I see, and if you were born in China?
If that’s how you view things, then describe any circumstance in which lifting the general proscription against eating pork, for just one example, is justified through such an analysis. While it could easily be viewed as justified in narrowly circumscribed specific circumstances, those hold no water in the general case.
Same thing I guess.
The true meaning is that God is testing people by telling them to do x or y.
Why does an omiscient God need to test people if he already knows what they’ll do?
What is your evidence that God has ever told anybody anything?
Remember when God told Abraham to sacrifice Issac?
I asked people back on the first page to refrain from nasty personal comments – like this.
Warning issued for personal insults.
So, these laws are just tests, not actual rules? How does that work, exactly?
And even if they are just tests, how does that, in any way, lessen the fact that Jesus, the dude you claim to follow, said they are still in force?
See Galatians.
LeMay’s SAC forces would have had no ability to defend us against the Soviets if they really wanted to attack us. LeMay was obsessed with the idea that we should simply nuke the Soviets preemptively. He was a nutcase with a bombing fetish.
I also don’t think he deserves to be let off the hook for being George Wallace’s running mate just because he claimed that he personally wasn’t a racist. I don’t find a meaningful difference between between being a bigot who supported segregation or a non-bigot who supported segregation. The difference between being George Wallace and being George Wallace’s bitch is too negligible to be expulpatory.
What about it? How does this answer either one of my questions? Do you believe that this story in genesis represents actual evidence that god historical spoke to a character named Abraham?
Is The Odyssey proof that Athena spoke to Odysseus?
I ask again, why would an omniscient God need to test people when he already knows what they’'ll do.
Redo the thread.
Ask a right wing person who has no problem with killing lots of people in wars and those perceived as threats, while claiming to be a Christian.
How do you reconcile the obvious conflicts?
I meant politics. I have by no means read all or even most of your posts, but I’ve yet to see anything that varies in the slightest from what you might hear Rush Limpballs say.
It does if you want it to. You can make it say exactly what you want ,while claiming to be rigorous translator of what is in the bible.
You keep repeating that, but you refuse to do anything to answer these questions, from me and others. You claim to be an intellectual, yet you refuse to answer the question in anything approaching an intellectual manner. Why is that?
How were they necessary? (Please elaborate, Curtis. No more one sentence answers. This is getting ridiculous)
Curtis – have you ever heard of Smedley Butler?
Would this explain why so many of your ‘answers’ are platitudes devoid of insight?
Have you considered changing your name to Curtis Mayfield? It’s close to the original and he was much less of an a-hole than Gen. LeMay.
In Freakonomics, Steve Levitt suggests that the drop in crime in the 1990s was a direct result of the legalization of abortion. For the following questions, please assume that this is true.
-In your view, would the drop in crime justify legalizing abortion?
-If not, would you be OK with a lesser number of abortions (say 5,000/year) if it produced an identical reduction in crime?
-If not, could you explain why you think it’s okay for the Bush administration to have caused 100,000 deaths in Iraq in furtherance of its goals.
How about, Ask The Boy Suffering From Extreme Cognitive Dissonance.?
I’d be more inclined to put this down to him being a little kid.
When do you turn 14?
Careful, that could be a personal question.