DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Bob Jones: You owe the liberals nothing
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 93 of 93, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/24/2006 02:38:24 PM · #76
How has he sided w/ Liberals?? What isn't conservative enough about GW?

As for being attacked... Other than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, when has there been a serious attack on US soil? Not being attacked since is in no way the doing of GW and his administration.
 11/24/2006 02:55:28 PM · #77
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
How has he sided w/ Liberals??


He joined with Teddy K. and really shouldn't have on education, what we need is the Feds out of education and back to stateswhere it should be.
 11/28/2006 04:20:31 PM · #78
What has been said here can apply to any person running for office. To say that GWB has an agenda and that democrats don't is ridiculous. Everyone has an agenda and a bias towards what they believe is right. If you are faulting Bush for doing what he thought was right--you would have to fault Clinton as well for doing what he thought was right, or any other president or any other person for that matter. Who suddenly made you all the ones to pass judgement?

Hindsight is 20/20 and Bush did what he thought was necessary at the time. If we didn't stand up and fight--the people would have been outraged then, and now they are outraged that we did. This just shows that people are fickle.

Just so you know, I don't support pro-choice because it is murder...but that is another issue. I don't support anyone's right to come in and kill your children either. Do you feel offended by that? Should I approve of that as well since we are supposed to respect everyone's viewpoints and allow them to have what they want? It has been proven that a baby has brainwaves at less than 8 weeks of age--no organ has brainwaves. Even the mother who was being defended in Roe V. Wade later admitted she was wrong. Abortion is just justifying murder--and since we are considering everyone's rights here--let's discuss the rights of the baby (which are indeed supported by American law).

Oh and if a mother who is carrying a baby is killed--then answer me this--why is it sometimes considered a double murder if the baby was indeed JUST a fetus? Sounds hypocritical if you ask me.

Off of abortion now (I had to get that off my shoulders)--GWB is as much as fault for doing what he thought right as any of you are for doing what you feel is right. If he hadn't gone to war at the time--you all would be complaining that we should of, and now that he has--you all are complaining that he shouldn't. People are fickle.

I'm all for love and respect of others, but there are limits on how far that goes. If it imposes on the rights of others, then there is something seriously wrong with it. I am a Christian. I plan to witness to people, but I'm not going to force them to believe. I believe that God is in control and I can only plant a seed. I will plant all the seeds I can and share my views, but only God can change a heart.

-Nathan21

Message edited by author 2006-11-28 16:22:44.
 11/28/2006 04:25:36 PM · #79
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by srdanz:
I'd like to insert one quote from William Shakespeare (as it will be hard to denounce him as a liberal or a dirty democrat, although some will inevitably try to do so):

âThe devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.â

What we have here (in this part of the world) is people interpreting the bible as they see fit. The Bible is a marvelous piece of art, intended for clergy to apply to real life and convince the weak-minded (borrowed this phrase from Jedi religion) that the path they are showing them is God's path.

One needs not to read past the ten commandments to see that waging war and killing people abroad is against the Bible. You need to read some more into it, and combine different proverbs to find the justification for doing so.

We need more Jedi.

Ah, but one DOES need to read past the ten commandments to see that waging war and killing people abroad is not necessarily against the Bible. There is no need to read into it and no scripture combinations are needed. Deuteronomy 20, verses 1-5 ( just 15 chapters past the ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5 ) says quite clearly:

"When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people, And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them; For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you."

If scripture quote Moses ( who also delivered the ten commandments ) as saying that GOD would fight for the Israelites when they went to battle against their enemies, then it seems a stretch to conclude that waging war was against the Bible.

But, you are quite correct on two counts: the devil can, indeed, quote scripture for his own purposes; and people do, indeed, interpret the Bible as they see fit.


Thank you. Well said. Scripture does support war. I believe there is a correct way to interpret the Bible on certain issues BUT some areas are open to personal interpretation. Some issues are VERY CLEAR in the Bible.

-Nathan21

Message edited by author 2006-11-28 16:28:09.
 11/29/2006 10:17:34 AM · #80
I don't have a problem with a president doing what he thinks is right, but when the world and his country are telling him that it was wrong and nothing changes, that I have a problem with. Retalliation for Sept 11 was necessary and we did bomb the crap out of afghanistan, but then GW suddenly has us in Iraq. He entered an unjust war going on speculation that was never confirmed, no WMDs. Why are we there? As of yesterday, we have been in Iraq longer than the US participation in WWII and for what, the country is in civil war. We have not accomplished anything by going to Iraq. By the way any service people have my sincere respect and admiration.

All presidents have an agenda, but his revolves around making his friends, business partners, and family rich and even more powerful. There is nothing genuine about him. Most of the country has had enough of GW and I believe that it will be very difficult for a republican to win the next election.

As for abortion, its the mothers right, thats what the supreme court says, thats how it will/should stay.
 11/29/2006 12:41:32 PM · #81
Originally posted by nathan21:
Thank you. Well said. Scripture does support war. I believe there is a correct way to interpret the Bible on certain issues BUT some areas are open to personal interpretation. Some issues are VERY CLEAR in the Bible.

-Nathan21


Yes...

You can choose:

"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." Ex 15.3

OR

"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace." 1 Cor 14.33

Very clear: the nature of God (warlike or peaceful) is one of personal choice.

Other important issues, such as slavery, are similarly personal choices:

"You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." Lev 25.45

OR

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt." Ex 22.21

Nice to know that whatever your moral stance, there is a quote to justify your position.
 11/30/2006 02:37:00 PM · #82
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by nathan21:
Thank you. Well said. Scripture does support war. I believe there is a correct way to interpret the Bible on certain issues BUT some areas are open to personal interpretation. Some issues are VERY CLEAR in the Bible.

-Nathan21


Yes...

You can choose:

"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." Ex 15.3

OR

"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace." 1 Cor 14.33

Very clear: the nature of God (warlike or peaceful) is one of personal choice.

Not. The nature of God is never one of personal choice.
Would you ever agree that your nature is one of my personal choice? I think not. Your nature is your nature, regardless of what I think.
However, the interpretation of God's nature, just at the interpretation of your nature, is one of personal choice.
As one who calls himself legalbeagle you know that facts are facts, and do not change based on "interpretation". You can misdiagnose ( misinterpret ) a medical issue based on the symptoms, for example, but the actual issue causing the symptoms doesn't change based on the diagnosis or misdiagnosis.

And, for what it's worth, a person can be both a warrior AND a man/woman of peace. Those qualities are NOT mutually exclusive. Just take a look at the list of Nobel Peace Prize laureates - it is filled with the names of men of war - from Teddy Roosevelt to Yasser Arafat.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Other important issues, such as slavery, are similarly personal choices:

"You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." Lev 25.45

OR

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt." Ex 22.21

Again, you have made a fallacious argument. The second verse is not opposed to the first. Taken together, the two statements should be construed to mean that while you may own slaves, you may not mistreat or oppress them. Again, they are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Nice to know that whatever your moral stance, there is a quote to justify your position.

Sure there is, if one wants to misinterpret and/or misapply scripture.
That's why Christians are ( or should be ) taught that they should not attempt to interpret scripture based on a single passage. The saying is "scripture interprets scripture" - that is, in order to properly interpret one passage, one must look at other relevant passages.
 11/30/2006 03:32:23 PM · #83
Ron,
maybe you are misinterpreting these verses. Your comment on slavery and the two verses not being mutually exclusive... that is YOUR interpretation, maybe they are mutually exclusive. The last comment about quotes for any moral stance... maybe you misinterpret these quotes. To me you guys are saying the same thing in a different way.

You proved the point that there is a quote for any moral stance by saying as a christian we have a saying, "scripture interprets scripture." this is what every religion says, they all use scripture to interpret scripture to prove what THEY believe is right.
 11/30/2006 04:14:45 PM · #84
Here is my position! I am more than grateful to stand with the remaining vocal minority in this world that knows that The LORD is alive, well & still in control, even when mere humans cannot see it! Only Omnipotence could stand by silently while audacious mortals cast aspersions & derisions at His worthy Name!

The quintessential definition of Divinity is Self-Existence. He has to prove Himself to no one.

God doesn't need to prove He exists! The Burden of Proof lies squarely on the backs of humans to prove that He doesn't! (Besides, how strong can a person's belief system be if they have to use the word for what they don't believe in the title of what they do believe. ["a"="not", "theos"="God"].)
 11/30/2006 04:24:38 PM · #85
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Ron,
maybe you are misinterpreting these verses.

Perhaps I am. But my interpretation, though it may be wrong, is at least based on my having read the entire Bible several times. I am always open to correction by others - steel sharpens steel, you know.

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Your comment on slavery and the two verses not being mutually exclusive... that is YOUR interpretation, maybe they are mutually exclusive.

I have demonstrated, logically, that they are not exclusive, and could, if pressed, quote several additional passages to prove that mistreatment of slaves was unacceptable to the Lord. For example, in the Ten Commandments it says: "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.",
And in the New Testament it says: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
The last comment about quotes for any moral stance... maybe you misinterpret these quotes. To me you guys are saying the same thing in a different way.

Not really. I'm saying that single passages can often be used to support a position, but that someone with a broader knowledge of scripture will not rely on the implied interpretation of a single passage when the remainder of scripture, along with a knowledge of the customs of the times, leads to a different interpretation - one based on substantially more "evidence".

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
You proved the point that there is a quote for any moral stance by saying as a christian we have a saying, "scripture interprets scripture." this is what every religion says, they all use scripture to interpret scripture to prove what THEY believe is right.

If I recorded someone saying "I beat my wife at tennis", and then cut just the first portion of that recording, "I beat my wife", then that is a valid quote. But it is not a true quote because it is out-of-context. And though I could ( mis ) quote that person to support my position that he shouldn't have custody of his children, but that would lead to an erroneous interpretation. So, while I agree that there is a "quote" for any moral stance, that does not mean that every "quote", taken out-of-context, is true, especially if it leads to an erroneous interptetation.
And, to your second point, that they ALL use scripture - leaglebeagle was not comparing one religion vs. another - it appears that he was trying to point out that Christian scripture contradicts itself. I'm not arguing that the Bible is right and the Koran is wrong in this thread - I'm only arguing that one shouldn't take single passages of scripture out of the context of the entirety of scripture, and that, when given seemingly contradictory statements, one must go further to gain a more correct interpretation.
 11/30/2006 04:45:14 PM · #86
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Ron,
maybe you are misinterpreting these verses.

Perhaps I am. But my interpretation, though it may be wrong, is at least based on my having read the entire Bible several times. I am always open to correction by others - steel sharpens steel, you know.


Ok here is a correction. It is iron sharpens iron.

Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
 11/30/2006 05:12:30 PM · #87
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Ron,
maybe you are misinterpreting these verses.

Perhaps I am. But my interpretation, though it may be wrong, is at least based on my having read the entire Bible several times. I am always open to correction by others - steel sharpens steel, you know.


Ok here is a correction. It is iron sharpens iron.

Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

:-) Thanks for the correction, Erick. I confess that although I remembered the gist of the Proverb, not having memorized the entire Bible, in trying to remember the text my first thoughts went to the knife block in my kitchen, where I have a sharpening STEEL ( not an IRON, which, though a useful appliance, is hardly useful for sharpening knives ). So I wrote STEEL, not IRON. It does make me glad to see that someone's holding me accountable. I need that.
 11/30/2006 05:14:07 PM · #88
Anytime I am sure I can expect the same from you. :-)

Carry on!
 12/01/2006 08:08:01 AM · #89
Originally posted by RonB:
However, the interpretation of God's nature, just at the interpretation of your nature, is one of personal choice.
As one who calls himself legalbeagle you know that facts are facts, and do not change based on "interpretation". You can misdiagnose ( misinterpret ) a medical issue based on the symptoms, for example, but the actual issue causing the symptoms doesn't change based on the diagnosis or misdiagnosis.


I hope that you don't mind me examining this further (I like to understand better, although I dare say that we will not convert each other from our basic positions).

So is the bible incorrect, or does it merely accurately record statements of third person personal belief some of which may be incorrect? I don't mean to twist your words here, but these statements appear to be mutually exclusive and cannot both be correct.

I understand that the bible is not the word of god (cf the Qur'an), but if there were a god, omnipotent, and if his message was so important, why use such vague (and undetectable) ways to pass on the message?

I accept that the bible condones slavery (quite graphically - it appears to condone the selling of daughters for sexual purposes) (Ex 27.11 et seq). I think that this demonstrates the historical context in which this religion was conceived, which has changed. If god were to repeat his message for modern society, it is hard to believe that these verses or their intent would be repeated. This makes a mockery of a never changing god, or an omniscient god, or of a pre-determined objective morality.

If god were to change his message to reflect our social morality at any given time, then god would be conforming to social morality, rather than determining it. That is what I believe happens: society determines through interpretation how to apply religious beliefs. However, this undermines the need for god to actually exist (given that society is self regulating).

Originally posted by 777STAN:
Only Omnipotence could stand by silently while audacious mortals cast aspersions & derisions at His worthy Name!

I agree that any god does appear to stand silently by while I cast aspersions at his existence. However, alternative reasons might be that god is not watching, or does not exist.

Bertrand Russell's martian teapot argument is a very strong argument as to why the absence of god should be the basic premise, and his existence is what rational beings should require to be demonstrated.
 12/01/2006 09:05:24 AM · #90
Man, I am so glad that religion doesn't play a big part in politics where I come from.

The two should be seperate and independent entities that should not mix.
 12/01/2006 10:47:54 AM · #91
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
However, the interpretation of God's nature, just at the interpretation of your nature, is one of personal choice.
As one who calls himself legalbeagle you know that facts are facts, and do not change based on "interpretation". You can misdiagnose ( misinterpret ) a medical issue based on the symptoms, for example, but the actual issue causing the symptoms doesn't change based on the diagnosis or misdiagnosis.


I hope that you don't mind me examining this further (I like to understand better, although I dare say that we will not convert each other from our basic positions).

So is the bible incorrect, or does it merely accurately record statements of third person personal belief some of which may be incorrect? I don't mean to twist your words here, but these statements appear to be mutually exclusive and cannot both be correct.

a) The Bible is neither incorrect nor does it "merely" record statements which may be incorrect. The Bible records biographical glimpses of people who were in many regards just like us, some demonstrated faith, some did not, some sinned, some were upright - and behaviors were not always consistent with faith, or the lack thereof. The Bible also records the words of God's prophets, and the actions of God in the lives of His people.
b) I thought that I demonstrated, logically, that both CAN be correct - i.e. God can be both a Warrior God and a God of peace ( though both on a scale grander than Teddy Roosevelt or Yasser Arafat ), and one can both own slaves AND treat them well.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I understand that the bible is not the word of god (cf the Qur'an), but if there were a god, omnipotent, and if his message was so important, why use such vague (and undetectable) ways to pass on the message?

Christians believe that the Bible IS the word of God, but do not believe that every word, phrase, statement can be taken literally. The Bible employs all of the literary effects of any other great work - that is, it employs allegory, allusion, hyperbole, irony, metaphors, parables, similes, etc. That is why passages should not be interpreted in-situ, but interpreted within a broader understanding of scripture.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I accept that the bible condones slavery (quite graphically - it appears to condone the selling of daughters for sexual purposes) (Ex 27.11 et seq).

While the Bible does recognize the enslavement of non-Israelites ( and the voluntary entrance into slavery of Israelites until the year of Jubilee ), it does NOT "condone" the selling of daughters for sexual purposes. There were three situations into which daughters could be sold: 1) to be a maidservant to the buyer, 2) to be the wife of the buyer, 3) to be the wife of the buyer's son. Maidservants were not to be used for sexual purposes as this would be a violation of the Lord's directive to not "mistreat or oppress" them. Wives were entitled to an inheritance, as were their children - a high price indeed if engaged in just for sexual purposes.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that this demonstrates the historical context in which this religion was conceived, which has changed. If god were to repeat his message for modern society, it is hard to believe that these verses or their intent would be repeated. This makes a mockery of a never changing god, or an omniscient god, or of a pre-determined objective morality.

From a purely logical basis, yes, this "would" make a mockery of a never changing god, etc. But that would only be true in the eyes of the mockers themselves. For those viewing from outside that circle, no such mockery would, or could exist. Your argument is akin to my stating that O.J. Simpson's trial made a mockery of the U.S. judicial system. To some, yes, it did. To others, it worked exactly as it should - he was tried, and found not-guilty, by a jury of his peers. Thus, it would appear that "mockery" is in the eyes of the beholder - yet another "interpretation".
If God were to repeat His message for modern society, the verses might change, but the message would not.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
If god were to change his message to reflect our social morality at any given time, then god would be conforming to social morality, rather than determining it. That is what I believe happens: society determines through interpretation how to apply religious beliefs. However, this undermines the need for god to actually exist (given that society is self regulating).

a) God neither conforms to social morality, nor determines it. He has made His views of morality fairly clear, and has given each of us a conscience so that we will "know" His view ( if we listen to our conscience ).But society, exercising free will, determines its own social morality ( which is often in opposition to God's ),
b) The need for God is not determined by either society or religion. Scripture says "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
That means that without Him, the Universe would cease to "hold together". Therefore, we need Him, whether we acknowledge it or not. One need not believe in gravity to need it. But belief in it will help one to respect its power.
c) Society is not self-regulating. If it were, there would be no need for soldiers or politicians - or for lawyers :-).
12/01/2006 10:57:53 AM · #92
Where we come from beer and Tim Horton's coffee are recognized religions. Oh, and back bacon, eh.

Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Man, I am so glad that religion doesn't play a big part in politics where I come from.

The two should be seperate and independent entities that should not mix.
12/01/2006 11:04:20 AM · #93
Originally posted by Jacko:
Where we come from beer and Tim Horton's coffee are recognized religions. Oh, and back bacon, eh.

Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Man, I am so glad that religion doesn't play a big part in politics where I come from.

The two should be seperate and independent entities that should not mix.


Got that right, hoser.

Take off, eh?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 10:34:31 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 10:34:31 AM EDT.