When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
Byron White
yet you respond to me every time, like clock work. Face it, I'm in your head, buddy
No, Demon, I am just looking for a little diversion. But it is good to see that you are consistently full of yourself. Berating you for your ignorance helps me vent and stay on top of important matters.
I don't know. Because I don't know if I have made the grade, so to speak.
ok then, what is the significance of good friday and easter?
We all know that Jesus died for our sins. Now the likes of Demon says it is all fiction. But in order to be saved you must believe in him as your savior. Of course, if one truly believes then they will strive to live a Christian life. I do not live up to that standard at all times.
But in order to be saved you must believe in him as your savior.
exactly. coincidentally, that is the *only* requirement to be saved. it isn't what you do on this earth that gets you condemned to eternal damnation, or allows you to walk through the pearly gates. merely that you believe.
so where exactly then do you get off telling people that if they don't behave a certain way, that they'll be condemned to hell?
exactly. coincidentally, that is the *only* requirement to be saved. I am not sure about this. I have heard it said but what does it mean to believe? Simply saying it does not mean that it is so.
so where exactly then do you get off telling people that if they don't behave a certain way, that they'll be condemned to hell? I think if one truly believes one's actions are consitent with that belief. So when some says they believe but their actions are not in accordance with the belief then questions arise as to whether they actually do believe.
No, Demon, I am just looking for a little diversion. But it is good to see that you are consistently full of yourself. Berating you for your ignorance helps me vent and stay on top of important matters.
if that's the way you view it, I do not blame you for being blissfully ignorant
well now, that would be up to the person doing the believing, wouldn't it?
The question isn't one just for the person that proclaims to believe. Their actions say a lot. We can even observe them. God can observe them. So the real question is what does God know not what he is told.
you ought to go read paul's letter to the romans. I have read them. He says if you believe you will be compelled to act in accordance.
There has been no cessation of hostility in the secularists' war against Christianity. The enemies of religious freedom are still operating at full force, and we must keep our eyes on them.
It is simple psychosis. I suppose you support the California Court reinstating the malcontents. Despite the fact it is a violation of the freedom of religion and association.
Whenever someone uses an appellate court decision as ammunition for a polemic, I want to look at the particulars of the case, because the details are often quite different from the characterization of them by the polemicist. I am doubly suspicious here, because Limbaugh does not give us the name of the case or the name of the court.
What little I've been able to find with Google has the same slant as the Limbaugh article, but one piece hints that it's not a question of doctrine so much as it is property rights -- the church was owned by its members, and throwing them out of the congregation essentially deprived them of property without due process of law. That's a bit different from the spin Brother David puts on it.
jethro, as I said, why don't we take a look at the actual case and the arguments on both sides. Write to your buddy Limbaugh and ask him for the case name and the court that made the ruling, and we'll see what the actual issues are. I Googled it about six different ways and couldn't come up with much other than reprints of Limbaugh's column.
Your links simply prove that Limbaugh is vastly overreaching when he seeks to characterize one local court decision on what is essentially a business dispute as another battle in "the secularists' war against Christianity." For openers, the dispute is between two factions in the same church, not a case of outsiders trying to shut something down.
The curch had until the end of April to file an appeal; did they?
Your links simply prove that Limbaugh is vastly overreaching when he seeks to characterize one local court decision on what is essentially a business dispute as another battle in "the secularists' war against Christianity." It was a comment on the courts and Limbaugh was entirely correct.For openers, the dispute is between two factions in the same church, not a case of outsiders trying to shut something down. It isn't any courts business who is and is not a memeber of a church.
There is a violation of the 1st amendment on freedom of religious grounds and freedom of association. Limbaugh was exactly right that people like crabs and pieter are hypocrites.
Again, jethro, we don't know the details of the case, which is essentially a property dispute. Both sides claim that the church's bylaws are on their side; if not to the courts, where should the two parties go to resolve the dispute?
The church is apparently an independent house of worship, so there's no bishop or governing body who has jurisdiction, God is usually silent on matters mundane, and duelling is illegal. Sounds like the courts are the place for this disagreement. To term a court decision "secular oppression" is stretching things more than a little.
There is a violation of the 1st amendment on freedom of religious grounds and freedom of association. Limbaugh was exactly right that people like crabs and pieter are hypocrites.
Again, jethro, we don't know the details of the case, which is essentially a property dispute. I am not sure we know that. But the answer is not for the government to force these people together.Both sides claim that the church's bylaws are on their side; if not to the courts, where should the two parties go to resolve the dispute? Like I said, and I guess you are intentionally misuderstanding me, is that it is not the court's role to force these people together.
The church is apparently an independent house of worship, so there's no bishop or governing body who has jurisdiction, God is usually silent on matters mundane, and duelling is illegal. Sounds like the courts are the place for this disagreement. To term a court decision "secular oppression" is stretching things more than a little. The precise order of the court is oppression and a violation of the constituion. Does that mean the court wouldn't have a role in dividing property if that is the issue-no.
the court's order is a violation of the constitution. that is oppression. you can argue about degrees of oppression but it still is oppression. Definition of oppress: to weigh heavily on the mind, spirits or senses of; worry, trouble or to keep down by cruel or unjust use of power or authority.
yet you respond to me every time, like clock work. Face it, I'm in your head, buddy
No, Demon, I am just looking for a little diversion. But it is good to see that you are consistently full of yourself. Berating you for your ignorance helps me vent and stay on top of important matters.
I don't know. Because I don't know if I have made the grade, so to speak.
ok then, what is the significance of good friday and easter?
We all know that Jesus died for our sins. Now the likes of Demon says it is all fiction. But in order to be saved you must believe in him as your savior. Of course, if one truly believes then they will strive to live a Christian life. I do not live up to that standard at all times.
But in order to be saved you must believe in him as your savior.
exactly. coincidentally, that is the *only* requirement to be saved. it isn't what you do on this earth that gets you condemned to eternal damnation, or allows you to walk through the pearly gates. merely that you believe.
so where exactly then do you get off telling people that if they don't behave a certain way, that they'll be condemned to hell?
exactly. coincidentally, that is the *only* requirement to be saved. I am not sure about this. I have heard it said but what does it mean to believe? Simply saying it does not mean that it is so.
so where exactly then do you get off telling people that if they don't behave a certain way, that they'll be condemned to hell? I think if one truly believes one's actions are consitent with that belief. So when some says they believe but their actions are not in accordance with the belief then questions arise as to whether they actually do believe.
No, Demon, I am just looking for a little diversion. But it is good to see that you are consistently full of yourself. Berating you for your ignorance helps me vent and stay on top of important matters.
if that's the way you view it, I do not blame you for being blissfully ignorant
I am not sure about this. I have heard it said but what does it mean to believe? Simply saying it does not mean that it is so.
well now, that would be up to the person doing the believing, wouldn't it?
you ought to go read paul's letter to the romans.
more evidence that bodine has no clue as to what this "one true morality" even is.
i'll tell you what it is. whatever it takes to turn america into a christian iran.
well now, that would be up to the person doing the believing, wouldn't it?
The question isn't one just for the person that proclaims to believe. Their actions say a lot. We can even observe them. God can observe them. So the real question is what does God know not what he is told.
you ought to go read paul's letter to the romans. I have read them. He says if you believe you will be compelled to act in accordance.
i'll tell you what it is. whatever it takes to turn america into a christian iran.
There we were having a civil discussion and then you do this. Do you really believe that lie?
I admit it, I'm a sinner.
Do I see some kind of Promise Keepers thing forming here?
Bring in some ex-jocks turned ministers and ya'll start getting in a huddle, wailing, weeping and carrying on?
There we were having a civil discussion and then you do this. Do you really believe that lie?
and if i don't believe that its a lie?
it would just confim my opinion.
There has been no cessation of hostility in the secularists' war against Christianity. The enemies of religious freedom are still operating at full force, and we must keep our eyes on them.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20040514.shtml
and what of the oppression secularists feel?
and what of the oppression secularists feel?
It is simple psychosis. I suppose you support the California Court reinstating the malcontents. Despite the fact it is a violation of the freedom of religion and association.
that has nothing to do with I am talking about, nice deflection.
yes it does. you just want to ignore it. it is an illness. get help.
you are completely off base.
how about responding to what I actually proposed?
you are completely off base.
I am actually on base and not even leading off!
how about responding to what I actually proposed?
I think I did. I said it was a psychosis and that you should get help.
I see, so, once again, you have no plausible stance.
not surprising
I see, so, once again, you have no plausible stance.
not surprising
Just because reject it does not mean that it isn't plausible. Anything with which you disagree is not plausible to. Dude, that ain't plausible.
you said I was psychotic.
You have no credentials to make such an assertation.
your stance=not plausible
Dude, I read your stuff. You are nuts. Doesn't take a degree in psycobabble to see that.
lmao
so utterly clueless
did god tell you I was nuts?
no, Demon, you revealed to everyone that you are nuts.
no I haven't
so I see you dismiss anything you disagree with as nuts
no I haven't
Denial. A sure symptom.
Whenever someone uses an appellate court decision as ammunition for a polemic, I want to look at the particulars of the case, because the details are often quite different from the characterization of them by the polemicist. I am doubly suspicious here, because Limbaugh does not give us the name of the case or the name of the court.
What little I've been able to find with Google has the same slant as the Limbaugh article, but one piece hints that it's not a question of doctrine so much as it is property rights -- the church was owned by its members, and throwing them out of the congregation essentially deprived them of property without due process of law. That's a bit different from the spin Brother David puts on it.
Limbaugh or pieter? I know which one has morfe integrity. I should say any integrity.
-- the church was owned by its members, and throwing them out of the congregation essentially deprived them of property without due process of law.
even if it were true the answer would not be to force them back in but to partition the property.
Whenever someone uses an appellate court decision as...
it was not an appellate decision but a circuit court decision. See
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/22004a.aspand http://sacunion.com/archives/printerfriendly/61_0_16_0/
It also appears the church has been around since 1895. I think that cuts against the idea that they have property rights in it.
jethro, as I said, why don't we take a look at the actual case and the arguments on both sides. Write to your buddy Limbaugh and ask him for the case name and the court that made the ruling, and we'll see what the actual issues are. I Googled it about six different ways and couldn't come up with much other than reprints of Limbaugh's column.
see my links. It was a circuit court case you probably won't get a wriiten decision.
Your links simply prove that Limbaugh is vastly overreaching when he seeks to characterize one local court decision on what is essentially a business dispute as another battle in "the secularists' war against Christianity." For openers, the dispute is between two factions in the same church, not a case of outsiders trying to shut something down.
The curch had until the end of April to file an appeal; did they?
I fail to see any "secular" oppression.
Your links simply prove that Limbaugh is vastly overreaching when he seeks to characterize one local court decision on what is essentially a business dispute as another battle in "the secularists' war against Christianity." It was a comment on the courts and Limbaugh was entirely correct.For openers, the dispute is between two factions in the same church, not a case of outsiders trying to shut something down. It isn't any courts business who is and is not a memeber of a church.
I fail to see any "secular" oppression.
There is a violation of the 1st amendment on freedom of religious grounds and freedom of association. Limbaugh was exactly right that people like crabs and pieter are hypocrites.
Again, jethro, we don't know the details of the case, which is essentially a property dispute. Both sides claim that the church's bylaws are on their side; if not to the courts, where should the two parties go to resolve the dispute?
The church is apparently an independent house of worship, so there's no bishop or governing body who has jurisdiction, God is usually silent on matters mundane, and duelling is illegal. Sounds like the courts are the place for this disagreement. To term a court decision "secular oppression" is stretching things more than a little.
"To term a court decision "secular oppression" is stretching things more than a little."
It's also totally insulting people in this world who really are oppressed.
again...where is the "secular"
it's a dispute between two groups of churchgoers.
Again, jethro, we don't know the details of the case, which is essentially a property dispute. I am not sure we know that. But the answer is not for the government to force these people together.Both sides claim that the church's bylaws are on their side; if not to the courts, where should the two parties go to resolve the dispute? Like I said, and I guess you are intentionally misuderstanding me, is that it is not the court's role to force these people together.
The church is apparently an independent house of worship, so there's no bishop or governing body who has jurisdiction, God is usually silent on matters mundane, and duelling is illegal. Sounds like the courts are the place for this disagreement. To term a court decision "secular oppression" is stretching things more than a little. The precise order of the court is oppression and a violation of the constituion. Does that mean the court wouldn't have a role in dividing property if that is the issue-no.
It's also totally insulting people in this world who really are oppressed.
The court's order is a violation of the 1st amendment.
it's a dispute between two groups of churchgoers.
Duh! That isn't the issue and if you didn't have a drug numbed mind you might even be able to understand it.
You and probably Limbaugh have never been to a country where people are oppressed.
But if Limbaugh (or you, I don't know) called it "secular inconveniences" it would be hard to rile up the rabble.
the court's order is a violation of the constitution. that is oppression. you can argue about degrees of oppression but it still is oppression. Definition of oppress: to weigh heavily on the mind, spirits or senses of; worry, trouble or to keep down by cruel or unjust use of power or authority.
jethro, where did you get your degree in Constitutional Law?
jethro, where did you get your degree in Constitutional Law?
I don't believe there is such a thing. But I think I probably have more education in the law than you do.