tusker
Cog in Training
Posts: 68
|
Post by tusker on Apr 2, 2007 23:37:47 GMT -5
I think Bush is lax on the border for just the same reason as most are....cheap labor and potential voting block. Apparently, he along with pretty much everyone else in the Congress doesn't think that the cost of not securing our borders will be that high.
Which brings me to one of many thing that the Democrats said that they would do in regards to following 9/11 Commission recommendations. All they attempted to do is force more containers to be searched at the ports....nothing for border security. And if I'm not mistaken the foundation for that 700 mile fence has been eroded by the Democrat Congress.
If Bush has ulterior motives for not securing the border then the Dems are obviously in on it too. I think they're just a little dumb.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 8:53:12 GMT -5
No, no. Christians are suppose to hate ;D Luke 14:26 (King James Version) If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. You're doing a fine job espy. Hey! Good thing context doesn't matter, right? ;D Go look at the context. Then try to imagine a context that this would mean something other that what it obviously means. Here's another good one: Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 9:21:04 GMT -5
blondie,
I already debunked you on these two scripture references before. Why do you continue to mischaracterize scripture? I don't think you are ignorant on this but are doing it on purpose. If you don't agree with the Bible, fine, but stop being intellectually dishonest in continuing to imply the wrong meaning to scripture to others. Doing so doesn't bode well for the validity of atheist ethics.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 9:41:49 GMT -5
blondie, I already debunked you on these two scripture references before. Why do you continue to mischaracterize scripture? I don't think you are ignorant on this but are doing it on purpose. If you don't agree with the Bible, fine, but stop being intellectually dishonest in continuing to imply the wrong meaning to scripture to others. Doing so doesn't bode well for the validity of atheist ethics. What do you mean debunked? You may have rationalized them to your dogma. I recently heard the Greek used for "hate" above is hate like we use the word. Jesus says hate. He also says to castrate yourself. I know some say eunuch means celibate. (Not that any Protestants are celibate) But a lot of Baptists also believe all those references to wine were really about grape juice. There is a difference between the actual text of the Bible and the various rationalizations of Christians. I'm only interested in what objective scholars have to say.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 3, 2007 9:48:10 GMT -5
I'm only interested in what objective scholars have to say. And we have seen many times YOUR definition of "objective."
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 3, 2007 10:08:49 GMT -5
I'm only interested in what objective scholars have to say. And we have seen many times YOUR definition of "objective." hey.....blondie is objective......
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 10:14:53 GMT -5
I'm only interested in what objective scholars have to say. And we have seen many times YOUR definition of "objective." Not Christan apologist sites that's for sure. Objective sources are sources that are objective. A Buddhist historian wouldn't have any dog in a dispute about the Bible. An Encyclopedia would be good. I measure my sources before I jump to conclusions not the other way around. Here's an objective source about Matthew 19:12: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200204/ai_n9033334The church has always had two conflicting interpretations of the Matthean text: one quite literal, and one definitely allegorical. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Ambrose are among those who argued that Matthew 19 is a call to celibacy, rather than to genital mutilation. For at least the first several centuries of the church, this contradiction remained unresolved, argues Taylor, for within many early Christian sects, a true "servant of Christ" was one who had castrated himself. When Origen, Abelhard, and other greats of the church took the knife to themselves, it was not only to remove their masculine self-definition, but to fulfill a most literal reading of Matthew 19:12.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 10:17:56 GMT -5
And we have seen many times YOUR definition of "objective." hey.....blondie is objective...... That's right, you should try it sometime. That's how I got so smart.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 3, 2007 10:19:18 GMT -5
Objective sources are sources that are objective. Thanks for clearing that up...
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 3, 2007 10:22:47 GMT -5
And we have seen many times YOUR definition of "objective." Not Christan apologist sites that's for sure. Objective sources are sources that are objective. A Buddhist historian wouldn't have any dog in a dispute about the Bible. An Encyclopedia would be good. I measure my sources before I jump to conclusions not the other way around. Here's an objective source about Matthew 19:12: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200204/ai_n9033334The church has always had two conflicting interpretations of the Matthean text: one quite literal, and one definitely allegorical. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Ambrose are among those who argued that Matthew 19 is a call to celibacy, rather than to genital mutilation. For at least the first several centuries of the church, this contradiction remained unresolved, argues Taylor, for within many early Christian sects, a true "servant of Christ" was one who had castrated himself. When Origen, Abelhard, and other greats of the church took the knife to themselves, it was not only to remove their masculine self-definition, but to fulfill a most literal reading of Matthew 19:12. The thing is, there will always be "interpretations" of the Bible, I feel that what God wants is for us to live life as closely to Christ teachings as we can, otherwise his word wouldn't have said that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. We all sin, Its whether or not we ask for forgiveness for those sins or if we don't care that we committed them is the key.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 10:25:06 GMT -5
The thing is, there will always be "interpretations" of the Bible, I feel that what God wants is for us to live life as closely to Christ teachings as we can, So when are ya gonna' cut your dick off? ;D
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 3, 2007 10:25:46 GMT -5
Objective sources are sources that are objective. LOL......that sounds like something Bush would say.......lol
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 3, 2007 10:26:47 GMT -5
The thing is, there will always be "interpretations" of the Bible, I feel that what God wants is for us to live life as closely to Christ teachings as we can, So when are ya gonna' cut your dick off? ;D after you take it out of your mouth...
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 10:32:17 GMT -5
So when are ya gonna' cut your dick off? ;D after you take it out of your mouth... I may have been making a flippant point, but it was a point. Please try to keep it civil. There is an argument that can be made that Christ called for his followers to castrate themselves. I know it's hard for you to believe, but like most Christians you don't know anything about the history of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 10:33:05 GMT -5
blondie, I already debunked you on these two scripture references before. Why do you continue to mischaracterize scripture? I don't think you are ignorant on this but are doing it on purpose. If you don't agree with the Bible, fine, but stop being intellectually dishonest in continuing to imply the wrong meaning to scripture to others. Doing so doesn't bode well for the validity of atheist ethics. What do you mean debunked? You may have rationalized them to your dogma. I recently heard the Greek used for "hate" above is hate like we use the word. Jesus says hate. He also says to castrate yourself. I know some say eunuch means celibate. (Not that any Protestants are celibate) But a lot of Baptists also believe all those references to wine were really about grape juice. There is a difference between the actual text of the Bible and the various rationalizations of Christians. I'm only interested in what objective scholars have to say. Bullshit. You are only interested in sources that fullfill your agenda of making the scriptures wrong in some fashion. When I mean debunk, I mean that I showed in scripture and through logic of why your mischaracterizations are just that. Adding in what some Baptists believe in regards to wine doesn't add credence to your mischaracterizations either. You only add that in there because your arguments in relation to the two scriptural references are weak, plain and simple. You don't believe the bible is truth, you continue to mischaracterize it in order to justify to yourself that it isn't truth, because you are unable to come to the conclusion that it is false in any other manner.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 10:43:37 GMT -5
after you take it out of your mouth... I may have been making a flippant point, but it was a point. Please try to keep it civil. There is an argument that can be made that Christ called for his followers to castrate themselves. I know it's hard for you to believe, but like most Christians you don't know anything about the history of Christianity. keep it civil? You just asked, erroneously I might add, when Christian men are going to cut off their *vulgar* and then get upset when somebody responds with your asinine statement with a comment that makes you look like a fool. There is NO FREAKIN argument whatsoever that Jesus Christ told his followers to cut off body parts. Frankly, like I said, you are not ignornat of this fact, you continue to mischaracterize scripture for your atheist agenda....how sad. Atheist ethics are sub par, which is obvious.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 3, 2007 10:43:40 GMT -5
after you take it out of your mouth... I may have been making a flippant point, but it was a point. Please try to keep it civil. There is an argument that can be made that Christ called for his followers to castrate themselves. I know it's hard for you to believe, but like most Christians you don't know anything about the history of Christianity. Ok, I'm sorry for the comment....but the reason he called for his followers to castrate themselves was to ensure that they wouldn't be tempted by sexual immorality which is one of the worlds most enticing sins. He never implied that all that believed in him should do the same, these were his disciples who were to be his right hand men.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 10:48:48 GMT -5
Ok, I'm sorry for the comment....and the reason he called for his followers to castrate themselves was to ensure that they wouldn't be tempted by sexual immorality which is one of the worlds most enticing sins. He never implied that all that believed in him should do the same, these were his disciples who were to be his right hand men.
Wrong. Jesus was not instructing his followers via literal teaching here. Stating he was, contradicts scripture. When you contradict scripture, a red flag should go off.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 10:49:31 GMT -5
What do you mean debunked? You may have rationalized them to your dogma. I recently heard the Greek used for "hate" above is hate like we use the word. Jesus says hate. He also says to castrate yourself. I know some say eunuch means celibate. (Not that any Protestants are celibate) But a lot of Baptists also believe all those references to wine were really about grape juice. There is a difference between the actual text of the Bible and the various rationalizations of Christians. I'm only interested in what objective scholars have to say. Bullshit. You are only interested in sources that fullfill your agenda of making the scriptures wrong in some fashion. When I mean debunk, I mean that I showed in scripture and through logic of why your mischaracterizations are just that. Adding in what some Baptists believe in regards to wine doesn't add credence to your mischaracterizations either. You only add that in there because your arguments in relation to the two scriptural references are weak, plain and simple. You don't believe the bible is truth, you continue to mischaracterize it in order to justify to yourself that it isn't truth, because you are unable to come to the conclusion that it is false in any other manner. Did you read my objective source? findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200204/ai_n9033334
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 10:52:35 GMT -5
Wrong. Jesus was not instructing his followers via literal teaching here. Stating he was, contradicts scripture. When you contradict scripture, a red flag should go off. Actually, you don't know. Different people have had different interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 10:58:21 GMT -5
Ok, I'm sorry for the comment... Fair enough. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 3, 2007 11:03:25 GMT -5
Ok, I'm sorry for the comment....and the reason he called for his followers to castrate themselves was to ensure that they wouldn't be tempted by sexual immorality which is one of the worlds most enticing sins. He never implied that all that believed in him should do the same, these were his disciples who were to be his right hand men. Wrong. Jesus was not instructing his followers via literal teaching here. Stating he was, contradicts scripture. When you contradict scripture, a red flag should go off. and again I'm sorry, I wasn't intentionally contradicting scripture the bible is full of interpretations, this is a scripture that I have heard, not read. I will however read it in its entirety now. I will never add to the scripture or take away from it, I will and have always read it and follow in the way God leads me. I love Jesus Christ and am thankful to God that he was sent here to teach us how to live and to die for our sins. I am a sinner and am constantly doubting my worthiness to him. But I know he loves me just the same.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 3, 2007 11:06:14 GMT -5
Actually, you don't know. Actually, we do...or we can if we choose to...obviously you choose NOT to, but still use it as if you do... Jesus' disciples asked Him why He used parables so frequently, and His answer certainly applies on this forum... Many points of doctrine in the scriptures are also introduced with the phrase. "...he who has ears to hear, let him hear..." Many in Jesus' day rejected Him and His teaching...He "allowed" them to do so, just as He does today...
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 11:20:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 11:25:07 GMT -5
bamagatr -
Very good point and something atheists just can't understand. The thing is, we are really not even dealing with some of the scripture that is harder to understand. Atheists such as blondie spend a lot of time on websites such as, evilbible.com and regurgitate the same old nonsense over and over again. They are shown that they are not reading correctly because they don't understand context of the immediate text, the surrounding text nor the context of the whole Bible...they just don't understand and it's because they don't have the spirit to understand.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 11:25:21 GMT -5
I will never add to the scripture or take away from it, I will and have always read it and follow in the way God leads me. I love Jesus Christ and am thankful to God that he was sent here to teach us how to live and to die for our sins. I am a sinner and am constantly doubting my worthiness to him. But I know he loves me just the same. As an Atheist I don't put much stake in the Bible. But if you aren't going to add to it or take away from it where do you start? Which Bible? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Other_canonsMartin Luther proposed removing the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon. Seems arbitrary to me. I don't believe anyone can even get a good picture of what first century Christians believe if you throw out all the Gnostic writings.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 11:30:41 GMT -5
"As an Atheist I don't put much stake in the Bible."
Which is why anything you have to say on it should be taken with a grain of salt.
You are following the atheist playbook again. Try to discredit scripture by stating there are inaccuracies then when that fails, mischaracterize it to say something that isn't there and finally, bring doubt upon the fact that we have God's words to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 3, 2007 11:32:32 GMT -5
See, this is an example of a subjective source. Why would you believe what they say? You know without even reading it they're going to rationalize Evangelical Protestantism. They may be right; they may be wrong. This is from their homepage: "Dwight L. Moody was another man who was ignited by divine fire." Phinehas, you're not interested in the truth you're just looking for sources that back up your presuppositions.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 11:32:54 GMT -5
....but that's nothing new, since the very same three things were done in the garden of Eden and continue to be the basic plan of deception.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 3, 2007 11:40:13 GMT -5
"Phinehas, you're not interested in the truth you're just looking for sources that back up your presuppositions."
I show sources for something I think does a good job of explaining my position on something I have already studied. It saves me from doing a lot of typing, I admit, but I try to give sources that are clear and succinct. I had already given my thoughts on these specific scriptures before in a previous post.
|
|