 |
I wouldn't waste my time doing your bidding. If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.Quote:
Please read the Wikipedia article. I'd c/p, but it Labor Day and I'm resting.
The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?
Wow, not very nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Another example of your discombobulation. (I like that word - thanks for helping me coin it).Quote:
The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?
You are certainly good at nonsense words. Now as to serious answers, well, not so good as your fourth or fifth non-answer illustrates. But here's the question again if it helps any. "The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century?"Quote:
The question remains. How could Daniel have been changed in the sixteenth century when the copy used for OT translation today dates tenth century? Now I know you would never contradict your idol Athos, but does that really make sense to you?
Another example of your discombobulation. (I like that word - thanks for helping me coin it).
Have you guys ever noticed how frequently you are reduced to the plea, "Google it yourself"? I have listened to many serious debates, but I've never heard anyone respond with that advice. Wonder why not?
Discombobulation (and its variations) is a word, has been in use since the early 19th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.
Because when we quote a source, you spit on us and say it's worthless. If you research it HONESTLY yourself....Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The Lutherans even split in two during the '60s and '70s because of this very thing. Now there's ELCA (women as pastors) and LCMS (only men can be pastors).Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Never heard of it being related to Jesus being a man. But I'm not Catholic for a variety of reasons. The only claim I make is that I am able to support my claims without resorting to, "You need to Google it."Quote:
You've never heard that one before? Really? For someone who acts like an expert on all things Christianity, this is a pretty big admission on your part. Just about everybody knows that many denominations cite this very thing when denying ordination to women. It has been on the front burner for decades in the largest Christian denomination.
You posted one source earlier, and then YOU spit on it. Be honest. So like I said after that, if you want me to read your links, then don't post losers.Quote:
Because when we quote a source, you spit on us and say it's worthless.
Not very nice? It's my constant retort to you two. Has nothing to do with being nice. It has to do with treating topics seriously and wanting everyone who reads these posts to know that you two cannot support your grandiose, bold claims.Quote:
If you have something, then post it. Otherwise, I'll figure you have nothing which is, of course, the truth.
We do but you refuse to even consider them. Like you refused to read that terrific blog on what is hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It came on the heels of the link that you blew up yourself. If you want someone to take time to read your articles, then provide good ones. EVEN BETTER, just provide the answers yourself. Ever notice how infrequently I suggest you go to this or that article? Why not copy and paste the pertinent sections? Do the work yourself instead of asking someone else to do it. And no, that is not meant to be mean.
Here's another one: Jl says, This nation is founded on Biblical principles. Let's take a look at that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
For example, the great laws handed down to Moses - The Ten Commandments.
1. I am the Lord thy God. No, not that one. The nation purposely left that one out - in fact denied it was a founding principle in the First Amendment.
2. No carved images. Nope. We have lots of carved images.
3. Take God's name in vain. Nah. It's not nice but not a founding principle.
4. Keep holy the sabbath, Nope.
5. Honor Mom and Dad. Good idea, but not a founding principle.
6. Do not murder. Yup. There's one - definitely a founding principle, even a law.
7. Adultery. Never even mentioned as founding principle.
8. Do not steal. Yes, again.
9. Do not lie. Well, maybe - especially in a court of law. Partial credit
10. The coveting business. Actually, the nation's economy is built on coveting. Definitely NOT a founding principle.
There you have it. Two out of ten - a .200 batting average. Pretty weak.
The USA is more founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, the era that prospered after the Church lost influence. Those principles were rooted in thousands of years of human civilization including much trial and error.
Religions certainly helped when they promoted unity and good behavior from the earliest Sumerians to the present day. But they were never the prime mover.
I've tried the c/p thing and got shot down. It's never good enough for you, no matter what I do. Only if I post something you agree with is it good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
WG, I'd love to see you answer this one.Quote:
" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?"
You brought up the Ten Commandments, not me. I didn't say we were founded on the Ten Commandments, but on Biblical principles. But bear in mind that just because something is not in law does not mean it is not honored. There was a day when adultery, lying, and dishonoring parents were frowned upon.Quote:
Here's another one: Jl says, This nation is founded on Biblical principles. Let's take a look at that one.
For example, the great laws handed down to Moses - The Ten Commandments.
I'm going to start a list of questions you guys are unable or unwilling to answer. I'll work on that tomorrow. There have been several just tonight.
When?Quote:
I've tried the c/p thing and got shot down.
I ask questions and you evade them. You provide links that even you don't agree with. What am I to do with that?Quote:
It's never good enough for you, no matter what I do. Only if I post something you agree with is it good enough.
Please list the Biblical principles this nation is founded on. Be specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
A few just off the top of my head. I would tell you to just google it, but that's your deal and not mine.
A respect for human life.
Recognition of property rights
Right to self defense
The sanctity of marriage
The importance of family
The need for church to be free from govt. interference
Freedom of religion
The importance of a fair and efficient system of justice
The rule of law
That's a good start.
Some more material of interest. "The body of the Constitution makes no reference to God. The Constitution honors the Christian Sabbath. The President was given 10 days to sign a bill into law. The counting of the 10 days does not include the Sabbath. This is found in Article 1, Section 7, and Clause 2 which in part follows:“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,”
When the Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787, it was signed by the delegates then to be ratified by the states. The delegates signed the Constitution in the “Year of our Lord.” This is a direct reference to Christianity. This is found in Article 7 which in part follows:"
http://www.internationalcopsforchris...istian-nation/
Why don't the citizens respect those principles?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Because we are no longer a nation with respect for the Bible. Frankly, we have become like you. We like the parts that agree with us. And again, not mean, but truthful.
This question so illustrates that. " And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?" You are excited about "unconditional love" which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and yet refuse to accept hell which is mentioned throughout the NT. See what I mean? That's not mean or condescending. It's simply a statement you can respond to.
The parts that I like and agree with? So, if I don't believe all of it literally, every word is true, I don't respect the Bible?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Worth repeating.Quote:
" And if you claim not to believe what He said here because you can't find "a recording somewhere", then how do you believe anything He or anyone else in the Bible said?" You are excited about "unconditional love" which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and yet refuse to accept hell which is mentioned throughout the NT. See what I mean? That's not mean or condescending. It's simply a statement you can respond to.
Agape, God's love, unconditional. Even our Greek scholar who has been fascinated by that language since he was a kid and learned it and Hebrew in college, agreed with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 PM. |