Obama Attempts to Deny Freedom of the Press!

[SUPDOG]

This freakin' thug administration is out of control!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

[resnor]

Hmmm...surprising though it may be, apparently even the mainstream media heads realize that Fox is a real news organization.

Shhhhhhhhh...don't tell Sanan...

[Play Action]

Good... Fox got what they deserved.. Any other country would have blackballed Faux, along time ago...


Fck Fox and the cronies & sheep who support them...

[sanantonio]

Hmmm...surprising though it may be, apparently even the mainstream media heads realize that Fox is a real news organization.

Shhhhhhhhh...don't tell Sanan...

So you think that includes all of the mainsteam media? Well game, set, match, oh my lord Faux has won :rolleyes: ha ha ha.

[sideoutshu]

Smart move by the other news organizations in realizing that in as little a 3 years, the shoe could be on the other foot.

[SUPDOG]

Good... Fox got what they deserved.. Any other country would have blackballed Faux, along time ago...


Fck Fox and the cronies & sheep who support them...

Yeah, a clueless bot! This is what sort of mindset Obama's followers have!

They don't care about our country, they only care about hate, and stomping out ANY who oppose!

You know what? If I would have said one year ago that Obama would encourage other news outfits to stop listening to FOX, and would deny FOX access to one of their "czars", EVERY ONE OF YOU LIBS would have vommited up the same old lines like, "Supdog is paranoid, Supdog is crazy, Supdog is like all the other conservatives and using "fear tactics", etc.

DON'T EVEN THINK OF DENYING IT EITHER!

This guy is SCUM. Just like I told you! Even the left wing press recognizes that this is garbage!

Wow, just wow!

Defenders? (well, other than the "play action" dude who is clueless)

[sanantonio]

Yeah, a clueless bot! This is what sort of mindset Obama's followers have!

They don't care about our country, they only care about hate, and stomping out ANY who oppose!

You know what? If I would have said one year ago that Obama would encourage other news outfits to stop listening to FOX, and would deny FOX access to one of their "czars", EVERY ONE OF YOU LIBS would have vommited up the same old lines like, "Supdog is paranoid, Supdog is crazy, Supdog is like all the other conservatives and using "fear tactics", etc.

DON'T EVEN THINK OF DENYING IT EITHER!

This guy is SCUM. Just like I told you! Even the left wing press recognizes that this is garbage!

Wow, just wow!

Defenders? (well, other than the "play action" dude who is clueless)

No, Faux is scum!!!

[JoeJGibbs]

You know what I've always found interesting is the dynamic between people on the board.

For instance, Supdog and Sideout. 2 guys who clearly stand on the same side of the fence but at the same time are 2 very different in their E-demeanors and how they express their political views.

One uses logic and clever arguing tactics and the other uses lunacy, name caling and a lot of meaningless exclamation points.

I'll keep the mystery revealed about who is who as to not cause any side arguments.

[SUPDOG]

You know what I've always found interesting is the dynamic between people on the board.

For instance, Supdog and Sideout. 2 guys who clearly stand on the same side of the fence but at the same time are 2 very different in their E-demeanors and how they express their political views.

One uses logic and clever arguing tactics and the other uses lunacy, name caling and a lot of meaningless exclamation points.

I'll keep the mystery revealed about who is who as to not cause any side arguments.

Deflection is the tool of mindless sheep! :eek:

[SUPDOG]

No, Faux is scum!!!

So in your opinion the White HOuse did the right thing in attempting this??

[conviction]

You know what I've always found interesting is the dynamic between people on the board.

For instance, Supdog and Sideout. 2 guys who clearly stand on the same side of the fence but at the same time are 2 very different in their E-demeanors and how they express their political views.

One uses logic and clever arguing tactics and the other uses lunacy, name caling and a lot of meaningless exclamation points.

I'll keep the mystery revealed about who is who as to not cause any side arguments.

I guess we can learn how any person, no matter how different, can be brainwashed to the same agenda

[RicoVacilon]

The Obama admin should be ashamed of this attempted stunt.

[SUPDOG]

I guess we can learn how any person, no matter how different, can be brainwashed to the same agenda

This coming from a Truther! LOL!:eek:

[SUPDOG]

The Obama admin should be ashamed of this attempted stunt.

Good job Rico! I am pleasantly surprised. This is alarming! What if the other news orgs. would have went along for the ride? Unbelievable! :eek:

[sideoutshu]

You know what I've always found interesting is the dynamic between people on the board.

For instance, Supdog and Sideout. 2 guys who clearly stand on the same side of the fence but at the same time are 2 very different in their E-demeanors and how they express their political views.

One uses logic and clever arguing tactics and the other uses lunacy, name caling and a lot of meaningless exclamation points.

I'll keep the mystery revealed about who is who as to not cause any side arguments.

Eh....saying we are on the "same side" is really only true as to general party affiliation and the fact that we are constantly attacked by the same people on the board.

While I am Catholic, I could really care less about religion as it relates to politics. I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and I recognize evolution and science, etc.

I don't oppose Obama because I think he is some kind of Anti-christ, I oppose him because he is a snake-oil salesman and his policies (and those of the liberals) are simply wrong on the issues that MATTER (ie: not guns, abortion, prayer in schools, blah blah blah) like national defense, the economy, entitlement programs, health care, interrogation, etc.

[sideoutshu]

I guess we can learn how any person, no matter how different, can be brainwashed to the same agenda

How have I been "brainwashed"? And what "agenda" are you referring to?

[conviction]

How have I been "brainwashed"? And what "agenda" are you referring to?

The agenda is obviously your neo-con, GOP agenda. If you don't realize this then you are utterly lost. Your mind has literally been pounded into submission by lies and half-truths. You don't even understand what's going on when you look around the country and the world. You haven't a clue the destruction of which the GOP has created but all is swell because you compare your agenda the agenda of the Democratic party. News flash, both agendas are sending this country into the abyss.

[sideoutshu]

The agenda is obviously your neo-con, GOP agenda. If you don't realize this then you are utterly lost. Your mind has literally been pounded into submission by lies and half-truths. You don't even understand what's going on when you look around the country and the world. You haven't a clue the destruction of which the GOP has created but all is swell because you compare your agenda the agenda of the Democratic party. News flash, both agendas are sending this country into the abyss.

How am I a "neo-con"? And what is my "agenda"

You really need to get off your high horse man. I am quite sure that you are in no place to comment that my "brain has been pounded into submission" by anything.

Further, you are completely ignorant as to my political views if you are claiming I subscribe to the "neo-con agenda".

Give the daddy-pants back, you aren't ready for em.

PS. Gibbs' point earlier was completely missed on you if you think that you are going to score points by throwing around sensational words like "neo-con" with no basis in truth.

[conviction]

How am I a "neo-con"? And what is my "agenda"

You really need to get off your high horse man. I am quite sure that you are in no place to comment that my "brain has been pounded into submission" by anything.

Further, you are completely ignorant as to my political views if you are claiming I subscribe to the "neo-con agenda".

Give the daddy-pants back, you aren't ready for em.

Take your blinders off

[Gtrght77]

How is Obama trying to deny freedom of the press? Nobody is trying to shut down Fox, they are just calling them out for what they are. It's not like this isn't good for Fox either, they end up getting better ratings because of this.

I think the outrage is funny though considering how the GOP attacked the media the entire Bush admin.

In 2001, DeLay reportedly boycotted CNN

In 2002, GOP leadership reportedly threatened or engaged in Crossfire boycott

In 2004, NY Times reporters were excluded from Air Force Two

In 2006, GOP House members sought punishment, possible prosecution of NY Time

In the wake of a June 23, 2006,
New York Times article (as well as articles in the
Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal) describing a
secret Bush administration program designed to monitor international financial
transactions, GOP Rep. J.D. Hayworth authored a letter reportedly signed by 70 House members calling on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to "penalize" the Times by rescinding its congressional press credentials. GOP Rep. Peter King also repeatedly called for a criminal investigation of the Times and
other papers. At least one Fox News personality similarly called for an
investigation, and others criticized the Times. The House subsequently passed a "Republican-crafted resolution ... on a largely party-line vote" condemning publication of reports about the program and stating that "[f]ederal statutes criminalize the unauthorized disclosure and publication of sensitive intelligence information."

70 House members
reportedly signed Hayworth letter calling for revocation of NY Times' House press
credentials. From a June 30, 2006, FoxNews.com

In 2008, Bush counselor Gillespie attacked NBC

In 2008, McCain campaign repeatedly attacked press, banned or threatened to ban journalists from campaign plane and bus.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028

[sideoutshu]

Take your blinders off

What "blinders" are you refering to?

Like I said before, if you have no actual content to contribute, just go back to the SB.:p

[sideoutshu]

How is Obama trying to deny freedom of the press? Nobody is trying to shut down Fox, they are just calling them out for what they are. It's not like this isn't good for Fox either, they end up getting better ratings because of this.

I think the outrage is funny though considering how the GOP attacked the media the entire Bush admin.

In 2001, DeLay reportedly boycotted CNN

In 2002, GOP leadership reportedly threatened or engaged in Crossfire boycott

In 2004, NY Times reporters were excluded from Air Force Two

In 2006, GOP House members sought punishment, possible prosecution of NY Time



In 2008, Bush counselor Gillespie attacked NBC

In 2008, McCain campaign repeatedly attacked press, banned or threatened to ban journalists from campaign plane and bus.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028


Firstly, unless you know anything about any of these incidents, no more cutting and pasting from Wikipedia ok?

Second, nothing the Bush administration ever did comes close to the full out attack of the administration on FOXNEWS.

Third, you got your facts mixed up, it was actually the Obama campaign that not threatened to....but actually DID throw reporters from the NY Post and other perceived right leaning publications off his plane in 2008.

[Gtrght77]

Firstly, unless you know anything about any of these incidents, no more cutting and pasting from Wikipedia ok?

Second, nothing the Bush administration ever did comes close to the full out attack of the administration on FOXNEWS.

Third, you got your facts mixed up, it was actually the Obama campaign that not threatened to....but actually DID throw reporters from the NY Post and other perceived right leaning publications off his plane in 2008.

Fourth: Since you read none of it you shouldn't respond. Go ahead, everything is cited in the article. No wikipedia in that link.....

[conviction]

What "blinders" are you refering to?

Like I said before, if you have no actual content to contribute, just go back to the SB.:p

Okay, would you like to review how the GOP has killed thousands upon thousands of people, destabilized countries, and allowed an economic collapse?

[sideoutshu]

Fourth: Since you read none of it you shouldn't respond. Go ahead, everything is cited in the article. No wikipedia in that link.....

There is nothing that you cited that compares to what is going on now. There is no need to refute it, because it proves nothing.

Second, posting something like that is akin to an admission of failure. You have now given up on defending the conduct of the administration and instead have gone with "well.......B-B-B-Bush did it too!" as if the Bush administration is somehow an adequate measuring stick. :rolleyes:

[conviction]

This coming from a Truther! LOL!:eek:

Let me guess, the WTC towers pancaked LOL. Give me a break

[sideoutshu]

Okay, would you like to review how the GOP has killed thousands upon thousands of people, destabilized countries, and allowed an economic collapse?

No, I would like for you to tell me from where you derived your ignorant personal attacks on me as a starting point. I never questioned your right to express your opinion as to your political beliefs.

I took issue with your need to insult my intelligence by calling me "brainwashed" and other names simply because I don't agree with you.

[resnor]

Okay, would you like to review how the GOP has killed thousands upon thousands of people, destabilized countries, and allowed an economic collapse?

Leave your 9/11 truther crap out of your claim about the GOP killing thousands...

[sideoutshu]

Let me guess, the WTC towers pancaked LOL. Give me a break

OMG, you are honestly a 9-11 conspiracy theory guy? You know what, forget anything I asked you, lets just stop this conversation as I am sure nothing even remotely educational will come of it.

[Gtrght77]

There is nothing that you cited that compares to what is going on now. There is no need to refute it, because it proves nothing.

Second, posting something like that is akin to an admission of failure. You have now given up on defending the conduct of the administration and instead have gone with "well.......B-B-B-Bush did it too!" as if the Bush administration is somehow an adequate measuring stick. :rolleyes:

I didn't say the Bush admin did it to, I said the GOP did it to during the Bush admin which just ended more or less. Not like it was a long long time ago.

Understanding what you have read is a big problem for you.

[resnor]

Let me guess, the WTC towers pancaked LOL. Give me a break

Actually...yes.

[Gtrght77]

Let me guess, the WTC towers pancaked LOL. Give me a break

Supdog has no room to clown anyone, he thinks the Earth is only thousands of years old.

[conviction]

Leave your 9/11 truther crap out of your claim about the GOP killing thousands...

You guys act like I brought up 9/11. I was gonna discuss Iraq, Sideout, unless you can't handle such a conversation.

[sideoutshu]

You guys act like I brought up 9/11. I was gonna discuss Iraq, Sideout, unless you can't handle such a conversation.

I don't want to discuss anything until you explain how you came to the ignorant assumption that I am "brainwashed" simply because I don't agree with you.

[Play Action]

Yeah, a clueless bot! This is what sort of mindset Obama's followers have!

They don't care about our country, they only care about hate, and stomping out ANY who oppose!

You know what? If I would have said one year ago that Obama would encourage other news outfits to stop listening to FOX, and would deny FOX access to one of their "czars", EVERY ONE OF YOU LIBS would have vommited up the same old lines like, "Supdog is paranoid, Supdog is crazy, Supdog is like all the other conservatives and using "fear tactics", etc.

DON'T EVEN THINK OF DENYING IT EITHER!

This guy is SCUM. Just like I told you! Even the left wing press recognizes that this is garbage!

Wow, just wow!



Defenders? (well, other than the "play action" dude who is clueless)

You down with OPP??

You don't even believe what you write.. Save the scratch CD act.. Its old now.. Spin it the other way now LOL...

[levdgg]

Wow. I have two guesses where this thread is going.

So what does everyone think of Fox, MSNBc et al.

?

[levdgg]

You down with OPP??

Yeah, you know me.

[conviction]

OMG, you are honestly a 9-11 conspiracy theory guy? You know what, forget anything I asked you, lets just stop this conversation as I am sure nothing even remotely educational will come of it.

Talk about a high horse. Hypocrisy at its best I suppose... why should I even bother

[Gtrght77]

The funny thing is while the GOP whine over Fox news being attacked the Democrats will slip the public option in and pass it.


You really don't think there is any strategy to attacking Fox and getting the GOP off message?

[conviction]

I don't want to discuss anything until you explain how you came to the ignorant assumption that I am "brainwashed" simply because I don't agree with you.

Well Sideout, that is why I was gonna discuss various topics I posted to you which would have explained clearly my beliefs. It is evident to me you will have none of it. Your like a statue. Good day sir; you have been and always been my equal.

[sideoutshu]

The funny thing is while the GOP whine over Fox news being attacked the Democrats will slip the public option in and pass it.


You really don't think there is any strategy to attacking Fox and getting the GOP off message?

Well at least you admit it.

But you have the rationale wrong. The real reason is to distract from the miserable failure this presidency has become. I can't recall there EVER being a president that promised so much, and accomplished so little. Sure there have been bad presidents, but it is the disparity between promised and accomplished that is so mindboggling.

[sideoutshu]

Well Sideout, that is why I was gonna discuss various topics I posted to you which would have explained clearly my beliefs. It is evident to me you will have none of it. Your like a statue. Good day sir; you have been and always been my equal.

It has nothing to do with YOUR beliefs. It has to do with ASSUMING someone else is dumb or "brainwashed" because they don't agree with you.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Interesting read on US Presidents and their relationships with the press > http://www.presidentprofiles.com/General-Information/A-History-of-the-Presidency-Presidents-and-the-press.html


.

[conviction]

Interesting read on US Presidents and their relationships with the press > http://www.presidentprofiles.com/General-Information/A-History-of-the-Presidency-Presidents-and-the-press.html


.

Check your inbox

[YoungVito]

This freakin' thug administration is out of control!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

Are you familiar with the "Imminent Lawlessness" Rule of First Amendment adjudication?

[RicoVacilon]

Okay, would you like to review how the GOP has killed thousands upon thousands of people, destabilized countries, and allowed an economic collapse?

wtf does that have to do with this thread? Seriously, man.

[levdgg]

Are you familiar with the "Imminent Lawlessness" Rule of First Amendment adjudication?

Does this apply to Fox or Supdog? The latter is harmless.

[sideoutshu]

Are you familiar with the "Imminent Lawlessness" Rule of First Amendment adjudication?

Branburg v Ohio? (its been 7 years mind you)

I am familiar, but not sure how it applies to the current discussion.

[RicoVacilon]

But you have the rationale wrong. The real reason is to distract from the miserable failure this presidency has become. I can't recall there EVER being a president that promised so much, and accomplished so little. Sure there have been bad presidents, but it is the disparity between promised and accomplished that is so mindboggling.

If it were February I would agree with you (wait. . . I mean "If it was Feb. . .wait no. . . I mean. . . :p). But considering he's still in his first year I will give him time to get stuff done. If most of the current issues aren't resolved by his 1st anniversary then I will gladly write him off as a blowhard along with the previous pres.

[levdgg]

Branburg v Ohio? (its been 7 years mind you)

I am familiar, but not sure how it applies to the current discussion.

I believe he is currently in law school and laying the post-classroom smackdown on fools.

[sideoutshu]

I believe he is currently in law school and laying the post-classroom smackdown on fools.

Just hope he doesn't start throwing out Hadley v. Baxendale or we are all in trouble.

Conlaw is usually a 1L class though, I thinkhe is further along.

[levdgg]

Just hope he doesn't start throwing out Hadley v. Baxendale or we are all in trouble.

Conlaw is usually a 1L class though, I thinkhe is further along.

Yeah. I didn't go to law school. You're making me google ****. Too much work.

I'm out.

[sideoutshu]

Yeah. I didn't go to law school. You're making me google ****. Too much work.

I'm out.

Don't bother, it makes no sense anyway. It had something to do with a contract dispute over a custom made part for a wood lathe back in 1800. I only cited it for its complete and utter irrelevance.

[levdgg]

Don't bother, it makes no sense anyway. It had something to do with a contract dispute over a custom made part for a wood lathe back in 1800. I only cited it for its complete and utter irrelevance.

Well, sir. Are YOU familar with the People v. Larry Flint?

Mothra v. Godzilla?

Amateur hour around here.

[RicoVacilon]

I believe he is currently in law school and laying the post-classroom smackdown on fools.

Actually, he has a JD and the data to back it up.

[levdgg]

Actually, he has a JD and the data to back it up.

One day in law school makes someone infinitely more knowledgeable on such matters than myself.

[RicoVacilon]

One day in law school makes someone infinitely more knowledgeable on such matters than myself.

Yea, I prefer when women shave their probate hairs too.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Check your inbox

Check yours now.....

[RicoVacilon]

Check yours now.....

I thought the purpose of PM's was the ability to not take up thread space with personal messages. . . or is that just me? Is the pop-up box saying "You have a PM from: ____" not enough notice?

[YoungVito]

Branburg v Ohio? (its been 7 years mind you)

I am familiar, but not sure how it applies to the current discussion.

I was actually referring to Street v. New York, even though Branburg was the first case. This is the case where the Court ruled that its not the ACT, but the context in which the act is committed.

I.E. Saying "Obama has shown that he is racist against white people..." on a major news media outlet is just as bad as saying "George Bush does not care about black people".

I.E. Saying "Obama is going to kill grandma" is just plain disgusting, and on a major news outlet...potentially dangerous. Just as disgusting as saying that Bush had something to do with 9/11.

Notice a pattern people???

Look, for those of you who don't follow politics, this is how the game is played.They hit the president's administration with what they consider to be inflamatory statements, and the administration's response...to attempt to revoke their legitimacy in the eyes of the American public as a news outlet. Now this may not necessarily be true, but it is taking away from conversation centered around the Health Care debate. Hell, they might even get the Public Option through...if you can imagine that.

Kansas City Shuffle people. Kansas City Shuffle. The fact that this thread exists is proof that it may end up working.

Simply because OMG...I don't agree with you. How's this for a Con Law lesson...the Marketplace Model for debate was the belief of James Madison (The Father of the Constitution). So while I do not have a problem with someone disagreeing with me, perhaps those of you on the other side of my statements should do the same. If the Father of the Constitution feels that there is a place for it...so should you.

Let the snarky comments about my level of intelligence and education commence.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I thought the purpose of PM's was the ability to not take up thread space with personal messages. . . or is that just me? Is the pop-up box saying "You have a PM from: ____" not enough notice?

No need for you to worry about it Rico.

.

[RicoVacilon]

No need for you to worry about it Rico.

.

Except your posting publicly about checking private messages. How about just sending a PM and leaving it at that? Or would that be too rational?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Except your posting publicly about checking private messages. How about just sending a PM and leaving it at that? Or would that be too rational?

No need for you to worry about it Rico.


.

[levdgg]

Except your posting publicly about checking private messages. How about just sending a PM and leaving it at that? Or would that be too rational?

Man, you guys have a hard-on for NB. I F'ed with him for the menace thing, but he deserves a break. One of the nicest guys on the board. Truth.

[SUPDOG]

I thought the purpose of PM's was the ability to not take up thread space with personal messages. . . or is that just me? Is the pop-up box saying "You have a PM from: ____" not enough notice?

Well, sometimes you don't notice the PM thing. When I get a PM from one of my "boys" (Levdgg, GT, Gibbs, etc.), it might sit there for like two or three hours! Then they get all bent out of shape because of the slow response from me and start calling me names like: axe murderer/rapist/drug dealer etc.

I think that's why they let each other know right away. It is a defense mechanism thing.

[levdgg]

Well, sometimes you don't notice the PM thing. When I get a PM from one of my "boys" (Levdgg, GT, Gibbs, etc.), it might sit there for like two or three hours! Then they get all bent out of shape because of the slow response from me and start calling me names like: axe murderer/rapist/drug dealer etc.

I think that's why they let each other know right away. It is a defense mechanism thing.

Mother Fer! He has a sense of humor.

[JoeJGibbs]

Eh....saying we are on the "same side" is really only true as to general party affiliation and the fact that we are constantly attacked by the same people on the board.

While I am Catholic, I could really care less about religion as it relates to politics. I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and I recognize evolution and science, etc.

I don't oppose Obama because I think he is some kind of Anti-christ, I oppose him because he is a snake-oil salesman and his policies (and those of the liberals) are simply wrong on the issues that MATTER (ie: not guns, abortion, prayer in schools, blah blah blah) like national defense, the economy, entitlement programs, health care, interrogation, etc.

I think that's what is fascinating. 2 completely different types of right wing people. Almost like another party needs to secede and become its own entity.

I actually think it's a perfect example of a microcosm of our actual party lines. The republican party used to be about 'big business'. As far as religion goes, that's a pretty new division.

It begs the question, where is the tie-in between a person such as yourself, and a person like Sup. The only thing I can figure out is the common foe is the left.

[sideoutshu]

I think that's what is fascinating. 2 completely different types of right wing people. Almost like another party needs to secede and become its own entity.

I actually think it's a perfect example of a microcosm of our actual party lines. The republican party used to be about 'big business'. As far as religion goes, that's a pretty new division.

It begs the question, where is the tie-in between a person such as yourself, and a person like Sup. The only thing I can figure out is the common foe is the left.

That is true to an extent, but also that while there are divergent points of view between a socially liberal republican like myself and the "religious right", our interests on the big issues like defense, smaller government, bailouts, taxes are far closer than with the left.

The core beliefs of all republicans unite us, but I really hate the way that candidates pander to the religious right when they should basically just tell them "I am the best chance you have! Get on the train and STFU, or deal with 4 years of high taxes subsidizing lazy people."

[levdgg]

That is true to an extent, but also that while there are divergent points of view between a socially liberal republican like myself and the "religious right", our interests on the big issues like defense, smaller government, bailouts, taxes are far closer than with the left.

The core beliefs of all republicans unite us, but I really hate the way that candidates pander to the religious right when they should basically just tell them "I am the best chance you have! Get on the train and STFU, or deal with 4 years of high taxes subsidizing lazy people."
Good post......

I think Gibbs is somewhat saying -- and I may be wrong -- is there doesn't seem to be a parallel on the left, as far as I can tell (i.e. how often do you come across fiscally liberal, socially conservative people). On the left, everyone seems to have similar ideals, it's just a case of being separated by how extreme you are in your beliefs. Whereas, you have several different sects among republicans, each of which represent various extremes.

[RicoVacilon]

No need for you to worry about it Rico.


.

Except your posting publicly about checking private messages. How about just sending a PM and leaving it at that? Or would that be too rational?

[JoeJGibbs]

Good post......

I think Gibbs is somewhat saying -- and I may be wrong -- is there doesn't seem to be a parallel on the left, as far as I can tell (i.e. how often do you come across fiscally liberal, socially conservative people). On the left, everyone seems to have similar ideals, it's just a case of being separated by how extreme you are in your beliefs. Whereas, you have several different sects among republicans, each of which represent various extremes.

That's exactly what I'm saying. And I'm trying to ascertain whether or not that benefits the Republican party or not.

I honestly have NEVER believed that the Republican party gave 2 donkey turds about the religous part of their party. Just by happenstance that they have this large group of voters that they can latch onto. Which is why they go into small rural towns and promote certain things and use certain vocabulary to bring that piece of the party onboard.
Again -- my opinion.

[sideoutshu]

That's exactly what I'm saying. And I'm trying to ascertain whether or not that benefits the Republican party or not.

I honestly have NEVER believed that the Republican party gave 2 donkey turds about the religous part of their party. Just by happenstance that they have this large group of voters that they can latch onto. Which is why they go into small rural towns and promote certain things and use certain vocabulary to bring that piece of the party onboard.
Again -- my opinion.

It comes from the fact that people who are religious have a value set and work ethic that gels with republicans. Those rural towns are filled with people who are BUSTING THEIR AZZES every day just to get by and hence have a disdain for the democratic sense of entitlement.

[sanantonio]

It comes from the fact that people who are religious have a value set and work ethic that gels with republicans. Those rural towns are filled with people who are BUSTING THEIR AZZES every day just to get by and hence have a disdain for the democratic sense of entitlement.

WTF does that have to do with anything? I mean when have you.............oh wait.....I thought I was in the Faux thread.....never mind.:p

[Gtrght77]

This is starting to look like a brilliant political move on Obamas part, he threw a little bait in the water and the Fox sharks couldn't resist.

[rank is dumb]

I personaly felt Obama was always telling lies and was nothing more then a great speaker.. You can see it in his facial expressions when he speaks. He even knows he is full of ****..


On the Fox news.. Well FCK FOX news.. I will never again in my life watch Fox..

[RicoVacilon]

It comes from the fact that people who are religious have a value set and work ethic that gels with republicans. Those rural towns are filled with people who are BUSTING THEIR AZZES every day just to get by and hence have a disdain for the democratic sense of entitlement.

There are a heap load of liberal christians. You just don't see them on Fox News.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Except your posting publicly about checking private messages. How about just sending a PM and leaving it at that? Or would that be too rational?

Not sure why you care.


.

[RicoVacilon]

Not sure why you care.


.

Not sure why you can't just follow directions. Or does your moderatorship give you a liberal sense of entitlement?

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I wonder if this story is being reported on the Huffington Post...

-TS

[Nevada_Ballin]

Not sure why you can't just follow directions. Or does your moderatorship give you a liberal sense of entitlement?

Check your PMs


.

[RicoVacilon]

Check your PMs


.

Quit harassing me dude and get off your high horse. PMs are PRIVATE for a reason--so they don't bog down threads. Why's that so hard to understand?

[sideoutshu]

Update....I just saw the story being covered in "round table" format on CNN. Didn't here what was being said cause it was at the gym.

[SUPDOG]

There are a heap load of liberal christians. You just don't see them on Fox News.

There is no such thing as a liberal Christian.

[RicoVacilon]

There is no such thing as a liberal Christian.

Hmm. . . so then what are they? Since they obviously exist in the millions you must be implying that they either aren't authentically liberal or they aren't authentically Christian.

[SUPDOG]

Hmm. . . so then what are they? Since they obviously exist in the millions you must be implying that they either aren't authentically liberal or they aren't authentically Christian.

I don't know what they are, but I do know they are not Christian.

You cannot be pro-choice and Christian. You can not be pro-gay marriage and Christian, etc.

It is really that simple.

[levdgg]

The most liberal person I know is Jesus.

Socialist even.

Definitely not a Republican.

Supdog that is quite the blasphemous sig of Jesus plunging into the water.

For shame.

[fatbaby52]

This freakin' thug administration is out of control!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

*****

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.


***** = "The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool."

I'm not sure when you quoted this article, but either the website pulled a fast one, or you did. Maybe I'm just an optimistic smug elitist liberal, but I think that the sentence that you excluded (and the fact that either you or Fox earlier in the day decided that the article reads better without it) is pretty important. My reading is that the Networks all had a contract and didn't feel like giving Fox ammo to drag them into court for the next 24 months.

"[Fox] could not be excluded . . . under the rules of the pool" is a lot different than "OMG EVEN TEH LIB NETWERKS SUPPORT FOX... PWNED OBAMA" (I'm paraphrasing)

[sanantonio]

I don't know what they are, but I do know they are not Christian.

You cannot be pro-choice and Christian. You can not be pro-gay marriage and Christian, etc.

It is really that simple.

Did this happen as Jesus was dieing on the Cross or after? I was under the impression that accepting Him as Lord and Savior was enough. I guess the fine print in the Catholic version is large enough to read.

[RicoVacilon]

I don't know what they are, but I do know they are not Christian.

You cannot be pro-choice and Christian. You can not be pro-gay marriage and Christian, etc.

It is really that simple.

Is there a commandment for Christians that says they must force their views on others? Because if not, a Cgristian could easily denounce abortion or gay marriage personally while not believing that should be imposed on everyone.

Can someone be a Christian and serve in the military? Or support the military in general? Can someone be a Christian and support the death penalty?

[RicoVacilon]

Did this happen as Jesus was dieing on the Cross or after? I was under the impression that accepting Him as Lord and Savior was enough. I guess the fine print in the Catholic version is large enough to read.

That's a different and equally provocative question: What is a Christian? I must admit in neither the fine nor large print do I see an injunction to accept Jesus as your Lord and savior.

[Titans 4 LIFE]

I don't know what they are, but I do know they are not Christian.

You cannot be pro-choice and Christian. You can not be pro-gay marriage and Christian, etc
You cannot judge others and be christian, you cannot decide what other people are and are not and be christian, you cannot spread false information about christianity and be christian, etc :rolleyes:

I believe jesus preached that it is a bad thing to be a hypocrite, but you wouldnt care, you're a christian!!

[SUPDOG]

The most liberal person I know is Jesus.

Socialist even.

Definitely not a Republican.

Supdog that is quite the blasphemous sig of Jesus plunging into the water.

For shame.

The most liberal person "you know" huh?

Oh, I can't wait to hear this one.......

[RicoVacilon]

The most liberal person "you know" huh?

Oh, I can't wait to hear this one.......

So there is no personal God in Christianity?

[SUPDOG]

Did this happen as Jesus was dieing on the Cross or after? I was under the impression that accepting Him as Lord and Savior was enough. I guess the fine print in the Catholic version is large enough to read.

Accepting Christ means that you must live in accordance to the teachings of His church.

You can't declare, "I'm saved" and then go out and murder your grandma because she looked at you funny and still be "saved".

That is the whole, "I will live as I wish and STILL go to Heaven" garbage, but it is NOT Christianity.

I like the attack the Catholic faith thing though. You know, I mean why would the Church established by Christ Himself be important in distinguishing what is, or is not grave sin?

"Upon this Rock (i.e. St. Peter), I will build my church." Does this ring a bell?

lOL!

[SUPDOG]

You cannot judge others and be christian, you cannot decide what other people are and are not and be christian, you cannot spread false information about christianity and be christian, etc :rolleyes:

I believe jesus preached that it is a bad thing to be a hypocrite, but you wouldnt care, you're a christian!!

All of my information regarding the teachings of Christ come straight from the Catholic CC.

You sound like "not a Disciple".

[SUPDOG]

So there is no personal God in Christianity?

Absolutely there is indeed! :)

[RicoVacilon]

I like the attack the Catholic faith thing though.

Yea I don't like that either.

You know, I mean why would the Church established by Christ Himself be important in distinguishing what is, or is not grave sin?

Yea, I also don't like the "the RCC is the only TRUE church garbage. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is so colonial.

[RicoVacilon]

Is there a commandment for Christians that says they must force their views on others? Because if not, a Cgristian could easily denounce abortion or gay marriage personally while not believing that should be imposed on everyone.

Can someone be a Christian and serve in the military? Or support the military in general? Can someone be a Christian and support the death penalty?

I notice you avoided these questions, Sup.

[SUPDOG]

I notice you avoide these questions, Sup.

Sorry, I didn't notice them. (Judger! ;))

The "force your views" Commandment? Never heard of it.

What do you mean "force your views?" That one always cracks me up ya know? What do I do, slam there head against a wall and say, "don't be gay, don't be gay!" :eek:

We are called to preach the FULNESS of Christ's truth! NO MATTER WHAT! If I am not mistaken 11 out of the 12 disciples were martrys. One would bet that at least one or two called livining a homosexual lifestyle "sin". I mean they had to have been killed for somethin'!

Support military? Yes. Serve? Yes. Support death penalty? Yes, but there are strict guidelines, (i.e if the killer is a danger to society, etc.). I would have to look up the death penalty one though, because it is pretty deep. Not going to happen today, but you can google the CCC. Just make sure it is legit.

[RicoVacilon]

The "force your views" Commandment? Never heard of it.

So then why can't a Christian be against abortion and gay marriage, but not want to force legislation that would make everyone comply with their own morality?

Support military? Yes. Serve? Yes. Support death penalty? Yes, but there are strict guidelines, (i.e if the killer is a danger to society, etc.). I would have to look up the death penalty one though, because it is pretty deep. Not going to happen today, but you can google the CCC. Just make sure it is legit.

I'm not sure the need to consult the CCC when the Bible is the word of God. Why would you send someone to a Catholic publication to find out what Jesus says about a subject? Is Jesus's word not enough?

Jesus said "resist not the evil doer," "if someone strikes your cheek offer the other," "if someone steals your coat offer your cloak," and "if you live by the sword you die by the sword." So then how can a Christian reconcile their Christianity with military service, support of military action resulting in death, and the death penalty as a punishment for crime?

If what you say is true, that a liberal can't be a Christian, it seems equally difficult for someone holding traditional conservative views to be a Christian as well. So maybe the lesson here is simply "it sure is tough to be a Christian."

[YoungVito]

All of my information regarding the teachings of Christ come straight from the Catholic CC.

You sound like "not a Disciple".

Then you would know that the Catholic Church as an organization was fiscally liberal...downright socialist. Its no secret that when it comes to politics, the Church and the Pope have been socially conservative and fiscially liberal. This was the driving force behind Martin Luther and his Ninety-Five Theses, and the basic premise of the Church was that in order to get to the kingdom of Heaven, one must go through the Church as opposed to the Protestant domonination which believe in a personal relationship with Christ is the way to salvation.

Oh yes my friend...the Catholic Church as an institution was and in a lot of ways STILL IS very socialist. Not saying that either way is good or bad, just a statement of fact.

Believe it buddy.

[YoungVito]

Not for nothin, but how did we go from "Obama tries to deny Freedom of the Press" (you know...the name of this thread) to this? Kinda gettin off track are we. Stay focused on the issue at hand people.

[RicoVacilon]

Stay focused on the issue at hand people.

Since when was there ever a tradition of threads staying on topic? In a multiple page thread there are naturally going to be tangents. It's a good thing.

[resnor]

You cannot judge others and be christian, you cannot decide what other people are and are not and be christian, you cannot spread false information about christianity and be christian, etc :rolleyes:

I believe jesus preached that it is a bad thing to be a hypocrite, but you wouldnt care, you're a christian!!

False. The Bible tells Christians to "judge all things". We are to judge whether something, or someone, is right or wrong. We are not to judge whehter or not someone is going to heaven or hell...only God knows that.

[resnor]

All of my information regarding the teachings of Christ come straight from the Catholic CC.

You sound like "not a Disciple".

And that is your problem, Sup. You should take your information from the Bible, not a manmade religion.

God buikt his church on Jesus, not Peter. The "rock" is Jesus, not Peter.

[resnor]

Then you would know that the Catholic Church as an organization was fiscally liberal...downright socialist. Its no secret that when it comes to politics, the Church and the Pope have been socially conservative and fiscially liberal. This was the driving force behind Martin Luther and his Ninety-Five Theses, and the basic premise of the Church was that in order to get to the kingdom of Heaven, one must go through the Church as opposed to the Protestant domonination which believe in a personal relationship with Christ is the way to salvation.

Oh yes my friend...the Catholic Church as an institution was and in a lot of ways STILL IS very socialist. Not saying that either way is good or bad, just a statement of fact.

Believe it buddy.

Spoken for truth. It's how the RCC maintained its stranglehold for centuries. Follow the Church, or go to hell, no matter what the Bible says. Wh do you think they only had the Bible in Latin for centuries? The common people couldn't read Latin, so they had to go by what the Church said. They couldn't have a prsonal relationship with God.

[YoungVito]

False. The Bible tells Christians to "judge all things". We are to judge whether something, or someone, is right or wrong. We are not to judge whehter or not someone is going to heaven or hell...only God knows that.

So then "judge not, lest ye be judged" would be a contradiction?

[RicoVacilon]

False. The Bible tells Christians to "judge all things". We are to judge whether something, or someone, is right or wrong. We are not to judge whehter or not someone is going to heaven or hell...only God knows that.

Check out Matthew 7. Very famous set of verses. I'm interested to read where you say it says to judge all things.

[YoungVito]

Since when was there ever a tradition of threads staying on topic? In a multiple page thread there are naturally going to be tangents. It's a good thing.

That being said, I would not want this convo to disintegrate into "I'm a better Christian that you are".

That would be kinda lame...not to mention moot.

[RicoVacilon]

That being said, I would not want this convo to disintegrate into "I'm a better Christian that you are".

That would be kinda lame...not to mention moot.

I think we all agree Sup is the best Christian. We're just trying to find out why. ;)

[SUPDOG]

So then why can't a Christian be against abortion and gay marriage, but not want to force legislation that would make everyone comply with their own morality?



I'm not sure the need to consult the CCC when the Bible is the word of God. Why would you send someone to a Catholic publication to find out what Jesus says about a subject? Is Jesus's word not enough?

Jesus said "resist not the evil doer," "if someone strikes your cheek offer the other," "if someone steals your coat offer your cloak," and "if you live by the sword you die by the sword." So then how can a Christian reconcile their Christianity with military service, support of military action resulting in death, and the death penalty as a punishment for crime?

If what you say is true, that a liberal can't be a Christian, it seems equally difficult for someone holding traditional conservative views to be a Christian as well. So maybe the lesson here is simply "it sure is tough to be a Christian."

We vote and fight for God's truth. If you want to call that "forcing" I don't care. "Let's split hairs until I can make myself believe I am right" argument! Great!

I think thtat someone "slapping your face", is much different than someone who is about ready to stab you in the temple with a knife. Quit being silly.

If you think that defending the innocent from evil killers is something that Christ would want you to sit back and idly watch you are being silly. Would Christ want you to watch your family get slaughtered by an intruder? Would you sit on the couch, pop some popcorn and say, "I am going to turn the other cheek"? Tell me, is this what Christ meant? Honest answer only.

[SUPDOG]

I think we all agree Sup is the best Christian. We're just trying to find out why. ;)

So much for your "sincere" questioning then?

Funny, when someone answers your questions with truths that you can't dispute it is all the sudden "let's get personal" time in order to distract/deflect.
Hmmm, sounds like something Satan would do, no?

When all else fails I guess................................

[SUPDOG]

Spoken for truth. It's how the RCC maintained its stranglehold for centuries. Follow the Church, or go to hell, no matter what the Bible says. Wh do you think they only had the Bible in Latin for centuries? The common people couldn't read Latin, so they had to go by what the Church said. They couldn't have a prsonal relationship with God.

Its a shame that you can't respect the truths/beauty of the Catholic Church like the Catholic Church respects other denominations. Your continual cheap shots of Protestant jibberish are bordering on hate resnor. Really they are.

When/if you (or I) get to Heaven, you will be Catholic! Better get used to it.

[RicoVacilon]

We vote and fight for God's truth. If you want to call that "forcing" I don't care.

But you just said forcing your opinion on someone else wasn't Biblical. So I'm confused.

I think thtat someone "slapping your face", is much different than someone who is about ready to stab you in the temple with a knife. Quit being silly.

Calling what Jesus said "silly" is a bit of an insult to Jesus wouldn't you think? Why do you think Jesus meant for "turn the other cheek" to not refer to self-defense? When his disciples came to his aid in Gethsemane he chastised them for using force and cutting off the centurion's ear. He even performed the miracle of reattaching the man's ear and saying "if you live by the sword you die by the sword." Jesus in no way attempted to use force to prevent his own death. So what is your theological basis for saying that "turn the other cheek" does NOT apply to self-defense?

If you think that defending the innocent from evil killers is something that Christ would want you to sit back and idly watch you are being silly.

I assure you that neither am I being silly nor implying that Jesus told us to "idly watch." I am saying that Jesus's words, and he states them specifically, are that we should not counter evil with force. There are plenty examples of evil being overcome without the use of force--and first among them should be Jesus himself.

Would Christ want you to watch your family get slaughtered by an intruder? Would you sit on the couch, pop some popcorn and say, "I am going to turn the other cheek"? Tell me, is this what Christ meant? Honest answer only.

Yes, it is what Jesus meant. Except for your inclusion again of the "idly" part. Jesus does not call us to inaction. On the contrary. But he specifically prohibits action by the use of force. That is uncontrovertible. There is plenty of doctrine that can be argued based on the ambiguity of the Bible. This isn't one of them.

[RicoVacilon]

So much for your "sincere" questioning then?

Funny, when someone answers your questions with truths that you can't dispute it is all the sudden "let's get personal" time in order to distract/deflect.
Hmmm, sounds like something Satan would do, no?

When all else fails I guess................................

That wasn't an attack. It was a joke. Are we unable to joke anymore? If you can't take a joke let me know, I will delete that post.

[SUPDOG]

And that is your problem, Sup. You should take your information from the Bible, not a manmade religion.

God buikt his church on Jesus, not Peter. The "rock" is Jesus, not Peter.

My problem? Wow

Anyway, FROM THE BIBLE!

Matthew 16: 13-19
13 And Jesus came into the region of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples: who do people say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus said to them: But who do you say I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed are you, Simon son of Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

[YoungVito]

Its a shame that you can't respect the truths/beauty of the Catholic Church like the Catholic Church respects other denominations. Your continual cheap shots of Protestant jibberish are bordering on hate resnor. Really they are.

When/if you (or I) get to Heaven, you will be Catholic! Better get used to it.

So you are saying that the only true religion is the Catholic religion?

[RicoVacilon]

Its a shame that you can't respect the truths/beauty of the Catholic Church like the Catholic Church respects other denominations. Your continual cheap shots of Protestant jibberish are bordering on hate resnor. Really they are.

I can't remember, does the RCC still believe that only RCC are offered salvation? This was the official doctrine possibly until recently. I can't remember if they changed it or not. I am sincere in wanting to know the answer.

[SUPDOG]

But you just said forcing your opinion on someone else wasn't Biblical. So I'm confused.



Calling what Jesus said "silly" is a bit of an insult to Jesus wouldn't you think? Why do you think Jesus meant for "turn the other cheek" to not refer to self-defense? When his disciples came to his aid in Gethsemane he chastised them for using force and cutting off the centurion's ear. He even performed the miracle of reattaching the man's ear and saying "if you live by the sword you die by the sword." Jesus in no way attempted to use force to prevent his own death. So what is your theological basis for saying that "turn the other cheek" does NOT apply to self-defense?



I assure you that neither am I being silly nor implying that Jesus told us to "idly watch." I am saying that Jesus's words, and he states them specifically, are that we should not counter evil with force. There are plenty examples of evil being overcome without the use of force--and first among them should be Jesus himself.



Yes, it is what Jesus meant. Except for your inclusion again of the "idly" part. Jesus does not call us to inaction. On the contrary. But he specifically prohibits action by the use of force. That is uncontrovertible. There is plenty of doctrine that can be argued based on the ambiguity of the Bible. This isn't one of them.

I have to leave I will answer this later.

[SUPDOG]

So you are saying that the only true religion is the Catholic religion?

The Catholic faith is not a religion, but rather a revelation of the One True God (Jesus) to mankind.

It holds the fullness of truth. NO OTHER Christian faith holds the fulness of truth.

This is why you will see Hemming/hawing inv some protestant faiths. e.g. artificial birth control, homosexual activity is "acceptable", you can vote "pro-choice", etc.

[levdgg]

We vote and fight for God's truth. If you want to call that "forcing" I don't care. "Let's split hairs until I can make myself believe I am right" argument! Great!

I think thtat someone "slapping your face", is much different than someone who is about ready to stab you in the temple with a knife. Quit being silly.

If you think that defending the innocent from evil killers is something that Christ would want you to sit back and idly watch you are being silly. Would Christ want you to watch your family get slaughtered by an intruder? Would you sit on the couch, pop some popcorn and say, "I am going to turn the other cheek"? Tell me, is this what Christ meant? Honest answer only.

So why aren't you taking some action against all these murderous abortion doctors. It's all just lip service with you, Sup. And here I thought you were a real Christian.

What Would Jesus Do to save these babies?

[YoungVito]

The Catholic faith is not a religion, but rather a revelation of the One True God (Jesus) to mankind.

It holds the fullness of truth. NO OTHER Christian faith holds the fulness of truth.

This is why you will see Hemming/hawing in protestant faiths. e.g. artificial birth control, homosexual activity is "acceptable", you can vote "pro-choice", etc.

Now, here is the interesting part about that.

When it comes to the three main Monotheism in the world (Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam) they all seem to hold the same contention as yourself.

So aside for your own personal belief, what about your religion makes it right and someone else's not? I mean, I'm pretty sure whatever your response may be, someone from another demonination will more than likely say the same.

Oh yeah...you STILL haven't addressed the fact that the Catholic Church is as fiscally socialist as it can get. I.E. The reason why member of Church were not allowed marry anymore (yeah I said it ANYMORE) was NOT because of some huge statement of purity or discipline, but rather because in the event of death, the estate of Church members was the subject a plenty debate. Sure, this may have served the "greater good" of the Church, but it was dictated by the only "government" at the time...The Vatican Church.

Now if that ain't siocialist...I don't know what is.

[levdgg]

Now, here is the interesting part about that.

When it comes to the three main Monotheism in the world (Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam) they all seem to hold the same contention as yourself.

So aside for your own personal belief, what about your religion makes it right and someone else's not? I mean, I'm pretty sure whatever your response may be, someone from another demonination will more than likely say the same.

Oh yeah...you STILL haven't addressed the fact that the Catholic Church is as fiscally socialist as it can get. I.E. The reason why member of Church were not allowed marry anymore (yeah I said it ANYMORE) was NOT because of some huge statement of purity or discipline, but rather because in the event of death, the estate of Church members was the subject a plenty debate. Sure, this may have served the "greater good" of the Church, but it was dictated by the only "government" at the time...The Vatican Church.

Now if that ain't siocialist...I don't know what is.

Good post. Good points.

[YoungVito]

Good post. Good points.

Ok Sup, now you KNOW you must be pretty far out there if me and Lev agree on something. C'mon....

Catholics DO believe that pride is a sin right...?

[sanantonio]

Accepting Christ means that you must live in accordance to the teachings of His church.

You can't declare, "I'm saved" and then go out and murder your grandma because she looked at you funny and still be "saved".

That is the whole, "I will live as I wish and STILL go to Heaven" garbage, but it is NOT Christianity.

I like the attack the Catholic faith thing though. You know, I mean why would the Church established by Christ Himself be important in distinguishing what is, or is not grave sin?

"Upon this Rock (i.e. St. Peter), I will build my church." Does this ring a bell?

lOL!

I made the Catholic remark because our beliefs are vastly different and it was made only to point that out not to offend. Looking back on it I could see where it would though, my bad.

Now the above is true what you say about being a Christian but I did not realize at least not in my church that being pro choice was a sin. As long as you beleive in Him and do not partake in the activity it's not a sin.

[RicoVacilon]

When it comes to the three main Monotheism in the world (Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam) they all seem to hold the same contention as yourself.

That's not entirely true. Jewish teaching says anyone following the Noahbite (Noahbean. . .not sure what the adjective is) laws is righteous in the eyes of the Lord and not held responsible for the mitzvot. I would say that Christianity is only nominaly monotheistic. Although an orthodox Christian would argue with that.

There are definitely other traditions that continue the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, but there DOES seem to be something Western about the idea.

[levdgg]

Ok Sup, now you KNOW you must be pretty far out there if me and Lev agree on something. C'mon....

Catholics DO believe that pride is a sin right...?

Ha. Dude, I agree with plenty of people on both sides of the fence. I just like busting your balls when you get all heated after a topic has strayed from its origins.

[resnor]

So then "judge not, lest ye be judged" would be a contradiction?

Different. The Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus. Jesus came to do away with the Law under which the Pharisees were trying to kill the woman. Her sin was adultery, but they weren't going after the man. Jesus' point was that we are all sinners, so to kill one person for their sin would require every person for their sins.

Rico:

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

So, yes, we are to judge, but God is the only one who can be the true judge...that is, judge whether or not we go to heaven or hell.

[resnor]

That's a different and equally provocative question: What is a Christian? I must admit in neither the fine nor large print do I see an injunction to accept Jesus as your Lord and savior.

The Bible says, referring to Christ:

Acts 4:12 - King James Version - BibleGateway.com
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

There are many other passages, but the Bible is very clear that it is through belief in Christ's death as the atonement for your sins that we are saved.

[resnor]

Check out Matthew 7. Very famous set of verses. I'm interested to read where you say it says to judge all things.

Matthew 7 doesn't stop after it says "Judge not that ye be not judged.". It goes on and says that if we judge, we should first judge ourselves. We shouldn't be judging someone for lying when we're involved in an extramarital sexual relationship, for example. Tha is also why the Pharisees were wrong for trying to put the woman to death. They were involved in their own sins, but wanted to put the woman to death for her sins.

[fatbaby52]

Matthew 7 doesn't stop after it says "Judge not that ye be not judged.". It goes on and says that if we judge, we should first judge ourselves. We shouldn't be judging someone for lying when we're involved in an extramarital sexual relationship, for example. Tha is also why the Pharisees were wrong for trying to put the woman to death. They were involved in their own sins, but wanted to put the woman to death for her sins.

That makes sense. So someone who is divorced, had sex before marriage, or has masturbated should hold off on judging a homosexual?

[YoungVito]

That's not entirely true. Jewish teaching says anyone following the Noahbite (Noahbean. . .not sure what the adjective is) laws is righteous in the eyes of the Lord and not held responsible for the mitzvot. I would say that Christianity is only nominaly monotheistic. Although an orthodox Christian would argue with that.

There are definitely other traditions that continue the "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, but there DOES seem to be something Western about the idea.

So what about Islam? The Crusades were fought between two monotheisms, (Christianity and Islam) over land which would eventually be given to the third (Judiasm, which is ironic). Granted, the Jews have not RECENTLY been the perpetrators of spreading their gospel through violence, but we all know this was not the case. GIDEON WAS BRUTAL...TO SAY THE LEAST in the Old Testament.

I'm just trying to make the point that none of us are really in a position to make those judgments on someone else's faith of beliefs. And when you really get down to it, none of our opinions of judgements really matter in the end anyway. So with that being said, how can we...as man indict someone's soul?

Sounds like delusions of granduer if you ask me.

[YoungVito]

That makes sense. So someone who is divorced, had sex before marriage, or has masturbated should hold off on judging a homosexual?

LMFAO!!!

I'm sorry people, but that was funny. :-D

[resnor]

That makes sense. So someone who is divorced, had sex before marriage, or has masturbated should hold off on judging a homosexual?

No. If you are currently involved in an ongoing sin you should refrain from judging. Everyone sins...that doesn't exclude you from being able to judge. However, if there is a sin in you life that uou refuse to repent of, then you have no business judging others. If having ever sin prevented you from judging things, we would never make decisions on what was right and wrong. Also, if you are judging someone else i order to make yourself seem more spiritual, i. e., what the Pharisees were doing, then you are in sin yourself. The point of judging sin is so that the person will realize their sin, and get right with God. A Christian should not allow sin to go on withoit pointing out the sin.

[resnor]

So what about Islam? The Crusades were fought between two monotheisms, (Christianity and Islam) over land which would eventually be given to the third (Judiasm, which is ironic). Granted, the Jews have not RECENTLY been the perpetrators of spreading their gospel through violence, but we all know this was not the case. GIDEON WAS BRUTAL...TO SAY THE LEAST in the Old Testament.

I'm just trying to make the point that none of us are really in a position to make those judgments on someone else's faith of beliefs. And when you really get down to it, none of our opinions of judgements really matter in the end anyway. So with that being said, how can we...as man indict someone's soul?

Sounds like delusions of granduer if you ask me.

I don't believe that I personally can make those decisions. I believe that God can, and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, based on what the Bible says, I can say that people who don't follow the Bible are wrong.

[fatbaby52]

No. If you are currently involved in an ongoing sin you should refrain from judging. Everyone sins...that doesn't exclude you from being able to judge. However, if there is a sin in you life that uou refuse to repent of, then you have no business judging others. If having ever sin prevented you from judging things, we would never make decisions on what was right and wrong. Also, if you are judging someone else i order to make yourself seem more spiritual, i. e., what the Pharisees were doing, then you are in sin yourself. The point of judging sin is so that the person will realize their sin, and get right with God. A Christian should not allow sin to go on withoit pointing out the sin.

It seems like "currently involved in an ongoing sin" is a pretty vague concept. Please excuse my ignorance of what actually is a sin, but let me ask a hypothetical.

A person who has impure thoughts every time he checks into the gym and certain cute girl is running the front desk- is he currently involved in an ongoing sin? Or periodically involved in an ongoing sin? Does he have to quickly repent before he can tell a homosexual that he is a sinner, or is it a "de minimus" sin of some type, so he doesn't really need to repent?

Also, as for the homosexuals- are they sinning only when they're thinking about or committing sodomy? Does it become a guessing game if your coworker is gay- do you say "STOP SINNING" if it seems like he's daydreaming, and can he defend by saying that he saw you checking out another coworker and licking your lips?

I don't know.. the whole thing seems pretty complicated to me.

[YoungVito]

I don't believe that I personally can make those decisions. I believe that God can, and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, based on what the Bible says, I can say that people who don't follow the Bible are wrong.

Which brings us to the all important question...which version?

[YoungVito]

It seems like "currently involved in an ongoing sin" is a pretty vague concept. Please excuse my ignorance of what actually is a sin, but let me ask a hypothetical.

A person who has impure thoughts every time he checks into the gym and certain cute girl is running the front desk- is he currently involved in an ongoing sin? Or periodically involved in an ongoing sin? Does he have to quickly repent before he can tell a homosexual that he is a sinner, or is it a "de minimus" sin of some type, so he doesn't really need to repent?

Also, as for the homosexuals- are they sinning only when they're thinking about or committing sodomy? Does it become a guessing game if your coworker is gay- do you say "STOP SINNING" if it seems like he's daydreaming, and can he defend by saying that he saw you checking out another coworker and licking your lips?

I don't know.. the whole thing seems pretty complicated to me.


Ok, I know you're trying to be serious and all but GOODNESS GRACIOUS this is some funny s***. Knock it off...you're "tearing my mouth out" with all this laughter.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha haah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

[resnor]

It seems like "currently involved in an ongoing sin" is a pretty vague concept. Please excuse my ignorance of what actually is a sin, but let me ask a hypothetical.

A person who has impure thoughts every time he checks into the gym and certain cute girl is running the front desk- is he currently involved in an ongoing sin? Or periodically involved in an ongoing sin? Does he have to quickly repent before he can tell a homosexual that he is a sinner, or is it a "de minimus" sin of some type, so he doesn't really need to repent?

Also, as for the homosexuals- are they sinning only when they're thinking about or committing sodomy? Does it become a guessing game if your coworker is gay- do you say "STOP SINNING" if it seems like he's daydreaming, and can he defend by saying that he saw you checking out another coworker and licking your lips?

I don't know.. the whole thing seems pretty complicated to me.

Every sin needs to be repented of. If you see an attractive girl, a wrong thought could pop into your head. That's not a sin. If you dwell on that thought, now it's a sin. If you know that there is a girl at the gym that you go to that causes impure thoughts to pop into your head, and is causing you to sin, then you shouldn't go to the gym when she's there.

An ongoing sin is simply something that you know is wrong, but you continue to do it anyway. For instance, looking at porn is wrong. You know it, but continue, day after day, to look at it. You are not right with God, and have no business concerning yourself with the sin of someone else, as yiu have your own sin to deal with. You should repent of your sin, and then address the sin that you are aware of. Although, frankly, if your coworker is gay, but not a Christian, I wouldn't be telling them that being gay is a sin. I would be telling them about Christ dying for their sins so that they could go to heaven. Something to consider: all sin is sin in the eyes of God. That is, lying is no different than murder in the eyes of God, as both bring the same result: eternity in hell if you don't ask forgiveness for your sins and put yiur faith in the death of Christ as your payment to allow you to go to heaven.

[resnor]

Which brings us to the all important question...which version?

Do you really want to get into that?

[YoungVito]

Do you really want to get into that?

Sure, wouldn't have said it if I didn't.

[resnor]

Sure, wouldn't have said it if I didn't.

Well, kick it off. I'll get into it with you.

[YoungVito]

Well, kick it off. I'll get into it with you.

I already asked you.

Look, my point is this...throughout history, many lives have been taken at the hands of those claiming to be doing "God's work". What it really comes down to is the interpretation of the Word. I just have a hard time with the fact that all of these books are man-made. Since man is undoubetly an inperfect being, that would make his works inperfect as well.

So basically what I want to know is, with all the "versions" of the Bible out there how can anyone TRULY know which one is the closest to the truth? Chances are most of us use the same version and follow the same denomination as our parents/guardians being the social creatures that we all are.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. What makes one more "truthful" than the other? Who's "Word" is more true? And so on and so forth?

These are legit questions.

[YoungVito]

Think of it like this...right now someone of the Islamic faith is having the SAME conversation with someone else of Islamic faith, using the SAME media outlet as we are. They are having this conversation within the context of "allah said this" and "allah said that". There is more than likely no way you could be able to convince them of a fallacy in their beliefs any more than someone could convince yourself.

So who's right...in the human form?

[RicoVacilon]

There are many other passages, but the Bible is very clear that it is through belief in Christ's death as the atonement for your sins that we are saved.

That's funny. . . Jesus never said that. :P

[Gtrght77]

That's funny. . . Jesus never said that. :P

Not in the Bible at least.

[RicoVacilon]

Different. The Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus. Jesus came to do away with the Law under which the Pharisees were trying to kill the woman. Her sin was adultery, but they weren't going after the man. Jesus' point was that we are all sinners, so to kill one person for their sin would require every person for their sins.

Dude, you're completely out of context on the verse "Judge not lest ye be judged." It's from the sermon on the mount. He's not speaking to the Pharisees. He's speaking to the masses. It has nothing to do with the "Jesus is the fulfillment of the law" doctrine.

Rico:

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

This is referring to judging different teachings. Much the same as Jesus instructed in the parable of the tree bearing fruit. It isn't saying we need to judge everyone we meet. Jesus strictly forbids that. Read the whole chapter. When someone posts a bible verse I always go back to the beginning of the chapter to get the context.

[RicoVacilon]

Matthew 7 doesn't stop after it says "Judge not that ye be not judged.". It goes on and says that if we judge, we should first judge ourselves. We shouldn't be judging someone for lying when we're involved in an extramarital sexual relationship, for example. Tha is also why the Pharisees were wrong for trying to put the woman to death. They were involved in their own sins, but wanted to put the woman to death for her sins.

You are reading what you what into it. It most certainly is not giving an injunction to the judge people. And as I mentioned before it has nothing to do with the Pharisees. I believe there is another pericope with the speck of dust plank of wood phrase where he IS speaking to the Pharisees. That may be why you are confused. But rest assured Matt 7 is part of the sermon on the mount. And rest assured that the Bible is very clear on not judging other people. Only God judges. Not sure where your confusion stems from though.

[RicoVacilon]

So what about Islam? The Crusades were fought between two monotheisms, (Christianity and Islam) over land which would eventually be given to the third (Judiasm, which is ironic). Granted, the Jews have not RECENTLY been the perpetrators of spreading their gospel through violence, but we all know this was not the case. GIDEON WAS BRUTAL...TO SAY THE LEAST in the Old Testament.

I'm just trying to make the point that none of us are really in a position to make those judgments on someone else's faith of beliefs. And when you really get down to it, none of our opinions of judgements really matter in the end anyway. So with that being said, how can we...as man indict someone's soul?

Sounds like delusions of granduer if you ask me.

I will admit I'm not completely understanding your question or point as it related to what you quoted from me. . . could you elaborate?

[RicoVacilon]

No. If you are currently involved in an ongoing sin you should refrain from judging. Everyone sins...that doesn't exclude you from being able to judge. However, if there is a sin in you life that uou refuse to repent of, then you have no business judging others. If having ever sin prevented you from judging things, we would never make decisions on what was right and wrong. Also, if you are judging someone else i order to make yourself seem more spiritual, i. e., what the Pharisees were doing, then you are in sin yourself. The point of judging sin is so that the person will realize their sin, and get right with God. A Christian should not allow sin to go on withoit pointing out the sin.

You are conflating judgement of actions with judgement of people. Please stop.

[RicoVacilon]

It seems like "currently involved in an ongoing sin" is a pretty vague concept. Please excuse my ignorance of what actually is a sin, but let me ask a hypothetical.

A person who has impure thoughts every time he checks into the gym and certain cute girl is running the front desk- is he currently involved in an ongoing sin? Or periodically involved in an ongoing sin? Does he have to quickly repent before he can tell a homosexual that he is a sinner, or is it a "de minimus" sin of some type, so he doesn't really need to repent?

Also, as for the homosexuals- are they sinning only when they're thinking about or committing sodomy? Does it become a guessing game if your coworker is gay- do you say "STOP SINNING" if it seems like he's daydreaming, and can he defend by saying that he saw you checking out another coworker and licking your lips?

I don't know.. the whole thing seems pretty complicated to me.

Because of recent ELCA actions, I've spent some time thinking about this. If homosexuality is a sin, the person is living in sin the entire time they are regularly engaged in an activity which is a sin. If that were not the case, a Pastor of a church could keep his position even while having a regular, ongoing affair because he is only sinning for the 2 minutes he's doin it.

I, however, do not believe homosexuality is a sin. I realize Leviticus says it's an abomination in God's eyes. But Leviticus also says eating a cheeseburger is a sin. My opinion, however, does not matter. Only God's does. And the verse everyone likes to quote about Leviticus ends with "the homosexual should be put to death with his blood on his own hands." Now hopefully even those who believe homosexuality is a sin don't believe they should be executed. Which makes the law in its entirety ambiguous. But that's not my point. My point is the "blood is on his own hands" part. If a homosexual is sinning, it's none of our business. He alone is responsible for it. That is why he alone has his blood on his hands. In other words, this sin is not one that the community needs to offer a sacrifice for. None of our business.

[RicoVacilon]

Every sin needs to be repented of.

What does repent mean? Where does the word come from? "Repent for the Kingdom of God is near!" what does "repent" mean in that sentence?

If you see an attractive girl, a wrong thought could pop into your head. That's not a sin.

So then you disagree with Jesus who says that a man who looks at a woman with lust in their eyes commits adultery?

If you dwell on that thought, now it's a sin. If you know that there is a girl at the gym that you go to that causes impure thoughts to pop into your head, and is causing you to sin, then you shouldn't go to the gym when she's there.

I agree. "Lead me not into temptation" requires a certain amount of personal responsibilty to not put yourself in a tempting situation. A pastor I know once preached "Don't ask God to help you quit drinking. Ask him to help you not drive by the bar."

[SUPDOG]

You are conflating judgement of actions with judgement of people. Please stop.

You are, repeatedly attempting to confuse the topic of discussion so you can live as you wish. Please stop.

[SUPDOG]

So why aren't you taking some action against all these murderous abortion doctors. It's all just lip service with you, Sup. And here I thought you were a real Christian.

What Would Jesus Do to save these babies?

What sort of action do you recommend? Maybe lots of hugs?

Jesus would point out to the murderers that they must repent.

He would also likely point out that those who think that mocking His faith through "highschoolesque" childish banter won't be Mr. Laughybottom on the Last Day.

Truth.

[SUPDOG]

This is starting to look like a brilliant political move on Obamas part, .

Actually it just looks like a stupid post by you! LOL! Just kiddin' Gt.

Oh wait, you won't read this anyway! Never mind the kidding part! :p :eek:

[SUPDOG]

But you just said forcing your opinion on someone else wasn't Biblical. So I'm confused.

Actually, it is you stretching the truth, attempting to confuse, so you can live as you wish AGAIN!
But, since we are at it. I don't understand why you would be disingenuous with your question Rico. Us Jesus freaks are forcing "what" when it comes to gay marriage/abortion? We are "forcing" nothing. Our constitution WAS based on Christian ideals, dont you agree? Your world forced their beliefs on my faith. Abortion? When did that become legal again? Your people forced abortion upon my faith. We are simply trying to get it right again.

Your people are trying to force their same sex perversion on my Sacred gift of marriage by making it federal law.

I know that "forcing" is apparentely a big issue with you, so I think you should go tell them all to stop now. That would be great! Thanks! :)

Calling what Jesus said "silly" is a bit of an insult to Jesus wouldn't you think? Why do you think Jesus meant for "turn the other cheek" to not refer to self-defense? When his disciples came to his aid in Gethsemane he chastised them for using force and cutting off the centurion's ear. He even performed the miracle of reattaching the man's ear and saying "if you live by the sword you die by the sword." Jesus in no way attempted to use force to prevent his own death. So what is your theological basis for saying that "turn the other cheek" does NOT apply to self-defense?

I am not following the "why do you think Jesus meant for" part of your question. I don't have time to try to figure it out. Rephrase it and I will answer.


I assure you that neither am I being silly nor implying that Jesus told us to "idly watch." I am saying that Jesus's words, and he states them specifically, are that we should not counter evil with force. There are plenty examples of evil being overcome without the use of force--and first among them should be Jesus himself.

Yes, but somtimes force is necessary. This is what Christ teaches through His Catholic Church. In the Old Testament God Himself brought destruction upon evil men, and His spirit led the forces of good to conquer evil. Sure, God wants us to seek peaceful solutions. However, when the evildoers kill innocents, He isn't looking for cowards. Ask St. Joan of Arc

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm



Yes, it is what Jesus meant. Except for your inclusion again of the "idly" part. Jesus does not call us to inaction. On the contrary. But he specifically prohibits action by the use of force. That is uncontrovertible. There is plenty of doctrine that can be argued based on the ambiguity of the Bible. This isn't one of them.


Of course it can be argued becaus it is nothing more than gibberish from you.

........................................

[SUPDOG]

The most liberal person I know is Jesus.

Socialist even.

Definitely not a Republican.

Supdog that is quite the blasphemous sig of Jesus plunging into the water.

For shame.

Translation:

I have no clue what I am talking about, but my progressive liberal teacher once told me he thought Jesus was a socialist, so I will repeat that here!

But for funs.......what socialist does Jesus remind you of most Levy? Please enlighten me! LOL! Tax cheat! :)

[SUPDOG]

Now, here is the interesting part about that.

When it comes to the three main Monotheism in the world (Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam) they all seem to hold the same contention as yourself.

So aside for your own personal belief, what about your religion makes it right and someone else's not? I mean, I'm pretty sure whatever your response may be, someone from another demonination will more than likely say the same.

Oh yeah...you STILL haven't addressed the fact that the Catholic Church is as fiscally socialist as it can get. I.E. The reason why member of Church were not allowed marry anymore (yeah I said it ANYMORE) was NOT because of some huge statement of purity or discipline, but rather because in the event of death, the estate of Church members was the subject a plenty debate. Sure, this may have served the "greater good" of the Church, but it was dictated by the only "government" at the time...The Vatican Church.

Now if that ain't siocialist...I don't know what is.

Vito. Why do you spazz out all the time?

[SUPDOG]

Now, here is the interesting part about that.

When it comes to the three main Monotheism in the world (Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam) they all seem to hold the same contention as yourself.

So aside for your own personal belief, what about your religion makes it right and someone else's not? I mean, I'm pretty sure whatever your response may be, someone from another demonination will more than likely say the same.

Oh yeah...you STILL haven't addressed the fact that the Catholic Church is as fiscally socialist as it can get. I.E. The reason why member of Church were not allowed marry anymore (yeah I said it ANYMORE) was NOT because of some huge statement of purity or discipline, but rather because in the event of death, the estate of Church members was the subject a plenty debate. Sure, this may have served the "greater good" of the Church, but it was dictated by the only "government" at the time...The Vatican Church.

Now if that ain't siocialist...I don't know what is.

There is no doubt that this is most stupid explanation for celibacy that I have ever heard!

Good Job!

And how is the Church socialist again? Explain w/ examples.

NO SPAZZING! :eek:

[resnor]

You are reading what you what into it. It most certainly is not giving an injunction to the judge people. And as I mentioned before it has nothing to do with the Pharisees. I believe there is another pericope with the speck of dust plank of wood phrase where he IS speaking to the Pharisees. That may be why you are confused. But rest assured Matt 7 is part of the sermon on the mount. And rest assured that the Bible is very clear on not judging other people. Only God judges. Not sure where your confusion stems from though.

I am not reading anything into it. Read the passage. It talks about not telling someone that they have a mote in their eye, when you have a beam in your eye. Christians are to judge sin. If someone is a homosexual, then they are in sin, correct? So, it's not judging the person if you tell them that homosexuality is a sin. Also, I've said NUMEROUS times in this thread that it's God that judges people.

This is referring to judging different teachings. Much the same as Jesus instructed in the parable of the tree bearing fruit. It isn't saying we need to judge everyone we meet. Jesus strictly forbids that. Read the whole chapter. When someone posts a bible verse I always go back to the beginning of the chapter to get the context.

No, you're wrong. It's not talking about "teachings." It's talking about spirtual things vs worldly, i.e. sinful, things.

What does repent mean? Where does the word come from? "Repent for the Kingdom of God is near!" what does "repent" mean in that sentence?

Repent means to turn away from, to reject. In that sentence, Repent means to turn from their sin.

So then you disagree with Jesus who says that a man who looks at a woman with lust in their eyes commits adultery?

No, not at all. Jesus specified that if you look at a woman WITH LUST then it is just the same as committing adultery with her. Did I say that you were looking at her with lust in your eyes? No. Lust comes when you dwell on what you saw. Lust means "intense or unbridled sexual desire lasciviousness; an intense longing." Perhaps I worded it wrong, when I said before.

That's funny. . . Jesus never said that. :P

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." That was Jesus, was it not?

Vito...I beleive that the best version of the Bible is the King James Version. That belief stems from the different texts that were used for the different versions of the Bible. The KJV comes from the Received Texts. Most other versions come from what are called the Critical Texts. However, that being said, all versions of the Bible basically say the same thing. I do think that the versions that come from the Critical Texts do water down important doctrines, like Jesus being God, and some other things.

[fatbaby52]

I have a question that I promise isn't being asked facetiously:

What happens to a person who is born into a family that practices the wrong religion, if that person lives his life trying to be as good as possible, follows all of the rules laid out for him, but dies without praying or acknowledging the correct God?

For example, (I apologize for my ignorance if any of this is incorrect) what if a Jew lives his life absolutely correctly according to his religion- he does all of the treating other people correctly stuff, he eats only kosher meals, never eats cheese and meat at the same time, etc. But, he doesn't believe that Jesus was/is the son of God. Does he not get into heaven?

Further, what if someone is born into a community where there is no way to learn about God, and dies before he has a chance to learn?

I'm sorry, I just find it hard to believe that God, being all-knowing, all-powerful, would set up life for humans not only as a test (which I find believable enough), but he would only accept into heaven those of us who happened to choose correctly. How many of you Catholics were born into a family that wasn't Catholic, and switched?

[RicoVacilon]

You are, repeatedly attempting to confuse the topic of discussion so you can live as you wish. Please stop.

Au contraire, mon frere. I am showing where there IS confusion as to get rid of the confusion and assess the situation as it is. Whether we disagree at the end is not important to me. Untying this tangled knot of presuppositions is.

[RicoVacilon]

........................................

Your abilities with the quote functiond some work. ;) Nothing a little cut and paste won't fix.

Actually, it is you stretching the truth, attempting to confuse, so you can live as you wish AGAIN!
But, since we are at it. I don't understand why you would be disingenuous with your question Rico. Us Jesus freaks are forcing "what" when it comes to gay marriage/abortion? We are "forcing" nothing. Our constitution WAS based on Christian ideals, dont you agree? Your world forced their beliefs on my faith. Abortion? When did that become legal again? Your people forced abortion upon my faith. We are simply trying to get it right again.

There's lots of deflection in this quote. I'll try to get through it. I'm not sure what truth I'm stretching--you said you didn't think it was a Christian commandment to force your views on others. Then you said it's ok to outlaw abortion and gay-marriage. Don't you see the difference between you personally not being involved in either of the two and for you to support the legal prohibition of the two for EVERYONE regardless of their beliefs? I think you either do not want to or can't answer the actual question so you deflect to all these other areas--including calling it "your people." That also confuses me, since I've never even hinted at what I actually believe on either topic. I've merely tried to show that using a theological basis for your views may not be as concrete as you think.

I am not following the "why do you think Jesus meant for" part of your question. I don't have time to try to figure it out. Rephrase it and I will answer.

OK, let's back up. I said "Do you believe you can be Christian and in the military and believe in fighting wars?" to which you replied "Yes." I pointed out that Jesus said "turn the other cheek" and "if you live by the sword you die by the sword." You said you didn't think Jesus meant to not protect yourself by that. So my question of "Why do you think Jesus meant for "turn the other cheek" to not refer to self-defense?" should seem pretty easy to follow--why does Jesus command to "turn the other cheek" not apply to self defense? If I might add a corrolary--if "turn the other cheek" does NOT apply to self-defense, then under what circumstances did Jesus mean for us to turn the other cheek?

Yes, but somtimes force is necessary. This is what Christ teaches through His Catholic Church.

Could you please point me to where in the Bible Jesus calls for the use of force?

To end with--please note I have not name called, called you stupid, said anything against your beliefs or your church. Yet you come back with many negatives against me. I'm simply asking you questions. Calm down.

[RicoVacilon]

Of course it can be argued becaus it is nothing more than gibberish from you.

I'm quoting the Bible, which part of that is gibberish to you???

[RicoVacilon]

I am not reading anything into it. Read the passage. It talks about not telling someone that they have a mote in their eye, when you have a beam in your eye. Christians are to judge sin. If someone is a homosexual, then they are in sin, correct? So, it's not judging the person if you tell them that homosexuality is a sin. Also, I've said NUMEROUS times in this thread that it's God that judges people.

You are basis your interpretation by assuming that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees. He most assuredly was not. So don't send me to read the passage when you are the one confused. ;) As for the second half, I agree. But see my comment on why I think homosexuality is outside of the sins we need to worry about calling out.

No, you're wrong. It's not talking about "teachings." It's talking about spirtual things vs worldly, i.e. sinful, things.

Some things in the Bible are ambiguous. This may be one of them.

Repent means to turn away from, to reject. In that sentence, Repent means to turn from their sin.

Nope, not true. :) That may be what 2000 years of the church has told us, but it's not what the Bible in it's original form did.

No, not at all. Jesus specified that if you look at a woman WITH LUST then it is just the same as committing adultery with her. Did I say that you were looking at her with lust in your eyes? No. Lust comes when you dwell on what you saw. Lust means "intense or unbridled sexual desire lasciviousness; an intense longing." Perhaps I worded it wrong, when I said before.

I saw your comment about dwelling on the thought later. Makes sense. I'm still working on it.

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." That was Jesus, was it not?

I still don't see the "accept me as your Lord and savior" in there. :)

[RicoVacilon]

I have a question that I promise isn't being asked facetiously:

What happens to a person who is born into a family that practices the wrong religion, if that person lives his life trying to be as good as possible, follows all of the rules laid out for him, but dies without praying or acknowledging the correct God?

Was this person ever exposed to the Gospel? If not, they might be saved. If so, they wouldn't be. This is speaking from the p.o.v. of church doctrine, not my own beliefs.

[RicoVacilon]

Maybe we SHOULD start a separate thread for the religious discussion. ;) There's some general topics raised here that would be interesting to explore.

The Myth of Secularization
The Privatization of Religion
The Desensitization of Sin

I'd do it but I gotta get to church. Not because I'm overly righteous--but because I get paid. :O

[YoungVito]

What sort of action do you recommend? Maybe lots of hugs?

Jesus would point out to the murderers that they must repent.

He would also likely point out that those who think that mocking His faith through "highschoolesque" childish banter won't be Mr. Laughybottom on the Last Day.

Truth.

He also wouldn't take to kindly to Pharacee-like judgements handed down by people with enough courage to say what they feel here on the internet, but be damend if they will say it in a open public forum...like a politician.

Lets be real people, some of you have what I like to call "internet-muscles". (You know, like 'beer muscle guy). Got a lot of guts on here to say things that you KNOW would get you fired/sued or even worse in an open forum.

That being said, lets take it down a notch and be a bit more grown-up shall we.

And NO SUP, I'm not just talking about you. I just used your quote to start it off. No need to get all sensitive on me. (Want a hug/a hot pocket?) ;-)

[YoungVito]

Was this person ever exposed to the Gospel? If not, they might be saved. If so, they wouldn't be. This is speaking from the p.o.v. of church doctrine, not my own beliefs.

A good example of this would be someone who was born into a family of Klan members. More than likely, they insulate themselves because they know that they're way of life is no longer accepted in mainstream society. That being said, I'm pretty sure if you were to challenge them on their beliefs they would make "superior-like" statements like the ones that were stated earlier. At the end of the day, they have no idea whether or not they're living in sin. And if someone were to attempt to tell them, they would probably come back and tell them "no, YOU'RE living in sin. Its me who is righteous."

See my point people. None of us are God/Christ. So who are we to trounce on any one else's beliefs, simply because they are not our own. Its one thing if they have a TRULY negative affect on us. I.E. The Klan and well EVERYBODY who isn't a white protestant Christian, but the last time I checked...Freedom of Religion was a protection specifically named in our Constutition for a reason.

Just my thoughts...

[resnor]

You are basis your interpretation by assuming that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees. He most assuredly was not. So don't send me to read the passage when you are the one confused. ;) As for the second half, I agree. But see my comment on why I think homosexuality is outside of the sins we need to worry about calling out.



Some things in the Bible are ambiguous. This may be one of them.



Nope, not true. :) That may be what 2000 years of the church has told us, but it's not what the Bible in it's original form did.



I saw your comment about dwelling on the thought later. Makes sense. I'm still working on it.



I still don't see the "accept me as your Lord and savior" in there. :)

The Sermon on the Mount may not have been specifically to the Pharisees...but it certainly had application to them. The Sermon on the Mount was to Israel as a whole...it is to everyone now, as it is in the Bible.

What do you believe that repent means? Here's a site that does a pretty good job of explaining it:

http://seekingthetruth.israelinet.org/articles/repent.htm

[Gtrght77]

It's great how you guys went from mind control to the Vatican, they go hand in hand. :p

[resnor]

I wanted to touch on the "turn the other cheek" stuff. Im the New Testament it says that the power of the sword is given to government. In that respect, I believe that it is ok to serve in the military. On the other hand, I wouldn't tell a Christian that they were wrong if they believed that they shouldn't serve in the military. Concerning self-defence, here is a passage from Exodus:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." (Ex. 22:2-3).

To turn the other cheek, I believe is talking about revenge. If someone insults you, do not insult back. If someone is mean to you, do not be mean back. If someone needs help, and asks for something, give them more than they ask for. If someone is disobeying the law, and thus disobeying God, you habe the right to defend yourself. If someone is raping your wife, you don't pat them on the back, and five them your daughter also.

[RicoVacilon]

What do you believe that repent means? Here's a site that does a pretty good job of explaining it:

http://seekingthetruth.israelinet.org/articles/repent.htm

I don't need to think what it means--I KNOW what it means. That site didn't do a very good job at all explaining what it means in the NT. I don't know it's context in the OT so I can't comment on that.

Repent in the NT is translated from the Greek work metanoia (except it should be spelled in Greek but I don't know how to get those characters). In the verse I mentioned it appears as "metanoiate." It means to turn around. Not to change one's mind. It means to look inward as well as do a 360 turn and look around. There is a self-critical analysis present as well as a critique of ones environment. There does not need to be any changing of one's mine in order to repent. The key is on reflexivity.

Of course that isn't how the Church has passed it down. Because self-critical analyzes don't need to involve the Church. :)

[RicoVacilon]

I wanted to touch on the "turn the other cheek" stuff. Im the New Testament it says that the power of the sword is given to government.

Book and chapter please. I'm interested. :)

Concerning self-defence, here is a passage from Exodus:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." (Ex. 22:2-3).

You can't quote the OT and at the same time say Jesus was the fulfillment of the law.

To turn the other cheek, I believe is talking about revenge. If someone insults you, do not insult back. If someone is mean to you, do not be mean back. If someone needs help, and asks for something, give them more than they ask for. If someone is disobeying the law, and thus disobeying God, you habe the right to defend yourself. If someone is raping your wife, you don't pat them on the back, and five them your daughter also.

Jesus said "resist not the evil-doer." What you are saying is contrary to that. By the way that last sentence is just asinine and has nothing to do with anything anyone has said. Step it up a bit or bow out.

[resnor]

Book and chapter please. I'm interested. :)



You can't quote the OT and at the same time say Jesus was the fulfillment of the law.



Jesus said "resist not the evil-doer." What you are saying is contrary to that. By the way that last sentence is just asinine and has nothing to do with anything anyone has said. Step it up a bit or bow out.

Romans 13 talks about government. It says in verse 4 that government can use the sword to punish evildoers.

Yes, Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law. However, Jesus didn't make the Law to be nonexistent, he just changed the system. No longer were we under the Law and it's penalties, but the things contained in the Law, still apply to some extent. The Ten Commandments, for example, still apply. Rebellion is still wrong, but we are no longer to stone a rebellious teenager, as they were to do under the law.

As to the resist not an evildoer...I think you are taking some liberties there. If you own a company, and someone is embezzling from you, are you supposed to let them do that? What is wrong the rape example? From what you are saying, you shouldn't "resist the evildoer". So, you shouldn't try to stop them.

Took this from another site:
If*Matthew 5:38-48*were taken literally at all times, we would have to let everyone take advantage of us. Turning the other cheek would become an encouragement for evil. This isn't what Jesus had in mind. His vivid examples illustrate His disciples' need to give up any sense of entitlement to personal revenge, to be purged of the motivation of personal vengeance. By asking them to turn the other cheek, Jesus meant that His disciples should be motivated by love and a desire for the redemption and forgiveness of offenders

[resnor]

I don't need to think what it means--I KNOW what it means. That site didn't do a very good job at all explaining what it means in the NT. I don't know it's context in the OT so I can't comment on that.

Repent in the NT is translated from the Greek work metanoia (except it should be spelled in Greek but I don't know how to get those characters). In the verse I mentioned it appears as "metanoiate." It means to turn around. Not to change one's mind. It means to look inward as well as do a 360 turn and look around. There is a self-critical analysis present as well as a critique of ones environment. There does not need to be any changing of one's mine in order to repent. The key is on reflexivity.

Of course that isn't how the Church has passed it down. Because self-critical analyzes don't need to involve the Church. :)

I think you're playing semantics here. I said it means to turn away from. You say it means to turn around. So, if you are involved in sin, and you repent, that means, according to you, to turn around from it. That is, to then face the other way. That is what I said. It certainly isn't speaking of physically turning around. If you don't turn from your sin, then you are still involved in your sin. You can't be saved if you don't turn from your sin.

[fatbaby52]

I have another question that comes from ignorance. Obviously, the end-game for a lot of people is to get into heaven. It seems as though protestants have fewer rules than catholics- do catholics believe that protestants can get into heaven, because they worship the same God? Or does the fact that protestants are possibly inadvertently sinning hold them back?

Also, if the protestants can get in b/c they worship the same God, what about other religions? It was mentioned above that, if you've been exposed to the gospel and don't accept it (and God), that you don't get to heaven. So someone who believes in Allah (assuming that's a different God) but attends college in the US can't possibly get into heaven? It seemed as though an earlier response to this question would be "no" (no heaven for that guy).

I don't mean to demean religion at all, but it seems like, if you accept that each religion (or branch of the same religion) wants as many followers as possible (more money, stronger politically, more power in a holy war), it would have a huge incentive to throw in a "if you practice another religion you can't get into heaven" clause- a religion shopper, honestly unsure if religion A (which believes that it is the only true religion worshiping the only true God) or religion B (which is more permissive, and believes that those that practice other religion can still get into heaven if they acknowledge a higher being and live well) is correct, would take the Religion A every time, because he would get into heaven if either is correct.

I'm sorry for dragging this thread further and further off topic- I'm sure that these same questions have been asked an answered by people far more articulate and knowledgeable than me, but I think that it's fascinating.

[killacs]

lol@ Supdog calling the Obama administration a thug administration. Dude you do realize EVERY administration has done something to keep sh|t out of the hands of the public right? Let's not even get started on which administration got the Patriot Act into law.

[killacs]

I have another question that comes from ignorance. Obviously, the end-game for a lot of people is to get into heaven. It seems as though protestants have fewer rules than catholics- do catholics believe that protestants can get into heaven, because they worship the same God? Or does the fact that protestants are possibly inadvertently sinning hold them back?

Also, if the protestants can get in b/c they worship the same God, what about other religions? It was mentioned above that, if you've been exposed to the gospel and don't accept it (and God), that you don't get to heaven. So someone who believes in Allah (assuming that's a different God) but attends college in the US can't possibly get into heaven? It seemed as though an earlier response to this question would be "no" (no heaven for that guy).

I don't mean to demean religion at all, but it seems like, if you accept that each religion (or branch of the same religion) wants as many followers as possible (more money, stronger politically, more power in a holy war), it would have a huge incentive to throw in a "if you practice another religion you can't get into heaven" clause- a religion shopper, honestly unsure if religion A (which believes that it is the only true religion worshiping the only true God) or religion B (which is more permissive, and believes that those that practice other religion can still get into heaven if they acknowledge a higher being and live well) is correct, would take the Religion A every time, because he would get into heaven if either is correct.

I'm sorry for dragging this thread further and further off topic- I'm sure that these same questions have been asked an answered by people far more articulate and knowledgeable than me, but I think that it's fascinating.
Catholics and Protestants are Christians, the basis of Christians are believing in 1 God, accepting Christ as your Savior and genuinely asking for forgiveness. As for Allah, Allah (correct me if I'm wrong) is the same God as the Hebrew God and the God the Father portion of the Holy Trinity for Christians. The difference is Jews and Muslims do not believe Christ to be the Son of God. To my knowledge Jews don't believe in Christ as the Son of God because they believed the Son of God was going to be a warrior king and save them from the Romans (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

[fatbaby52]

1. Catholics and Protestants are Christians, the basis of Christians are believing in 1 God, accepting Christ as your Savior and genuinely asking for forgiveness.

2. As for Allah, Allah (correct me if I'm wrong) is the same God as the Hebrew God and the God the Father portion of the Holy Trinity for Christians. The difference is Jews and Muslims do not believe Christ to be the Son of God. To my knowledge Jews don't believe in Christ as the Son of God because they believed the Son of God was going to be a warrior king and save them from the Romans (someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

1. Right, but what happens to a Protestant who is taught that something Catholics think is a sin isn't? Contraception, homosexuality, etc...? If someone is happily married, never cheats, treats everyone well, turns the other cheek, etc, but has sex with his wife for fun and wears a condom, he wouldn't even know that he should be repenting, right? When he shows up trying to get into heaven, is he SOL? (according to Catholics)

2. Right, but since Christianity requires a person to believe that Jesus was actually God's son, and the other mentioned religions don't, what does each believe happens to those who practice the wrong religion? If it turns out that Jews are right, and Jesus wasn't actually God's son, does that mean that Christians were worshiping a false idol or something, and they lose? Similarly, since Jews don't believe that Jesus is God's son, does that mean that they can't get into heaven, because they didn't believe that Jesus died for their sins?

[RicoVacilon]

Romans 13 talks about government. It says in verse 4 that government can use the sword to punish evildoers.

Thanks. I checked it out. That's some crazy stuff in there. Rulers can inherently never be evil. What!?!?! "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Slow down there Paul, if that is your real name.

This is, for me, a case of not all books of the Bible being equal. I've never considered the epistles to be equal to the gospels. That is my admittedly unorthodox reading though.

Yes, Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law. However, Jesus didn't make the Law to be nonexistent, he just changed the system.

So how do we know which of the 613 commandments (there are no 10 commandments, but 613) still apply and which don't? How do we know it's OK to eat a cheeseburger but not to be gay?

As to the resist not an evildoer...I think you are taking some liberties there. If you own a company, and someone is embezzling from you, are you supposed to let them do that?

Alright, this is the last time I'm going to remind you that nowhere am I saying we should be inactive. I've said it at least three times but you chose to keep ignoring it. That's pretty lame. Jesus did not call us to inaction but to action. He did, however, prohibit the use of force in our action. That is crystal clear.

Took this from another site:
If*Matthew 5:38-48*were taken literally at all times, we would have to let everyone take advantage of us. Turning the other cheek would become an encouragement for evil.

Jesus message is pretty darn radical isn't it?

This isn't what Jesus had in mind.

But then why did he say it? Do you presume to read the mind of God? All God has given us are his words--are they not good enough for you? Jesus said exactly what he meant.

[RicoVacilon]

I think you're playing semantics here.

No, I'm playing etymology.

I said it means to turn away from. You say it means to turn around. So, if you are involved in sin, and you repent, that means, according to you, to turn around from it. That is, to then face the other way. That is what I said. It certainly isn't speaking of physically turning around. If you don't turn from your sin, then you are still involved in your sin. You can't be saved if you don't turn from your sin.

You said repent means to change your mind. If you're not sinning, why would you change your mind? You mentioned nothing of the self-critical analysis and reflexivity contained in "metanoiate" so we acutally AREN'T saying the same thing. "Metanoiate" does not involve sin at all. It could, but repenting as used in the Gospel does not inherently contain a "turning from sin." It's about opening your eyes man! The Kingdom of God is within you (more Matthew)! But you have to metanoiate to see it.

[RicoVacilon]

I have another question that comes from ignorance. Obviously, the end-game for a lot of people is to get into heaven. It seems as though protestants have fewer rules than catholics- do catholics believe that protestants can get into heaven, because they worship the same God? Or does the fact that protestants are possibly inadvertently sinning hold them back?

I don't know the ins and outs of doctrine enough to answer this.


I don't mean to demean religion at all, but it seems like, if you accept that each religion (or branch of the same religion) wants as many followers as possible (more money, stronger politically, more power in a holy war), it would have a huge incentive to throw in a "if you practice another religion you can't get into heaven" clause- a religion shopper, honestly unsure if religion A (which believes that it is the only true religion worshiping the only true God) or religion B (which is more permissive, and believes that those that practice other religion can still get into heaven if they acknowledge a higher being and live well) is correct, would take the Religion A every time, because he would get into heaven if either is correct.

There have been quite a few economic analyzes of religion. Kinda cool stuff. For awhile.

[resnor]

No, I'm playing etymology.



You said repent means to change your mind. If you're not sinning, why would you change your mind? You mentioned nothing of the self-critical analysis and reflexivity contained in "metanoiate" so we acutally AREN'T saying the same thing. "Metanoiate" does not involve sin at all. It could, but repenting as used in the Gospel does not inherently contain a "turning from sin." It's about opening your eyes man! The Kingdom of God is within you (more Matthew)! But you have to metanoiate to see it.

When did I say that repentance was done in absence of sinning? The Kingdom of God is a specific place. We have the Holy Spirit within us. As saved individuals, we will be in the Kingdom of God, but that kingdom has not been out in place yet.

All books of the Bible are equal..."All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable..."etc.

[resnor]

Fatboy...your questions revolve around religions. I believe that religions are bad. You shouldn't look at what each religion teaches, but look at what the Bible teaches. Religions often pit man's teachings on par with the Word of God...see Catholicism, Mormans, JW's, Islam, Protestantism, etc. If all the dirlfferent sects simply followed what the Bible said, there wouldn't be all these differences. That being said, any member of any religion can go to heaven if they believe that it is Christ's death, and his death alone, that atones for their sin and allows them entrance to heaven.

[levdgg]

Translation:

I have no clue what I am talking about, but my progressive liberal teacher once told me he thought Jesus was a socialist, so I will repeat that here!

But for funs.......what socialist does Jesus remind you of most Levy? Please enlighten me! LOL! Tax cheat! :)
Did you just respond to my same post twice after a day of contemplation?

Not from my liberal professors..... only a fool who did not attend college would make such a nonsensical statement. I got this idea from actually knowing some of the tenets of socialism, a la Jesus...healing those in need regardless of economic status etc.

“A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” ---- Jesus H.Christ

BOO YA KA SHA!

Sorry to ruin your 50 + years of teaching with that truth bomb. What Socialist? Hmmmm...... Definitely Mother Theresa. Or Obama. What conservative does Jesus remind you of? Besides yourself.

Also, did you just call Jesus a tax cheat? For shame. I know you weren't referring to me. You're not allowed to throw such accusations at those in a higher income bracket than yourself. Ha.

[JoeJGibbs]

Uh oh. Someone just got E-smited.

[killacs]

1. Right, but what happens to a Protestant who is taught that something Catholics think is a sin isn't? Contraception, homosexuality, etc...? If someone is happily married, never cheats, treats everyone well, turns the other cheek, etc, but has sex with his wife for fun and wears a condom, he wouldn't even know that he should be repenting, right? When he shows up trying to get into heaven, is he SOL? (according to Catholics)

2. Right, but since Christianity requires a person to believe that Jesus was actually God's son, and the other mentioned religions don't, what does each believe happens to those who practice the wrong religion? If it turns out that Jews are right, and Jesus wasn't actually God's son, does that mean that Christians were worshiping a false idol or something, and they lose? Similarly, since Jews don't believe that Jesus is God's son, does that mean that they can't get into heaven, because they didn't believe that Jesus died for their sins?

1. Under Christianity you have to accept God the Son as your savior and ask for forgiveness. Differences in the doctrine after that don't matter much

2. If the Jews for example were correct then yes I'm fairly certain Christians would be destined for hell for worshiping a false idol and never repenting of it and not believing that God is sending a Savior. Similarly if Christians are right it can be inferred that Jews maybe going to hell for not believing, however, some say that God would never allow his chose people to have eternal suffering.

[resnor]

Did you just respond to my same post twice after a day of contemplation?

Not from my liberal professors..... only a fool who did not attend college would make such a nonsensical statement. I got this idea from actually knowing some of the tenets of socialism, a la Jesus...healing those in need regardless of economic status etc.

There is a huge difference between personally helping others, and the government handing out stuff. The Bible says if a person will not work, neither should they eat. That is, you don't reword laziness with free food. The Israelites were instructed to not reap the corners of their fields. This was done so that the poor could go and harvest. They weren't simply given bread. They had to reap the wheat, thresh it, and make their own bread.

[levdgg]

There is a huge difference between personally helping others, and the government handing out stuff. The Bible says if a person will not work, neither should they eat. That is, you don't reword laziness with free food. The Israelites were instructed to not reap the corners of their fields. This was done so that the poor could go and harvest. They weren't simply given bread. They had to reap the wheat, thresh it, and make their own bread.

To be correct, socialism goes well beyond "the government handing out stuff," particularly "Utopian Socialism." In fact, that exact example you just gave has its roots in some socialist ideals (i.e. all hands in... all reap rewards). But really, I'm not the guy to be playing pick a bible verse with, despite using one in my above post. That's for you and Rico.

You may have missed it, as it was muddled somewhere in your Sunday School instructional, but the original absurd post was made that you cannot be a Christian and a democrat. Take a guess who said it. I could care less either way, but it's tough to argue that Jesus would have been right leaning. This subsequently shattered SUP's cognitive wiring.

[RicoVacilon]

When did I say that repentance was done in absence of sinning?

That's my point! Metanoiate whether you're actively sinning or not. ;)

The Kingdom of God is a specific place.

That's not scriptural.

All books of the Bible are equal..."All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable..."etc.

I realize that is orthodox doctrine--but I find it a bit absurd. That's just me though.

[RicoVacilon]

You shouldn't look at what each religion teaches, but look at what the Bible teaches.

Then how come you are quoting doctrine over the Bible? :( I agree that the Bible should be the foundation, but I get the impression you are, at times, giving primacy to church teachings over Jesus's teachings.

I also think that the reason we're still arguing is because we're so close to agreeing--kind of like how when the Mormons came by and I said I was a very religious person and I read the Bible they had a bit if hope in being able to convert me. Who knows.

But check this out: http://cramercomments.blogspot.com/2009/03/folly-of-cross-on-christian-pacifism.html

I also found a bunch of non-pacifist blogs as well. I spent more time today reading non-pacifist stuff that pacifist. But I always found them to say "Jesus said x but he meant y." That doesn't fly with me. If Jesus said x he meant x. /shrug

[RicoVacilon]

The Bible says if a person will not work, neither should they eat. That is, you don't reword laziness with free food.

Ugh, this is isogesis again. It's taking one verse, ignoring the context, and acting like you know what it means. It's very lazy hermeneutics. If you look at the context of where this verse comes from, it's Paul instructing the church in his absence. He is calling for the ministers of the church (which is the entire church back in those days--I wish we would get back to the idea though) to not be burdens on the people to whom they are ministering. It is approaching it from a demand end--if you want to eat, make sure you earn it through work. So your first sentence above is correct. Your second, however, isn't.

That in no way means "don't give to the hungry"!!!!!!! Jesus didn't check people's references when handing out the fish and loaves! He didn't make sure someone was gainfully employed before healing them. Etc. So from a supply side the Bible is very clear that you give to the poor, period.

[RicoVacilon]

By the way, I love when you clearly lay out questions for someone to respond to, and they respond to just the ones they think they can answer but ignore the ones they've been had on. ;)

[resnor]

By the way, I love when you clearly lay out questions for someone to respond to, and they respond to just the ones they think they can answer but ignore the ones they've been had on. ;)

If you're referring to me, I'm not intentionally ignoring any of your questions. Like I've said, I post almost entirely from my iPhone, and you are bringing up so much stuff, I do my best to keep up, but it's hard on my iPhone.

[resnor]

That's not scriptural.

The Kingdom of God, also called the Kingdom of Heaven, is the same as the Milleniall Kingdom. The Kingdom of God will occur when God sets up his kingdom that will never be destroyed. Am I wrong on this? That is how I understand it to be.

So how do we know which of the 613 commandments (there are no 10 commandments, but 613) still apply and which don't? How do we know it's OK to eat a cheeseburger but not to be gay?

The things laid out in the Law still apply...unless they were undone after Christ's death. For instance, we know that the "clean" and "unclean" animals were done away with because Peter saw the sheet with all the animals, and was instructed to eat.

Ugh, this is isogesis again. It's taking one verse, ignoring the context, and acting like you know what it means. It's very lazy hermeneutics. If you look at the context of where this verse comes from, it's Paul instructing the church in his absence. He is calling for the ministers of the church (which is the entire church back in those days--I wish we would get back to the idea though) to not be burdens on the people to whom they are ministering. It is approaching it from a demand end--if you want to eat, make sure you earn it through work. So your first sentence above is correct. Your second, however, isn't.

The teaching is clear, that if someone doesn't work, then they shouldn't be getting a free ride. The Bible teaches that the church should take care of those who can't provide for themselves. Nowhere have I said to not give to the hungry. I said that you don't give to the lazy. There is a difference, you know.

That's my point! Metanoiate whether you're actively sinning or not.

And what if you discover that you are actively sinning? Then you repent, or turn away, or turn around, from your sin. That is why you are to examine yourself prior to taking communion.

[RicoVacilon]

If you're referring to me, I'm not intentionally ignoring any of your questions. Like I've said, I post almost entirely from my iPhone, and you are bringing up so much stuff, I do my best to keep up, but it's hard on my iPhone.

Those keys are microscopic!

I appreciate everything that is brought up both ways. It requires more thinking to have a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you than with someone who does. Thinking is good.

[RicoVacilon]

The Kingdom of God, also called the Kingdom of Heaven, is the same as the Milleniall Kingdom. The Kingdom of God will occur when God sets up his kingdom that will never be destroyed. Am I wrong on this? That is how I understand it to be.

I would imagine there are multiple Kingdoms of God. There is definitely a millenial one. But what does it mean in Matthew when Jesus says "The Kingdom of God is within you"? I think there's a lot to that. Maybe even literature on it. Of course such literature would have been destroyed in the war against gnosticism. And I don't buy the whole gnostic school of thought, but I think there are quote a few verses in the Bible that strongly hint at an esoteric tradition that has been lost to us. Or maybe it hasn't but it's just top secret. :O

The things laid out in the Law still apply...unless they were undone after Christ's death. For instance, we know that the "clean" and "unclean" animals were done away with because Peter saw the sheet with all the animals, and was instructed to eat.

I'd have to look a lot more into the Law and Jesus. I admit that I'm not as fluent on that theology as I should be. There are 613 mitzvot. I wonder how it was decided after Jesus which should apply to Christians. It's a deep well.

The teaching is clear, that if someone doesn't work, then they shouldn't be getting a free ride. The Bible teaches that the church should take care of those who can't provide for themselves. Nowhere have I said to not give to the hungry. I said that you don't give to the lazy. There is a difference, you know.

Where does it say you shouldn't give to the lazy? I guarantee you that there were some lazies among the 5000. Like I said, don't work don't eat is from a demand side. Extrapolating a supply side hermeneutic to it may be a bit of a stretch.

And what if you discover that you are actively sinning? Then you repent, or turn away, or turn around, from your sin. That is why you are to examine yourself prior to taking communion.

Yes, I agree. I am simply saying that repenting is not 100% of the time tied to sinning. I think that's where the church got off track by inextricably linking the two. "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand" doesn't mean stop sinning. It means look around and you'll find that it's within you. ;)

[resnor]

Yes, there may have been some lazy at the feeding of the 5,000. However, they hadn't eaten all day, as they had been listening to Christ. They were far from town, and as I've heard it, they wouldn't have been able to get back to town for food before the market closed. So, Christ fed them physically after having fed them spiritually.

[Gtrght77]

I have one, If Jesus and God are on then why does he say "He loved the world so much he gave his only begotten son."

It sure doesn't seem to hold the same weight if its re-worded "He loved he world so much he gave himself"

[killacs]

I have one, If Jesus and God are on then why does he say "He loved the world so much he gave his only begotten son."

It sure doesn't seem to hold the same weight if its re-worded "He loved he world so much he gave himself"

3 persons 1 God. Each having their own distinct responsibilities. The Son is obviously the Savior, Holy Spirit works in people's hearts to open them up to acceptance of the gospel and the Father remains the same from the OT.

[SUPDOG]

Did you just respond to my same post twice after a day of contemplation?
I am pretty sure you had a couple of posts and I responded to them separately. Pay attention son! Also, if you don't mind, please PM a list of how you would like for me to post. You can include how much time I am permitted to have before you get upset and posting parameters etc. You know, a little guide on how you would like it to be done would be helpful, that way we can avoid your "big" gotcha moments! LOL! :)

Not from my liberal professors..... only a fool who did not attend college would make such a nonsensical statement. I got this idea from actually knowing some of the tenets of socialism, a la Jesus...healing those in need regardless of economic status etc.

Translation: "Shoot, how did he know Ward Churchill was my professor!

Anyway, I did attend college and have a degree in Art Therapy. Hey, maybe you could send me a drawing and I can analyze your sensitivity issues that you hide behind with your idea of "wit" and high school locker room humor that those of us with a maturity level higher than a 12 year old find embarrasing! LOL! :p

The Director of Religious studies at my former "Catholic" college would tell his students that the Blessed Virgin Mary.....well, never mind! Anyway he was a disgusting blasphemer and a very BIG LIB! Sorry, but to imply that there are not MANY lefty Christian attacking professors demonstates that you are the one who may not have attended the schools of higher learning. Maybe the school of google?! Christ healed/gave to those who were seeking Him, and forgave the sins of those who sought Him. What does this have to do with government funded healthcare and food stamps?


A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.---- Jesus H.Christ

BOO YA KA SHA!
"Shall hardly enter?" Not familiar w/ this translation. Is this the goofy goof book of levdgg?

Do you not want to include the "but anything is possible through God" part of this verse? Why not my Biblical scholar?

BUYA ;)

Sorry to ruin your 50 + years of teaching with that truth bomb. What Socialist? Hmmmm...... Definitely Mother Theresa. Or Obama. What conservative does Jesus remind you of? Besides yourself.

Truth bomb? LOL. Too goofy to really comment on... Anyway, St. Paul teaches that those who can work shall work, and those who do not shall not eat!
I am ALL ABOUT giving to those who are rightfully needy. So was Christ. He wants us to give through His Church, NOT through the government.
Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29 (and many more versus, look it up). Giving is meant to be done prayerfully. i.e. I am not going to give to the drunk guy who sits next to me in church and tells me how awful he has it, and how life has been so unfair,etc., but I will give to the guy who lost his job and has been LOOKING for work, etc. I discern that. NOT THE GOVERNMENT!


Also, did you just call Jesus a tax cheat? For shame. I know you weren't referring to me. You're not allowed to throw such accusations at those in a higher income bracket than yourself. Ha.

Actually, no I was talking to you. I thought that making ridiculous/nonsensical slander attacks was the way you liked to play the game? No? LOL!

And for the record, I own my own business and do very well financially. You may do better, and if you do, more power to you! I love the Capitalist system don't you? Let's work together to keep it!

Jaywalker. :eek:

[SUPDOG]

Uh oh. Someone just got E-smited.

Translation:

"Levdgg, you are the wind beneath my wings....the wind beneath my wings!":p

[levdgg]

I am pretty sure you had a couple of posts and I responded to them separately. Pay attention son! Also, if you don't mind, please PM a list of the appropriate time regulations/reply parameters etc. That way we can avoid your "big" gotcha moments! :)



Translation: "Shoot, how did he know Ward Churchill was my professor!

Anyway, I did attend college and have a degree in Art Therapy. Hey, maybe you could send me a drawing and I can analyze your sensitivity issues that you hide behind with your idea of "wit" and high school locker room humor that those of us with a maturity level higher than a 12 year old find embarrasing! LOL! :p

The Director of Religious studies at my former "Catholic" college would tell his students that the Blessed Virgin Mary.....well, never mind! Anyway he was a disgusting blasphemer and a very BIG LIB! Sorry, but to imply that there are not MANY lefty Christian attacking professors demonstates that you are the one who may not have attended the schools of higher learning. Maybe the school of google?! Christ healed/gave to those who were seeking Him, and forgave the sins of those who sought Him. What does this have to do with government funded healthcare and food stamps?



"Shall hardly enter?" Not familiar w/ this translation. Is this the goofy goof book of levdgg?

Do you not want to include the "but anything is possible through God" part of this verse? Why not my Biblical scholar?

BUYA ;)



Truth bomb? LOL. Too goofy to really comment on... Anyway, St. Paul teaches that those who can work shall work, and those who do not shall not eat!
I am ALL ABOUT giving to those who are rightfully needy. So was Christ. He wants us to give through His Church, NOT through the government.
Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29 (and many more versus, look it up). Giving is meant to be done prayerfully. i.e. I am not going to give to the drunk guy who sits next to me in church and tells me how awful he has it, and how life has been so unfair,etc., but I will give to the guy who lost his job and has been LOOKING for work, etc. I discern that. NOT THE GOVERNMENT!


.

Actually, no I was talking to you. I thought that making ridiculous/nonsensical slander attacks was the way you liked to play the game? No? LOL!

And for the record, I own my own business and do very well financially. You may do better, and if you do, more power to you! I love the Capitalist system don't you? Let's work together to keep it!

Jaywalker. :eek:
To infer that what I said as "there are not many liberal professors" provides evidence that you did not, in fact, attend an institution of "higher learning." FYI: Your aunt as a professor, a shack in the backyard, a chalkboard and the pervasive smell of mothballs does not constitute a real college. Nor is every major/career path at real college defined as liberal. Mine certainly hasn't been (Though I did have a double major that landed on both sides of the fence). Believe it or not, your average statistics or gov't ethics teacher does not haphazardly scream about Jesus being a socialist. Not enough room in the curriculum.

"Art therapy" and "successful financially" should never be uttered in the same sentence. Or at least on the same page. But more power to ya. I gather you specialize in all-white paintings?

Now back to my question, since I answered yours. What conservative does Jesus remind you of most? Let's try to stay on topic.

[JoeJGibbs]

Translation:

"Levdgg, you are the wind beneath my wings....the wind beneath my wings!":p

Translation: When I believe I am wrong, I will say, 'That's too goofy to answer' or call you "Goofy". When I think I am right I will respond with a long drawn out incorrect rambling in which I will also call you goofy but still skate an answer that resembles reason.

Translation to the translation: I need a good ol fashoined Christian hug

Translation to the translation of the translation: I have been E-smited by everyone in the VG Bible school. My record is now 0-9, but hey I can always just call you goofy, even though I am 50 years old and eat hungry man dinners with my 10 cats. Goof goober goofy goofy goo gobs of goofy is what you all are for I am the kingdom and the power. My response to this will be "Goof".

[killacs]

Translation: When I believe I am wrong, I will say, 'That's too goofy to answer' or call you "Goofy". When I think I am right I will respond with a long drawn out incorrect rambling in which I will also call you goofy but still skate an answer that resembles reason.

Translation to the translation: I need a good ol fashoined Christian hug

Translation to the translation of the translation: I have been E-smited by everyone in the VG Bible school. My record is now 0-9, but hey I can always just call you goofy, even though I am 50 years old and eat hungry man dinners with my 10 cats. Goof goober goofy goofy goo gobs of goofy is what you all are for I am the kingdom and the power. My response to this will be "Goof".

You're such a troll yet somehow I can't stop laughing. I'll let you slid ethough seeing as how the Redskins are the new Lions :p

[levdgg]

Translation: When I believe I am wrong, I will say, 'That's too goofy to answer' or call you "Goofy". When I think I am right I will respond with a long drawn out incorrect rambling in which I will also call you goofy but still skate an answer that resembles reason.

Translation to the translation: I need a good ol fashoined Christian hug

Translation to the translation of the translation: I have been E-smited by everyone in the VG Bible school. My record is now 0-9, but hey I can always just call you goofy, even though I am 50 years old and eat hungry man dinners with my 10 cats. Goof goober goofy goofy goo gobs of goofy is what you all are for I am the kingdom and the power. My response to this will be "Goof".
Ha. Gibbs put it better than I could. That's an accomplishment.... Post about Lev calling for backup in 3....2.

Also, SUP, since you had me question myself for a nanosecond, you did, in fact, respond to my same post twice. I'm flattered.

XOXOXOXO

[SUPDOG]

Translation: When I believe I am wrong, I will say, 'That's too goofy to answer' or call you "Goofy". When I think I am right I will respond with a long drawn out incorrect rambling in which I will also call you goofy but still skate an answer that resembles reason.

Translation to the translation: I need a good ol fashoined Christian hug

Translation to the translation of the translation: I have been E-smited by everyone in the VG Bible school. My record is now 0-9, but hey I can always just call you goofy, even though I am 50 years old and eat hungry man dinners with my 10 cats. Goof goober goofy goofy goo gobs of goofy is what you all are for I am the kingdom and the power. My response to this will be "Goof".

Translation X6:
" Man that Supdog really knows how to turn the screws and I am real mad that he has pointed out my Levdgg man crush!"

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

Heeeerrrreee kitty, kitty, kitty! :)

[SUPDOG]

Ha. Gibbs put it better than I could. That's an accomplishment.... Post about Lev calling for backup in 3....2.

Also, SUP, since you had me question myself for a nanosecond, you did, in fact, respond to my same post twice. I'm flattered.

XOXOXOXO

REally? I'm even deeper in your head then? Nice!


LOL!

P.s. You are the only one who keeps track of these things. It's like, "yeah, I win because supdog posted twice to my one thread....." Wow. Whatever makes you "#1" in your book I guess! LOL!

Yawn. ;)


In your head.....in your head......in your head!!!!!

LOL!


Its all good yo, I'm just toyin' with ya a bit, no need to get all goofy bent!!

I do love the "gotch your back" game with you and Gibbs though! It really touches my heart! It is SO socialist! LOL! :p

[JoeJGibbs]

You're such a troll yet somehow I can't stop laughing. I'll let you slid ethough seeing as how the Redskins are the new Lions :p

Honestly, when I wrote that, and hit submit I said aloud, "Wow how ridiculous is this. I have to go to bed, I can't sit here and mess around on the net with Sup because he will always reply back. Even when he knows I'm being silly."

Then I said, wow Jason Campbell is a bum!

[resnor]

I have one, If Jesus and God are on then why does he say "He loved the world so much he gave his only begotten son."

It sure doesn't seem to hold the same weight if its re-worded "He loved he world so much he gave himself"

Ah yes. The unbiblical Mormon teaching that Jesus is not God, but he is A god. There are many verses that speak to Jesus being God, but I will post that when I get home, so I can use my computer.

[levdgg]

REally? I'm even deeper in your head then? Nice!


LOL!

P.s. You are the only one who keeps track of these things. It's like, "yeah, I win because supdog posted twice to my one thread....." Wow. Whatever makes you "#1" in your book I guess! LOL!

Yawn. ;)


In your head.....in your head......in your head!!!!!

LOL!


Its all good yo, I'm just toyin' with ya a bit, no need to get all goofy bent!!

I do love the "gotch your back" game with you and Gibbs though! It really touches my heart! It is SO socialist! LOL! :p

I'm No. 1 for many reasons, the least of which is my lopsided clowning of you (See: shack as college; all-white paint. Ha.), or my ability to induce you into a state of sleeplessness a few weeks back, where by it was imperative that you drop my name in 99 percent of your posts. If that isn't homage, I don't know what is. Are you worshipping false idols again? For shame. Since I am the object of your affection, however, God just may let it slide.

Note: Using the same material -- or lack thereof -- on each person in this forum, which consists of some combination winky faces (uncomfortable), "goof," "LOL!" "liberal," "Obama-Bot" the occasional nonsensical tangent and then openly trying to convince yourself you've achieved some upper hand, does not cut the mustard. It is particularly ineffective when you are not speaking to a democrat. I strongly suggest creating a new word document of unfunny catchphrases from which you can copy and paste, if only to keep things fresh.

I'm disappointed in you. I think that most of the recluses I know are brilliant!

Almost forgot.... what conservative does Jesus remind you of?

[SUPDOG]

[QUOTE]I'm No. 1 for many reasons, the least of which is my lopsided clowning of you (See: shack as college; all-white paint. Ha.), or my ability to induce you into a state of sleeplessness a few weeks back, where by it was imperative that you drop my name in 99 percent of your posts. If that isn't homage, I don't know what is. Are you worshipping false idols again? For shame. Since I am the object of your affection, however, God just may let it slide.

Show me this 99%? LOL! Actually, if you look at my recent posts they have been follow by your reply. Take this thread for example. Yep, I post, and there is my ever faithful pet Levdgg. I do like to drop your name once and again though. It is almost like I am leaving you a little treat. I drop the name, you get all hot under the dog collar and then......LOLLOLOLOLOOL! :eek:


And shack as college? Dumb. Idiot.


Note: Using the same material -- or lack thereof -- on each person in this forum, which consists of some combination winky faces (uncomfortable), "goof," "LOL!" "liberal," "Obama-Bot" the occasional nonsensical tangent and then openly trying to convince yourself you've achieved some upper hand, does not cut the mustard. It is particularly ineffective when you are not speaking to a democrat. I strongly suggest creating a new word document of unfunny catchphrases from which you can copy and paste, if only to keep things fresh.

O'rly? That better? That is so 2003, no? LOL! Anyway, please understand how painful it is to repeat "goofy", and yes I acknowledge it is uncomfortable for all, but there is no other way to describe some of you people. You are just goofy! It's not my fault you are this way. The problem lies with you, not me.

I'm disappointed in you. I think that most of the recluses I know are brilliant!

Almost forgot.... what conservative does Jesus remind you of ?



Recluse? ONe would think that the person who sits at his computer, hits F5 repeatedly, follows around his master, and then attempts to hide that he is not sitting their with a sore index finger by not allowing others to see him in their viewer would be the one who has recluse tendencies, no? HA! ;) (hmmm, I kinda like that HA! thing, is that acceptable in the Levdgg "reply to me this way only so I can win" book?) Ha and LOL!

Its okay though pal, you just keep declaring yourself the winner. I am sure your man crush friend will be here to affirm you! LOL@you! Hey, do you guys PM each other and make a plan together before each and every post! LOLOLOL!:):eek:;)

Finally, my little pet, the whole, "what conservative does Jesus remind you of" is simply silly and goofy. I can only imagine what runs through your obamabot head though. No doubt you have this image that all you libby friends are sitting at their keyboards with their fingertips at their lips anticipating my answer, and even more importantly (to you) what your egocentric response will be! Its just a dream levy, its just a dream!

Its fun though--you picturing Gibbs/gt with bated breath:
"Oh levdgg, PLEASE share with us your great insights oh champion of our socialist desires! And get that Supdog for us! Get him! We can't wait any longer! Hurry, I have to use the restroom"! LOL!

You are the only one who doesn't understand that you are an idiot trapped inside a liberal elitist wannabe brain!

I left you some treats! Enjoy!

I think I will go post in the Obama-golf thread now! See you in a few! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Finally, I went back and looked at the "double response" to your post and you were correct. But just for the record, I simply forgot that I posted the first time. Nothing more son. Wow, you are so important to yourself, no? Your delusions of grandeur so occupy your skull that you can't even consider that the actions of the outside world doesn't revolve around you.....

Must be a TON of empty, no?

Want to reconsider the art therapy?

[R-ILLA]

Damn thanks Sup I didnt even know F5 was refresh. Seriously. Ignorance to the Cyberworld.

[fatbaby52]

Finally, my little pet, the whole, "what conservative does Jesus remind you of" is simply silly and goofy. I can only imagine what runs through your obamabot head though. No doubt you have this image that all you libby friends are sitting at their keyboards with their fingertips at their lips anticipating my answer, and even more importantly (to you) what your egocentric response will be! Its just a dream levy, its just a dream!

Its fun though--you picturing Gibbs/gt with bated breath:
"Oh levdgg, PLEASE share with us your great insights oh champion of our socialist desires! And get that Supdog for us! Get him! We can't wait any longer! Hurry, I have to use the restroom"! LOL!

You are the only one who doesn't understand that you are an idiot trapped inside a liberal elitist wannabe brain!

I left you some treats! Enjoy!

I think I will go post in the Obama-golf thread now! See you in a few! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!


What do you mean he avoids the tough questions?

[levdgg]

[QUOTE=levdgg;1284464]

Show me this 99%? LOL! Actually, if you look at my recent posts they have been follow by your reply. Take this thread for example. Yep, I post, and there is my ever faithful pet Levdgg. I do like to drop your name once and again though. It is almost like I am leaving you a little treat. I drop the name, you get all hot under the dog collar and then......LOLLOLOLOLOOL! :eek:


And shack as college? Dumb. Idiot.




O'rly? That better? That is so 2003, no? LOL! Anyway, please understand how painful it is to repeat "goofy", and yes I acknowledge it is uncomfortable for all, but there is no other way to describe some of you people. You are just goofy! It's not my fault you are this way. The problem lies with you, not me.

?



Recluse? ONe would think that the person who sits at his computer, hits F5 repeatedly, follows around his master, and then attempts to hide that he is not sitting their with a sore index finger by not allowing others to see him in their viewer would be the one who has recluse tendencies, no? HA! ;) (hmmm, I kinda like that HA! thing, is that acceptable in the Levdgg "reply to me this way only so I can win" book?) Ha and LOL!

Its okay though pal, you just keep declaring yourself the winner. I am sure your man crush friend will be here to affirm you! LOL@you! Hey, do you guys PM each other and make a plan together before each and every post! LOLOLOL!:):eek:;)

Finally, my little pet, the whole, "what conservative does Jesus remind you of" is simply silly and goofy. I can only imagine what runs through your obamabot head though. No doubt you have this image that all you libby friends are sitting at their keyboards with their fingertips at their lips anticipating my answer, and even more importantly (to you) what your egocentric response will be! Its just a dream levy, its just a dream!

Its fun though--you picturing Gibbs/gt with bated breath:
"Oh levdgg, PLEASE share with us your great insights oh champion of our socialist desires! And get that Supdog for us! Get him! We can't wait any longer! Hurry, I have to use the restroom"! LOL!

You are the only one who doesn't understand that you are an idiot trapped inside a liberal elitist wannabe brain!

I left you some treats! Enjoy!

I think I will go post in the Obama-golf thread now! See you in a few! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Finally, I went back and looked at the "double response" to your post and you were correct. But just for the record, I simply forgot that I posted the first time. Nothing more son. Wow, you are so important to yourself, no? Your delusions of grandeur so occupy your skull that you can't even consider that the actions of the outside world doesn't revolve around you.....

Must be a TON of empty, no?

Want to reconsider the art therapy?

Translation:

Art career: Conservative
Federal Law Enforcement career: Liberal/Socialist
Jesus: Socialist
Sup: Son
Lev: Daddy

Did I get all that correct?

[SUPDOG]

[QUOTE=SUPDOG;1284529]

Translation:

Art career: Conservative
Federal Law Enforcement career: Liberal/Socialist
Jesus: Socialist
Sup: Son
Lev: Daddy

Did I get all that correct?

Actually:

Art Career: Who said this was anyone's career?
Fed law enforcement: This is what you tell people you do then? LOL!
Jesus: Son of God with conservative leanings (Pro life, anti-homosexual activity, etc.)
Supdog: Owner.
Levdgg: Pet.

It took you 20+ hours to come up with this? LOL!

Yeah, I would cop out and run too! ;):):eek:

SEe you at my next post! Come on Levy! Come on boy! Good pet!

[levdgg]

[QUOTE=levdgg;1285096]

Actually:

Art Career: Who said this was anyone's career?
Fed law enforcement: This is what you tell people you do then? LOL!
Jesus: Son of God with conservative leanings (Pro life, anti-homosexual activity, etc.)
Supdog: Owner.
Levdgg: Pet.

It took you 20+ hours to come up with this? LOL!

Yeah, I would cop out and run too! ;):):eek:

SEe you at my next post! Come on Levy! Come on boy! Good pet!
Many apologies. All the art therapy talk was lip service then, huh? Forgot your career involves, "working youth retreats," as you put it? Yuk. Out of respect for the mods, I won't broach that topic. That's between you, God and the local authorities to eventually sort out.

Actually, I hadn't checked for some 20 hours. Nevertheless, I felt the fact that I elicited a frustrated, 500-word rant from the Monosyllabic One himself as proof that my job was done. Something you have yet to experience on this board, is that when the battle is won, the urge to respond significantly lessens. You, so often on the *****smacking end of so many a VG poster, let every post gnaw away at you. The fact that you meticulously pared through your post and edited it 40 minutes later was only icing on the cake for me. Never realized it took so long to add an extra winky face. FYI: It still sucked. You have the comedic range of autistic.

Also, I accept your apology.

[RicoVacilon]

I have one, If Jesus and God are on then why does he say "He loved the world so much he gave his only begotten son."

It sure doesn't seem to hold the same weight if its re-worded "He loved he world so much he gave himself"

The divinity of Jesus and trinitarianism are not scriptural.

I have one: what does "only begotten Son" mean? Does it mean someone born without a human father? That God is their Father? In that case isn't Adam God's begotten son as well? And Melchizadek also. Which would mean that Adam, Melchizadek, and Jesus are all . . . the same. . . person. :O

[RicoVacilon]

"Art therapy" and "successful financially" should never be uttered in the same sentence. Or at least on the same page. But more power to ya. I gather you specialize in all-white paintings?

Art therapy is a pretty cool profession. No need to diss it. If I said I was a jazz musician would you jump on me? What if I said I was pyschoanalyst? I mean c'mon. At least he's not a lawyer! :P

Also, I know many art therapists who are loaded. FYI.

[RicoVacilon]

Ah yes. The unbiblical Mormon teaching that Jesus is not God, but he is A god.

We're attacking an entire religion now? Easy there buddy!

There are many verses that speak to Jesus being God

There are exactly zero.

[RicoVacilon]

Jesus: Son of God with conservative leanings (Pro life, anti-homosexual activity, etc.)

Jesus never said anything at all about homosexual activity. In fact, he seems to favor it. . . considering he went walking around unemployed with 12 other dudes in sandals. :O

[levdgg]

Jesus never said anything at all about homosexual activity. In fact, he seems to favor it. . . considering he went walking around unemployed with 12 other dudes in sandals. :O

RICO! Gay Marriage and abortion were HUGE issues on the political spectrum 2000 years ago. Dummy.

[RicoVacilon]

RICO! Gay Marriage and abortion were HUGE issues on the political spectrum 2000 years ago. Dummy.

You know how you separated the men from the boys in ancient Greece?

With a crow bar.

[levdgg]

You know how you separated the men from the boys in ancient Greece?

With a crow bar.

Ha. I know that isn't your line. But much appreciated.

[SUPDOG]

[QUOTE=SUPDOG;1285391]
Many apologies. All the art therapy talk was lip service then, huh? Forgot your career involves, "working youth retreats," as you put it? Yuk. Out of respect for the mods, I won't broach that topic. That's between you, God and the local authorities to eventually sort out.

Actually, I hadn't checked for some 20 hours. Nevertheless, I felt the fact that I elicited a frustrated, 500-word rant from the Monosyllabic One himself as proof that my job was done. Something you have yet to experience on this board, is that when the battle is won, the urge to respond significantly lessens. You, so often on the *****smacking end of so many a VG poster, let every post gnaw away at you. The fact that you meticulously pared through your post and edited it 40 minutes later was only icing on the cake for me. Never realized it took so long to add an extra winky face. FYI: It still sucked. You have the comedic range of autistic.

Also, I accept your apology.


Well, I never said that I practice art therapy, or that art therapy is my business. I simply have a degree in art therapy. I do work youth (actually it is youth/adult) retreats and the reason you wont go there is because I embarrassed you for acting like a high school kid who doesnt grasp the concept of social skills and blurts out the first thing in head because someone called him a chump. Wow. Truth.
And just to clarify, I own an asphalt maintenance company. Cut outs, base coat/top coat, concrete excavating, joint sealing, line painting, paving, etc. Yeah, I built a very nice business in 5 years and I am very proud of what I have done. The difference between you and me , is this Levy-- when you get up and go to work in the morning you do what someone else tells you to do. You know what it sounds like, right? Yes, sir, whatever you say sir, Ill get right on it sir, etc.

When I go to work in the morning I wake up have some coffee, check the internet, make some calls, fax an estimate/invoice etc. Then my employees show up and I tell them what to do.
Let us recap: You go to work and are told what to do. I go to work and tell others what to do.
Suck on that one son. Hey Gibbs! Get your idol a glass of water he is choking on some of my smack down pie!

Anyway, if your rent-a- cop job doesnt work out, PM me and I will see what I can do for you, okay? Are you pretty good at working a shovel? LOL!


Actually, my whole 20 hour response thing was a reference to your post earlier where you said something about me contemplating for 20 hours or something. You cannot be this stupid, as to not get it. See what happens when I don use the winky. Idiot. But maybe you can understand now how stupid it was. Get a clue. Clown.

Anyway, I am mildly entertained at how you love to critique my posting techniques. Has anyone seen someone act like such a dolt on ANY forum? Really? It is so petty to play this little Im gonna getcha game, but I will do it once more for the sole purpose of shattering your I am so important bubble.

The reason I edited 44.5 minutes later was because in that initial post I said something along the lines that you were wrong about me double posting to one of your threads, and that you were once again full of yourself, etc. Then, when I went back to the board later (anticipating that you would have finally formed a semi-intelligent response by then), I thought, hmm, I better double check and make sure that I didnt post twice to the idiot because if I did and type what I did, Levy, Gibbs, and Gt, etc. will throw one big we got Supdog! party and I would hear about it for months. So, I double checked, found out you were right, and edited it. That okay with you? Again, your imagination, backed by how important you believe you are, is baffling! Really, art therapy is PERFECT for self-absorbed whackos like you! Write me a poem or something. It will be fun! I can be your master AND your therapist!

Oh yeah, and sorry to ruin the cake.

Your obsession with you is only trumped by your obsession with me. Ha!

Game. Set. Match.

Make sure not to miss your walk through at the plant, its almost 10 PM! LOL!

[levdgg]

[QUOTE=levdgg;1285415]


Well, I never said that I practice art therapy, or that art therapy is my business. I simply have a degree in art therapy. I do work youth (actually it is youth/adult) retreats and the reason you wont go there is because I embarrassed you for acting like a high school kid who doesnt grasp the concept of social skills and blurts out the first thing in head because someone called him a chump. Wow. Truth.
And just to clarify, I own an asphalt maintenance company. Cut outs, base coat/top coat, concrete excavating, joint sealing, line painting, paving, etc. Yeah, I built a very nice business in 5 years and I am very proud of what I have done. The difference between you and me , is this Levy-- when you get up and go to work in the morning you do what someone else tells you to do. You know what it sounds like, right? Yes, sir, whatever you say sir, Ill get right on it sir, etc.

When I go to work in the morning I wake up have some coffee, check the internet, make some calls, fax an estimate/invoice etc. Then my employees show up and I tell them what to do.
Let us recap: You go to work and are told what to do. I go to work and tell others what to do.
Suck on that one son. Hey Gibbs! Get your idol a glass of water he is choking on some of my smack down pie!

Anyway, if your rent-a- cop job doesnt work out, PM me and I will see what I can do for you, okay? Are you pretty good at working a shovel? LOL!


Actually, my whole 20 hour response thing was a reference to your post earlier where you said something about me contemplating for 20 hours or something. You cannot be this stupid, as to not get it. See what happens when I don use the winky. Idiot. But maybe you can understand now how stupid it was. Get a clue. Clown.

Anyway, I am mildly entertained at how you love to critique my posting techniques. Has anyone seen someone act like such a dolt on ANY forum? Really? It is so petty to play this little Im gonna getcha game, but I will do it once more for the sole purpose of shattering your I am so important bubble.

The reason I edited 44.5 minutes later was because in that initial post I said something along the lines that you were wrong about me double posting to one of your threads, and that you were once again full of yourself, etc. Then, when I went back to the board later (anticipating that you would have finally formed a semi-intelligent response by then), I thought, hmm, I better double check and make sure that I didnt post twice to the idiot because if I did and type what I did, Levy, Gibbs, and Gt, etc. will throw one big we got Supdog! party and I would hear about it for months. So, I double checked, found out you were right, and edited it. That okay with you? Again, your imagination, backed by how important you believe you are, is baffling! Really, art therapy is PERFECT for self-absorbed whackos like you! Write me a poem or something. It will be fun! I can be your master AND your therapist!

Oh yeah, and sorry to ruin the cake.

Your obsession with you is only trumped by your obsession with me. Ha!

Game. Set. Match.

Make sure not to miss your walk through at the plant, its almost 10 PM! LOL!


SUP DOG commenting on the social skills of others. We have officially entered Earth II.

A man who owns fruit stand does not take orders, either. I would not trade places with him any day. Nor does owning a business, by definition, make you successful. But since you have clarified, more power to you, as I said earlier. Nevertheless, you are clearly not familiar with the with very fruitful GS Scale with respect to federal law enforcement, nor are you familiar with a little something known as availability pay for series 1811 investigators. I will guarantee my annual income exceeds yours, minus the concerns of an unstable economy and the looming possibility that my business could go under. But that is neither here nor there. And just to be clear, those in law enforcement "take orders," just as those in the military take orders. You're saying what exactly? The irony in all this, is I actually serve my country, the one for which you express your love solely through the art of religious fundamentalism Get it? Art? Dope. Idiot. LOL! :):o:rolleyes::eek:


And I got the 20-hour response reference. It is not, as it was not then, remotely clever. None of your posts are. A loooong way to say a little, as per usual. Don't forget I set the posting time parameters, old man. Don't steal my ish. I come and go as I please. Flexibility is the beauty of attaining my social status. Truth of the matter is that your entire existence on this board feeds off these pissing contests, despite having no shame in being utterly redundant, clueless, ignorant and especially bland in each of your posts.

This is one of the many differences between you and I -- your intense allergies to sunlight and garlic being among the others. Whereas I (and others) have repeatedly sized up your transparent self so perfectly, you have devolved toward the same lame material you throw at everyone else (as mentioned in my previous post), even when it's not remotely applicable. An LOL and a smiley face does not a winner make.

I, on the other hand, have been pretty diverse considering the blandness with which you emit . How much can you say about someone who lives in solitude with (possibly) a woman in captivity, can't adequately defend/understand his own religious beliefs, trolled over 5,000 posts on two handles about religion and politics on a Madden forum, was homeschooled and received his degree on a piece of tree bark from his back yard; wouldn't know a joke if it was told by Jesus; and received his degree through in making hand-paint crayola water colors? Can a man get a break?

It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!

[SUPDOG]

[QUOTE=SUPDOG;1285670]


SUP DOG commenting on the social skills of others. We have officially entered Earth II.

A man who owns fruit stand does not take orders, either. I would not trade places with him any day. Nor does owning a business, by definition, make you successful. But since you have clarified, more power to you, as I said earlier. Nevertheless, you are clearly not familiar with the with very fruitful GS Scale with respect to federal law enforcement, nor are you familiar with a little something known as availability pay for series 1811 investigators. I will guarantee my annual income exceeds yours, minus the concerns of an unstable economy and the looming possibility that my business could go under. But that is neither here nor there. And just to be clear, those in law enforcement "take orders," just as those in the military take orders. You're saying what exactly? The irony in all this, is I actually serve my country, the one for which you express your love solely through the art of religious fundamentalism Get it? Art? Dope. Idiot. LOL! :):o:rolleyes::eek:


And I got the 20-hour response reference. It is not, as it was not then, remotely clever. None of your posts are. A loooong way to say a little, as per usual. Don't forget I set the posting time parameters, old man. Don't steal my ish. I come and go as I please. Flexibility is the beauty of attaining my social status. Truth of the matter is that your entire existence on this board feeds off these pissing contests, despite having no shame in being utterly redundant, clueless, ignorant and especially bland in each of your posts.

This is one of the many differences between you and I -- your intense allergies to sunlight and garlic being among the others. Whereas I (and others) have repeatedly sized up your transparent self so perfectly, you have devolved toward the same lame material you throw at everyone else (as mentioned in my previous post), even when it's not remotely applicable. An LOL and a smiley face does not a winner make.

I, on the other hand, have been pretty diverse considering the blandness with which you emit . How much can you say about someone who lives in solitude with (possibly) a woman in captivity, can't adequately defend/understand his own religious beliefs, trolled over 5,000 posts on two handles about religion and politics on a Madden forum, was homeschooled and received his degree on a piece of tree bark from his back yard; wouldn't know a joke if it was told by Jesus; and received his degree through in making hand-paint crayola water colors? Can a man get a break?

It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!

So I take it "the urge" is back again? LOL!

I know, women in captivity, don't know your religion, Jesus the Socialist. Yawn. Nothingness.........................

Anyway, I run my business well, with Christian principles from a faith that I know VERY WELL. I don't know why I play with snakes. It/you are such a waste of time. Your hate is like a cancer.

Before I go, I think you should know that your childish/hate remarks are a direct result of the hot coals I just poured on your head. I know, I know the whole "yes, sir, whatever you say sir", really struck a chord,no?

Maybe you will learn a lesson next time. Bully. LOL!


As I said, your obsession with you is only trumped by your obsession with me.

Funny.

I'm done with you now. Thanks for the entertainment! LOL! :)

[levdgg]

[QUOTE=levdgg;1285699]

So I take it "the urge" is back again? LOL!

I know, women in captivity, don't know your religion, Jesus the Socialist. Yawn. Nothingness.........................

Anyway, I run my business well, with Christian principles from a faith that I know VERY WELL. I don't know why I play with snakes. It/you are such a waste of time. Your hate is like a cancer.

Before I go, I think you should know that your childish/hate remarks are a direct result of the hot coals I just poured on your head. I know, I know the whole "yes, sir, whatever you say sir", really struck a chord,no?

Maybe you will learn a lesson next time. Bully. LOL!


As I said, your obsession with you is only trumped by your obsession with me.

Funny.

I'm done with you now. Thanks for the entertainment! LOL! :)

Good deal. We can always shake hands afterward. It's not rape if you look the man in the eye.

By the way, why are our quotes listed under each other's names? Wishful thinking on your part? Voodoo?

[Gtrght77]

No comment on my sig video?

I thought it went well with this topic. It starts off music but moves on to talking points about the media consolidation and other things. Yes its a little out there but I thought it was entertaining.

[resnor]

We're attacking an entire religion now? Easy there buddy!



There are exactly zero.

I said that the Mormon doctrine that Jesus is not God, but he is a god, is unbiblical. If that constitutes "attacking" then I guess I'm guilty.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.

Familiar with those verses? Also, I believe Melchizadek may have been Christ. Adam was not, as he sinned.

[JoeJGibbs]

[QUOTE=SUPDOG;1285744]

Good deal. We can always shake hands afterward. It's not rape if you look the man in the eye.

By the way, why are our quotes listed under each other's names? Wishful thinking on your part? Voodoo?

Somewhere along the way in the quote, edit, quote, edit debate, one of you removed the "/quote" tag at the end of a passage of text. For every "[quote==VGname]" there must be a "/quote" at the end.

[RicoVacilon]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Gospel of John and the logos theology that comes out of it. Yet never does he say Jesus is God. Heck never does JESUS say he's God.

Also, I believe Melchizadek may have been Christ. Adam was not, as he sinned.

I have no idea what to make of Melchizadek. Like I said, I have a feeling there are certain esoteric teachings that have been lost. I think Melchizadek may fit in there somewhere. I wouldn't throw Adam out so quickly--Paul calls Jesus the "second Adam."

[resnor]

Jesus did claim to be God. He may not have come out and said that he was God in so many words. However, he did claim to be the fulfillment of the OT prophecies, and the Jews understood that he was claiming to be God. That's why they believed him to be blasphemous, and wanted to crucify him. Also, he said I and my Father are one. What did he mean by that, if he didn't mean he was God? Also, if Christ wasn't God, then how would his death on the cross be meaningful? Not to mention, if he wasn't God, then how did he never sin? Humans are born with a sin nature. Also, he claimed to be God by not denying the people, like John the Baptist, he made him out to be God.

[RicoVacilon]

Jesus did claim to be God.

No he didn't.

He may not have come out and said that he was God in so many words.

Right, he said ambiguous things that some people interpret to mean he was God. That is in no way the same thing. If people choose to interpret those verses as meaning that Jesus is God then good for them. But for those who choose NOT to interpret it that way, we shouldn't be marginalized and called blasphemers. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law. ;)

However, he did claim to be the fulfillment of the OT prophecies, and the Jews understood that he was claiming to be God.

That's not at all true. The Jewish concept of "Messiah" had no ties whatsoever to Godhood.

Also, he said I and my Father are one. What did he mean by that, if he didn't mean he was God?

I can only tell you what _I_ think he means by that. If YOU think he means that, I have no problem with that. But I oppose a binary reading of that verse where people are either "right" or "wrong." _I_ think he meant that all of us have God in us. We are all created in God's image. We all have latent divinity in us. We need to realize that latency or we'll die without fulfilling our full divine potential. You can choose to say "BS," "that's an interesting take which I disagree with," "or omfg I never thought of it that way you're right!" Whichever is fine with me. :D

Also, if Christ wasn't God, then how would his death on the cross be meaningful?

Here is where I get unorthodox to the point that you probably can't even agree to disagree with me--I read more into Jesus's life than into his death. When I consider how Jesus acts in my daily life, I will admit that I don't contemplate the cross as much as I do the sermon on the mount. I'm not even sure why God would require the sacrifice of his Son in order to overcome Death. . . I mean if God is omnipotent why does he have to placate Death with a sacrifice? The whole thing is beyond my understanding. Which is perhaps why I don't focus on it.

Not to mention, if he wasn't God, then how did he never sin?

I don't believe it impossible for a human to never sin. I'm also not sure that Jesus never sinned.

If Jesus is God why, in the only prayer he left us, does he not say anything about himself?

If Jesus and God are coequal, why does he say "the Father sent me"?

If Jesus and God are coequal, why does he say "no one knows the time--not even me. Only my Father in heaven." This here clearly states that Jesus is, at the least, not omniscient.

A lot of my questions have more of a problem with trinitarianism than with the divinity of Jesus. I view trinitarianism as polytheism. There is simply no way outside of obtuse philosophizing to say that 3 entitites can be monotheistic. I am a Christian because I follow Jesus teachings. But I am a unitarian one. Shema Yisrael--Adonai Elohenu Adonai Echad.

[resnor]

Take a look at this write up on Jesus being God, and how he claimed to be God, and tell me what you think. I found it interesting.

http://www.totheends.com/didjesus.html

Also, I would assume that you don't believ that the Holy Spirit comes upon us when we accept Christ as our Saviour, if you believe that we already have God in us. What do you think about the verse that says we are "of oir father the devil" until we are saved?

[RicoVacilon]

Also, I would assume that you don't believ that the Holy Spirit comes upon us when we accept Christ as our Saviour, if you believe that we already have God in us. What do you think about the verse that says we are "of oir father the devil" until we are saved?

Point me to it. . . I don't know where it is off hand. I don't give too much credence to the Devil. A little too much Zoroastrian borrowing there for me. It sure is a neat theodical device--but a bit too easy.

I forgot to mention: I'll read that link tomorrow. Looks interesting.

[resnor]

Point me to it. . . I don't know where it is off hand. I don't give too much credence to the Devil. A little too much Zoroastrian borrowing there for me. It sure is a neat theodical device--but a bit too easy.

I forgot to mention: I'll read that link tomorrow. Looks interesting.

You'll find it in John 8:44. There is actually alot of good stuff in that chapter. For instance, Christ says that he's seen Abraham, and the Jews dispute it. He says, "Before Abraham was, I am.". Saying therefore, that he lived before Abraham, and being continuous to that day. Also, interesting that God says that he is "the Great I Am"...Jesus says "I am", again, linking himself to God, and making claim to being God.

[Militant X 1]

You'll find it in John 8:44. There is actually alot of good stuff in that chapter. For instance, Christ says that he's seen Abraham, and the Jews dispute it. He says, "Before Abraham was, I am.". Saying therefore, that he lived before Abraham, and being continuous to that day. Also, interesting that God says that he is "the Great I Am"...Jesus says "I am", again, linking himself to God, and making claim to being God.

Resnor.....

you and i have never seen eye to eye perse on other "political" type issues....but....i must admit....as a bible scholar myself i have been impressed with some of your responses here. keep up the good work! :cool:

Mili

P.S. Melchizedek was a "Theophany" or "Christophany" or manifestation (revealing) of God or Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. this "Theophany" or "Christophany" also happened in the book of Daniel Chapter 3:24-25, when king Nebuchadnezzar says; "Didn't we throw three men in to the fire? i see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire....and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

[RicoVacilon]

You'll find it in John 8:44. There is actually alot of good stuff in that chapter. For instance, Christ says that he's seen Abraham, and the Jews dispute it. He says, "Before Abraham was, I am.". Saying therefore, that he lived before Abraham, and being continuous to that day. Also, interesting that God says that he is "the Great I Am"...Jesus says "I am", again, linking himself to God, and making claim to being God.

That is also an interpretation. I'd have to check it out more. In the Greek, there is no punctuation whatsoever. To say "Before Abraham was I Am" could simply mean that before Abraham existed, God existed. See burning bush. I'll check out the chapter later on. . . along with that link.

[RicoVacilon]

P.S. Melchizedek was a "Theophany" or "Christophany" or manifestation (revealing) of God or Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. this "Theophany" or "Christophany" also happened in the book of Daniel Chapter 3:24-25, when king Nebuchadnezzar says; "Didn't we throw three men in to the fire? i see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire....and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

Christian orthodoxy says there is only one theophany--Jesus (not including burning bushes and pillars of fire). I've never heard anyone say Melchizadek is a theophany. Not saying it's impossible--just not the party line.

[resnor]

Christian orthodoxy says there is only one theophany--Jesus (not including burning bushes and pillars of fire). I've never heard anyone say Melchizadek is a theophany. Not saying it's impossible--just not the party line.

Depends Rico...I'm independent Baptist (actually prefer biblicist Baptist) and I've been taught that Melchizadek could have been a theophany. It can't be said for certain that it was, but the little we have on him seems to point to a theophany. There was also a theophany when God and the travelers came to Abraham and Sarah (before being renamed Sarah) and told them hey would have a child, I believe.

[RicoVacilon]

Depends Rico...I'm independent Baptist (actually prefer biblicist Baptist) and I've been taught that Melchizadek could have been a theophany. It can't be said for certain that it was, but the little we have on him seems to point to a theophany. There was also a theophany when God and the travelers came to Abraham and Sarah (before being renamed Sarah) and told them hey would have a child, I believe.

So then Jesus isn't the only begotten Son?

Hierophany perhaps. Theophany I don't think so.

EDIT: BTW, the influence of Hellenism would make all of those theophanies. Read The Odyssey and gods are constantly appearing in the form of other characters. And the Bible certainly was influenced by some Hellenic thought.

[resnor]

How would an early appearance of God, or Jesus, in the form of a man, Make Jesus not the only begotten? A Christophany doesn't require that Jesus have been born.

Also, why couldn't Hellenism have been influenced by Christian/Jewish writings and traditions? Why assume that the Bible was influenced by those things, and not vice versa?

[RicoVacilon]

How would an early appearance of God, or Jesus, in the form of a man, Make Jesus not the only begotten? A Christophany doesn't require that Jesus have been born.

So your explanation is to invoke time travel? :)

Also, why couldn't Hellenism have been influenced by Christian/Jewish writings and traditions? Why assume that the Bible was influenced by those things, and not vice versa?

Because it wasn't. :confused: I don't understand the question? One came before the other. Hellenism had a HUGE effect on Judaism around the time of Jesus. And we know it's not the other way around as much (of course there is a dialectic) because Judaism changed more than Hellenism did.

[resnor]

So your explanation is to invoke time travel? :)



Because it wasn't. :confused: I don't understand the question? One came before the other. Hellenism had a HUGE effect on Judaism around the time of Jesus. And we know it's not the other way around as much (of course there is a dialectic) because Judaism changed more than Hellenism did.

Time travel? Jesus has always existed. He is God. He didn't have the form that he had when he came to earth to be born of a virgin, though. I've heard it taught that Jesus was the part of the Godhead that spoke everything i to existence at creation. Anyway, Jesus could have appeared as Melchizadek without being involvd in time travel.

Are you arguing that Hellenism was around before Judaism started? I would argue that Judaism started with Adam and Eve.

[RicoVacilon]

Are you arguing that Hellenism was around before Judaism started? I would argue that Judaism started with Adam and Eve.

No. But neither is Judaism a stagnant faith. It is just as living as Christianity is.