wed Kelly Hadd 8
Cousins hope to open Grand Rapids' first hostel... Wed Faith 3
•••
Ada Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Ada Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Ada People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Ada News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Ada
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••