Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Comments (Page 9,833)

Showing posts 196,641 - 196,660 of216,852
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204920
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>It's a condo complex in Clearwater, FL. Non-members are NOT allowed in the pool.
Wrong again puffed up one.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204921
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
When I go from Connecticut to New York City, I go by train. It's efficient.
Is it Amtrak? Amtrack is many things, efficient isn't one of them.

Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn’t have to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204922
Jan 19, 2014
 
scaritual wrote:
This should clarify a few things.
"TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Quincy, 28 June, 1813.
It is very true that the denunciations of the priesthood are fulminated against every advocate for a complete freedom of religion. Comminations, I believe, would be plenteously pronounced by even the most liberal of them, against atheism, deism,—against every man who disbelieved or doubted the resurrection of Jesus, or the miracles of the New Testament. Priestley himself would denounce the man who should deny the Apocalypse, or the prophecies of Daniel. Priestley and Lindsey have both denounced as idolaters and blasphemers all the Trinitarians and even the Arians. Poor weak man! when will thy perfection arrive? Thy perfectibility I shall not deny, for a greater character than Priestley or Godwin has said,“Be ye perfect,” &c. For my part, I cannot “deal damnation round the land” on all I judge the foes of God or man. But I did not intend to say a word on this subject in this letter. As much of it as you please, hereafter; but let me now return to politics.
With some difficulty I have hunted up or down the “address of the young men of the city of Philadelphia, the district of Southwark, and the northern liberties,” and the answer."
The addressers say,“actuated by the same principles on which our forefathers achieved their independence, the recent attempts of a foreign power to derogate from the rights and dignity of our country, awaken our liveliest sensibility and our strongest indignation.” Huzza, my brave boys! Could Thomas Jefferson or John Adams hear these words with insensibility and without emotion? These boys afterwards add,“we regard our liberty and independence as the richest portion given us by our ancestors.” And who were these ancestors? Among them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams; and I very coolly believe that no two men among these ancestors did more towards it than those two. Could either hear this like a statue? If, one hundred years hence, your letters and mine should see the light, I hope the reader will hunt up this address, and read it all, and remember that we were then engaged, or on the point of engaging, in a war with France. I shall not repeat the answer till we come to the paragraph upon which you criticized to Dr. Priestley, though every word of it is true; and I now rejoice to see it recorded, though I had wholly forgotten it.
The paragraph is,“Science and morals are the great pillars on which this country has been raised to its present population, opulence, and prosperity; and these alone can advance, support, and preserve it. Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial researches, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions, or systems of education more fit, in general, to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors.”
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 10 (Letters 1811-1825, Indexes)[1854]
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php...
Continued below...
It won't clarify a thing for Buck. It doesn't follow his narrative, therefore he ignores it.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204923
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
I did not say Barton is or is not a Dominionist. I don't know whether he is a Dominionist, and I don't care.

I said nothing about Dominionism, except for it's absence. I don't have an opinion on whether Barton is one, and have expressed no such opinion. I don't give a shit.
But I do.

It's far more important than quibbling to see who's right and who's wrong about Adams.

And I cannot accept your statement that you don't know about Barton's views, and you don't care what they are.

What do you surmise about his societal views, his philosophy, his religious beliefs?

If you claim ignorance, in my opinion you lose the entire argument, by default.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204924
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, the bible lists 7 other sins that are an abomination to God. So if you are targeting abominable sins, why leave out the other seven?
And all sins of the flesh is equal and all sin leads to death. So again, there is no basis to single out a sin. There are no dots to connect. Jesus will judge when he returns. And to God, a lying tongue is just as abominable to God as a homosexual act. Gay marriage in and of itself is not even a sin
Lastly, I am sorry but you are mistaken about why Sodom fell
Matthew 11:23
"And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.
The sins they were engaging in were a result of their lack of faith. The point being made in Matthew is that even Sodom (like pretty much the worse place in history when it came to lack of faith) would never have denied the miracles that they denied in Capernaum, Had Sodom stayed faithful, it would have still stood.
Yes or no? Regardless of what the Bible says about homosexually, you find it personally repulsive right? And would even if there was no mention of it in the bible. Please be honest. I don't mean to suggest I think your inclination will be to lie but rather I want you tyo seriously think on it before answering
Thank you
Bro I love you but this isn't honest. And if you remember it is where you and I first met when I first shared about my wife. Homosexuality is mentioned in the bible, read Romans with an open mind. And are you serious about Sodom? Really? God gave them chances and it wasn't a lack of faith but people so ate up with lust that even when an angel struck them blind and they couldn't see the mob became furious.(Genesis 19) I know we will not agree on this issue but wanted to say my peace.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204925
Jan 19, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
OK. Let's see...
I wrote...
Darwins Stepchildk wrote:
<quoted text>
"You do know, don't you, that you are going to be in just as much sh*t as I am if they ever get their way and come to power? And that is what Barton is working toward...a Christian Dominion Nation."
To that post, you responded.
Buck Crick wrote:
"So we had a Christian Dominion Nation until 1962?
Don't think so."
Sure sounds to me like "You said that Barton was not a Dominionist." Maybe not in those exact words, but you said it.
__________
You're crazy as hell.
I did not say Barton is or is not a Dominionist. I don't know whether he is a Dominionist, and I don't care.
What I asked was whether we had a "Dominionist" nation until 1962, and my thought was no. I posted that because you expressed the need to fear such.
I didn't mention anything about Barton. The point was that the religious nature of the founding was recognized until courts began a paradigm shift along that timeline. Barton's work documents the religious nature.
I said nothing about Dominionism, except for it's absence. I don't have an opinion on whether Barton is one, and have expressed no such opinion. I don't give a shit.
You are caught in yet another lie, Step Stool.
If you think I'm not on to your strategy, you are wrong. You are purposely lying about what I say, because you think it "pushes my buttons".
I get it. But I'll still call you out.
If you weren't saying Barton wasn't a Dominionist, just what the heck were you saying?

When it was pointed out that Barton is a Dominionist, you come back with some off the wall quip..."So we had a Christian Dominion Nation until 1962?"

Well, no we did not. But your quip, being a reply to mine, said to me...

"If Barton is a Dominionist, then we had a Christian Dominion until 1962."

Since the later statement (the "then" part) of that if-then is false, it follows from basic logic that the first statement (the "if" part) is also false.

So, yes, in not so many words, you DID say that Barton is not a Dominionist.

Either that, or you don't know how to talk straight.(I am quite willing to consider this a possibility.)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204926
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a buffoon. You need to begin your extensive apology to David Barton.
If I have to give Barton an apology, then so does every historian in the country.

But from my view, Barton needs to apologize to the US for twisting its history so badly.

BTW, Buck, so far all of your defenses of Barton boil down to "Barton is right because Barton says he is right." Can you say circular reasoning?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204927
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Pedophilia involving a person molesting the same sex is homosexuality, and a homosexual act.
Most pedophilia is of this category.
That is the likely reason there has been an impetus in psychology for delineating a separate category for pedophilia. It's a ruse.
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I just see pedophilia as a different animal. And i have never understood how being raped becomes a learned behavior from a sociological aspect and then is continued in a cycle. Why do so many people that were molested go on to be molesters themselves?
But that's another reason I think whatever else someone may be sexually is kind of a different situation. I mean, there are plenty of gay guys that are not attracted to kids. And there are a lot of straight guys that go for underage girls or even drop under the age to pedophilia
To me, an adult that can abuse a child and is sexuality attracted to a child is something very different than the rest of society. Whatever other characteristics may be shared with other groups be it straight, gay, man, black, white, etc to me is all but meaningless. There are either people that are attracted to children or there are not
Just how I see it
But you see Buck makes a mistake here, even if you view pedophilia from religious views
and adhere to the bible and what it say's about homosexuality.

Specifically because it (the bible) say's..
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

Buck says...

Pedophilia involving a person molesting the same sex is homosexuality, and a homosexual act.

So if you adhere to this (Buck logic) a child must be put to death for homosexuality because in being raped..they committed a " homosexual act".

Pedophilia is not a homosexual act, it is a criminal act the child is not guilty of.

Or you can believe a child is guilty of something.
Makes you wonder if all sexual acts Buck engaged in where criminal.
Of if to him... all sexual acts are rape.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204928
Jan 19, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not much of an ear for distinction, huh?
That's about what I figured you would say.

Hey, it is your rule. According to you, you can leave parts out and it is still an exact quote. Ergo, "There is no God" is an exact quote from the Bible.

You don't like it when others play by your rules and things turn around and bite you on the butt.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204929
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it Amtrak? Amtrack is many things, efficient isn't one of them.
Amtrak loses a ton of money each year. It doesn’t have to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
Amtrak has done quite a good job with what they have had to work with. That passenger train infrastructure is very complicated, and they always get the short end of the stick. Except for the northeast they lease track from the freight railways, which puts them in some bad situations as far as scheduling and indemnity goes. They have to pay for accidents that aren't even their fault and are caused by the rail owners. They are the stepchildren of the railroads.

Every national passenger rail system in the world is subsidized. Our airlines are very subsidized. Why not Amtrak?

This is a big country. It is a long ways from Chicago to the West Coast with lots of empty space in between. Without that train you will have nothing but skyhigh airplane tickets and long bus rides. Or long drives. In fact, much of Amtrak in the West is buses from 4 routes across to cities off the main route. Check out those plane fares to anywhere in the West that isn't a major hub like Denver or ABQ.

One of those routes can be dropped, everyone, including Amtrak, hates it. That's the Sunset Limited from LA to NOLA and on to FL. Way too long a route and freight traffic never lets it run on time.

That train is a lifeline for many small towns and cities. It is grossly unfair to put such a financial burden on train riders and the underpopulated states when so much subsidies are given to aviation, and those freight trains making massive profits. The greed of those freight rails is a large part of the expenses. They have rights of way, can block traffic, and do nothing but make money. They don't return anything for the inconveniences imposed on the public. If you have set waiting for a very, very long train to pass in a city you will know what I mean. A two mile train is not a long train anymore, and very common. I have at least 10 pass by here every day.

Outside that NE Corridor and CA Amtrak runs barebones. Pretty much basic train ride with few amenities. But is more affordable and less hassle than airplanes, much more comfortable than long bus rides, and just easier than driving, especially for family get togethers and such.

This noise about making them be profitable is aviation, truck and rail freight wanting to kill competition. Amtrak used to be able to carry some freight years ago, like US Mail, to offset costs. That was killed because of those other interests.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204930
Jan 19, 2014
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on, that's not an honest response.
I read a lot of books. Before I start reading, I check out who the author is; what else has he/she written? What are his views, his general philosophy? What is her background?
That's what I'm asking about Barton: Yes, for all I know he has said what you say he said, and he may be accurate in what he said.
To me though, that's far less important than why he is saying what he is saying; what he intends to achieve by his statements and his quotes; what his societal views are that motivate him to write and to speak.
Forget about DS for a bit, and whether he is wrong, or lied, or mine quoted. Forget about the trees for a while, and focus on the forest?
Who is Barton and what is it he's after?
MY point with the discussion on the Adams quote is that Barton is basically dishonest in his scholarship. The Adams quote is but one example. Barton will regularly leave out parts of a quote in order to make is sound as if it is saying something different from the original. He has been caught in this many times.

But to Barton, this is just water off a duck's back. He ignores the criticisms and continues in his old MO.

The New York Times and others had this to say about Barton...

"According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible." Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website. The book's publisher, the Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there."
--from Wikipedia

Barton keeps his ties to right-wing Christians close to his chest, but every once in a while he will let something slip, as with the Seven Mountains Dominionism post I made earlier today. His goal seems to be to have the US become a nation led solely by Christians according to Biblical principles. Ie...Dominionism. His goal seems to be to convince people that the Founding Fathers intended our country to be a Dominion from the start and that somehow their plan got sidetracked.

That appears to be his rationale for making the Adams quote (and similar quotes) saying the US was founded on Christian principles ( and leaving out any other founding principles) as well as the Jefferson Lies where he claims that Jefferson really was not a supporter of separation of church and state.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204931
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
What is going on with you, anyway? You claim to not be a Christian. Yet at almost every turn you defend the fundamentalist Christian position. You do know, don't you, that you are going to be in just as much sh*t as I am if they ever get their way and come to power? And that is what Barton is working toward...a Christian Dominion Nation.
Buck Crick wrote:
The truth. I want the truth told.
"The" truth? It's your truth, which is Dave Barton's truth. Most non-Christians reject those ideas. That's our truth.

But even if what you have is the truth, you seem to be aware of the harm to people that blurring the church-state division could entail. Truth isn't the highest good, and when telling the truth would cause a worse moral harm than lying, lying becomes the moral choice, as when an undercover cop or spy lies in the line of duty.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204932
Jan 19, 2014
 

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204933
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Bro I love you but this isn't honest.
To you as well brother

It what way do you find it dishonest? What part specifically are you addressing?
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you remember it is where you and I first met when I first shared about my wife.
I remember
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuality is mentioned in the bible, read Romans with an open mind.
I didn't say it wasn't mentioned. The sexual act is the sin. What sin takes place when two people make a commitment to stay together in marriage? Is gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married then why should liars? They are also an abomination to God. But two people regardless of their sexual orientation or sins getting married are not committing any sin. Divorce however is tearing apart what God has joined and Christians do that quite regularly
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
And are you serious about Sodom? Really? God gave them chances and it wasn't a lack of faith but people so ate up with lust that even when an angel struck them blind and they couldn't see the mob became furious.(Genesis 19)
How do you interpret Matthew 11:23 then? If even Sodom would not have denied the miracles and still would have stood? The sinning (all of the sinning) were disobedient acts as a direct result of them turning from God. Their lack of faith led to the sinning which led to their destruction. If Sodom would have still stood if the miracles had been performed there and not denied, how can you say it was because of them being gay? Don't believers still sin? They they are not destroyed. Don't believers still commit other sins that are abominations to God yet they are not destroyed. Disobedience which results in any sin can be forgiven if someone is repentant and faithful. Once someone is no longer faithful, it doesn't matter. So I stand behind my interpretation of Matthew 11:23 unless shown otherwise that one sin of the flesh is considered worse than another. I see many verses that specifically show that isn't the case
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I know we will not agree on this issue but wanted to say my peace.
No problem

We can always talk to each other

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204934
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Pedophilia involving a person molesting the same sex is homosexuality, and a homosexual act.
Most pedophilia is of this category.
That is the likely reason there has been an impetus in psychology for delineating a separate category for pedophilia. It's a ruse.
<quoted text>
But you see Buck makes a mistake here, even if you view pedophilia from religious views
and adhere to the bible and what it say's about homosexuality.
Specifically because it (the bible) say's..
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
Buck says...
Pedophilia involving a person molesting the same sex is homosexuality, and a homosexual act.
So if you adhere to this (Buck logic) a child must be put to death for homosexuality because in being raped..they committed a " homosexual act".
Pedophilia is not a homosexual act, it is a criminal act the child is not guilty of.
Or you can believe a child is guilty of something.
Makes you wonder if all sexual acts Buck engaged in where criminal.
Of if to him... all sexual acts are rape.
I seriously doubt Buck is saying the victim of a rape is guilty of committing a sin. I

And i personally do not wonder if Buck thinks all sexual acts are rape. I have seen nothing that would make me wonder that

But if you want to know what Buck thinks, ask Buck

As for me, I don't care what other orientations a person may have. I can't say for a fact that someone can not be both straight and a pedophile or both gay and a pedophile. That may be possible. I simply don't care. There are plenty of gay and straight people that are not pedophiles. And whatever someone is in addition to a pedophile makes no difference to me once they are a pedophile. I don't think a man who is a pedophile is a condemnation of men in general. So I don't think if someone was gay and a pedophile raped a child that would be a reflection on all gay people. Any more than it is a reflection on all straight people when a man rapes a female child

But you mainly look just to jump in and say negative things about my posts. Buck and I got through a rocky start and have been able to get back to a good a place now. Did you really think I would join you in criticizing him? If you want to stir up chit then at least post to the person you want to stir it up with

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204935
Jan 19, 2014
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
So you must agree then that Adams said... "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."
That's a nice illustration of the dishonesty of deliberately misleading omissions. The manicured version of Adams' words that Barton presented tell the opposite story from your version, and both tell a different story from that of the unedited whole. It is right to distrust somebody that would do that.

For the record and my files:

Adams said. "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."

Barton reported: "The general principles of which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God"

Darwins Stepchild countered with: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."

This is why I trust nothing coming from Christian apologists. Nothing. That material is rife with these ethics. It is why EVERYTHING that they say must be fact checked and confirmed using non-religious resources.

And it is why it is reasonable to reject anything provided from one of these apologetics sources out of hand and require a secular source instead, since there is nothing true known only to Christians, and anything that is actually true in an apologetics site can be found in the non-religious resource from which it came. I read something outlandish about Darwin recently on one of these sites, and the only parts of the piece that could be confirmed elsewhere were Darwin's name, the dates and destination of his voyage, and the name of his ship. The rest was unique to that site, the point being (once again) that

[1] if it's true, it can be found elsewhere besides a Christian site
[2] if it can be found only on a Christian site, it's almost certainly untrue
[3] for these reasons, you have a right to reject apologetics sites as sources for anything and insist on a secular resource instead

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204936
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
And are you serious about Sodom? Really? God gave them chances and it wasn't a lack of faith but people so ate up with lust that even when an angel struck them blind and they couldn't see the mob became furious.(Genesis 19)
I realize there may be a clearer way for me to explain my position

The sins IMO in Sodom were a result of them choosing the flesh (giving in to any desire to sin) over God. It would not have mattered what specifically the sins were once a people turn their back on God

Had Sodom turned its back on God and engaged in rampant murder and rape it would have been destroyed as well IMO. It wasn't the specific sin as God hates all sin. It was the fact that they were basically given the chance to repent their ways and return to the Lord and be saved and instead they chose the flesh over God. Those that do that are weak in faith.

Liars are an abomination to God. Had Sodom turned its back on God and continued to lie and cheat and steal it would have also been destroyed. The weakness of faith led to a return to the flesh

2 Peter

"20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true:“A dog returns to its vomit,”g and,“A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

This is what I believed happened in Sodom. And had Sodom been shown the same miracles as Capernaum was, even as weak as Sodom was in their faith, they would have never denied them and therefore would have been spared. They stopped caring about what God wanted. They no longer feared God. They only wanted to please themselves. That is what led to their destruction IMO. Not the specific sins committed as the penalty for all sin is death for those who don't have faith

(T) Peace

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204937
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. The term hails from Old Testament times, foedus meaning "covenant" - the compact between the 12 tribes of Israel and God.
Zechariah 11:10
10. And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
10. Et accepi virgam meam, nempe Pulchritudinem, et confregi eam, ut irritum facerem FOEDUS quod pepigeram cum omnibus gentibus (vel, populis.)
<FOEDUS - emphasis added>
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: "The Polity in Biblical Israel"
"The Bible clearly relates the formation of the political institutions of Israel to the Sinai experience, whether in the form of the Book of the Covenant which is the basis of the first constitution of the Israelite federation or in connection with Moses' following the advice of his father-in-law to establish a national administrative and judicial structure, which is presented as taking place at the same time,..."
<federation>
Is there something else I can help you with?
Uh, yeah.......the ancient Hebrews did speak and write in Latin. I forgot that part.

whaddamoroon......
Jim

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204938
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Bro I love you but this isn't honest. And if you remember it is where you and I first met when I first shared about my wife. Homosexuality is mentioned in the bible, read Romans with an open mind. And are you serious about Sodom? Really? God gave them chances and it wasn't a lack of faith but people so ate up with lust that even when an angel struck them blind and they couldn't see the mob became furious.(Genesis 19) I know we will not agree on this issue but wanted to say my peace.
This doesn't really count as an opinion since its creationist cult gibberish.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#204939
Jan 19, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>I seriously doubt Buck is saying the victim of a rape is guilty of committing a sin. I
And i personally do not wonder if Buck thinks all sexual acts are rape. I have seen nothing that would make me wonder that
But if you want to know what Buck thinks, ask Buck
As for me, I don't care what other orientations a person may have. I can't say for a fact that someone can not be both straight and a pedophile or both gay and a pedophile. That may be possible. I simply don't care. There are plenty of gay and straight people that are not pedophiles. And whatever someone is in addition to a pedophile makes no difference to me once they are a pedophile. I don't think a man who is a pedophile is a condemnation of men in general. So I don't think if someone was gay and a pedophile raped a child that would be a reflection on all gay people. Any more than it is a reflection on all straight people when a man rapes a female child
But you mainly look just to jump in and say negative things about my posts. Buck and I got through a rocky start and have been able to get back to a good a place now. Did you really think I would join you in criticizing him? If you want to stir up chit then at least post to the person you want to stir it up with
It's not about all that....it's about saying pedophilia is homosexual act.
It isn't, but will you lie for Buck and say it is?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 196,641 - 196,660 of216,852
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent NCAA Basketball Discussions

Search the NCAA Basketball Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min RoxLo 1,033,990
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 min cpeter1313 303,227
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Fight On 26,094
Syracuse basketball: Jim Boeheim tells ESPN Tyl... Apr 14 Lenox Da Kid 2
loan offer (Jun '13) Apr 14 Bryan Cranston 81
Burke Calls Shots With The Best (Feb '08) Apr 12 maryann 19
Do you hate UK Wildcats, we DO :-) (Apr '11) Apr 12 plenty 49
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••