Boomerdog

There are 13 Epistles (letters) attributed to St. Paul’s authorship. There is some debate he may not have written all of them but that’s another debate for another time. The letters were written in Greek. The letters served at least two purposes. 1) To answer specific questions from each church located in a different city and 2) Provide guidance on the problems, challenges etc. each church was facing. Different churches had different problems. Did St. Paul ever think that his letters would be part of the Biblical cannon approximately two millennia later? I submit (IMHO only) that he did not. His writing reflects the cultural/societal norms of the time. Furthermore, Greek and English DO NOT directly translate; there is only the best translation. This is not to state that St. Paul’s work is invalid to contemporary times. St. Peter and St. Paul are and remain, the two critical and crucial human figures in the establishment of the Christian Church. Their words are as relevant today as they were back then. Yet it would be disingenuous not to consider the social, cultural, historical context of which they wrote AND in the language they used (Greek for Paul, Peter may have used Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic). This is why when scripture we read and we find perplexing, controversial, hateful etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum, we go back to the original language, history etc etc to understand such factors at the time it was written. So, you’re free to peruse any of the 13 Epistles and specifically cite what “hateful” words St. Paul has used. Best wishes in the search.

But he's also been tagged as a Democrat. Hmmm...this is certainly a strange Two-Way or is it a Three-Way? Anyone care to say either way?

Touchy touchy touchy there. All I asked for was specific names of theologians and I get your screed. Sorry, I did not know the question was of such sensistive nature.

Which Christian theologians do not recognize the Roman Catholic Church as part of Orthodox Christianity? I'd love to know.

Flavius Josephus writes of Jesus in "The Jewish Antiquities." Josephus does cite that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. So it seems that one secular source write as an eyewitness that Jesus was a real person. Now WHO Jesus actually was, mere man or God incarnate is something each of us have to decide. So, I'll leave that one to you and everyone else here as I have made my decision and am very happy about it. It does appear, however, that Jesus actually existed.

I'll file that on under "unclear on the concept."

Yea...I know, I read the article myself. Reid and son need to look over their shoulders. Ya don't achieve what he's achieved without leaving bodies in the wake. Here's the problem; one or some of those bodies are going to rise up and "drop a dime on them." Ooops...I erred. Adjusting for inflation, they'll have to drop a dollar on them...but it'll be a dollar well spent.

Are you intimating Jesus is at fault? If so, you just might also be implying that Jesus is alive...after 2,000 years. Imagine that! Perhaps the Easter story is true after all!

and I bet you think you know who they are.

'bout damn time!

Yup...Bundy up and screwed the pooch. Can't and won't excuse the man's words which sheds some light on his views. So how's about I throw a few grenades on the table: Seeking Sen. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary over Obama, former President Bill Clinton saying of Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." Senator Harry Reid once praised fellow senator Barack Obama because he was, in Reid’s words, a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” And the hits keep comin' and comin' from Senator Harry Reid. Worried that he would not get enough Hispanic voters to the polls, he condescendingly lectured the Latino community: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?” And lest we forget...the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), Majority Leader of the United States Senate a few years ago but years before that an active member rising to the rank of Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Well sports fans, looks like we got a little...just a little racism goin' on BOTH sides of the fence...not just one.

Not yet at least!

I purposely made the decision to note only those rebellions after the formation of the United States. However, your legitimate historical references are noted.

I applaud you starting this. A long time ago, I learned a hard lesson. The press is not about principle...it's about advertising dollars and what they can charge for advertising based upon the size of their audience or the size of the readership. It's all about how they can spin the story, manipulate the details to their advantage, make it sound like they are the ones who are the experts and voila, they can charge the big bucks for advertising. Sadly, most of them are a bunch of ignorant Whuffos when it comes to skydiving.

Well...different subject...same issue. To clarify, the 17th Century was the period 1600-1699. The 18th Century is the period 1700-1799 and the 19th Century is the period 1800-1899. The American 18th Century saw three rebellions with one slightly bridging into the 19th Century. The rebellions are listed: 1) Shay’s Rebellion (1786-1787) 2) Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794) 3) Fries Rebellion (1799-1800) And lest we forget, the Civil War (1861-1865) was a rebellion of Southern States against the Federal Government. In all cases, the rebellions were suppressed with Government forces prevailing. So it seems that despite the contention we live in different times, the common thread of rebellion just might be in the DNA of Americans and this has been with us since our founding. So what's SOOOOO different in the 21st Century? Threatening Federal officials, I think everyone knows that’s illegal. But historically, all governments; monarchies, dictatorships, parliamentary and republican democracies have with little if any exception, written into law the illegality of rebellion. So what else is new? The protestors in Nevada are certainly aware of it but this begs a question why they continue the resistance; answer/opinion forthcoming. The Founding Fathers were not a monolithic mix of peaceniks as suggested. While the initial response to King George III was probably diplomatic, the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war as diplomatic remedies were considered by the Continental Congress to have exhausted themselves. One last point on this, an act of diplomacy should never be considered as peaceful. Diplomacy may be non-violent, non-lethal but not always peaceful in nature. In point of fact, some acts of diplomacy such as the US embargo of South Pacific Oil against Japan was perceived to be an act of war from the Japanese perspective and was a major factor in the attack on Pearl Harbor. After reading many of the comments here, I don’t think there’s any disagreement that Bundy is in violation of the law. The compelling disagreement, however, may be due to the beliefs and resulting purpose of Bundy’s actions. I cannot speak to the traditions of other countries. The American tradition in the rule of law is I submit an assumption of our belief that law requires all of us; to include all branches of the US Government to execute and obey the laws faithfully. The rule of law is not the whim of one individual OR a government and by extension THOSE ELECTED to serially violate the laws determined by any individual(s) as inconvenient and who, under a distorted application of prosecutorial discretion, gives rewards to favored constituencies while simultaneously punishing those in political opposition. The rule of law IS the orderly foundation of our free society and when those wielding power undertake to tame those whose activities and/or opinions are in disagreement, the rule of law is compromised. Therefore, is the justification for taking lawful action against Nevada ranchers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) an act of craven pretext? In the opinion of many including myself, those in the government decision loop only want to enforce the ESA against a disfavored class, the ranchers. But if you’re a well-connected member of the favored class who needs the same land for a project consistent with the current administration's policy, the administration will not only restrain enforcing the ESA against those favored; it will use the Desert Tortoise (even though cattle and tortoise pose no threat to the other) as the fulcrum against the ranchers’ in order to manufacture a better pretext for using the law to target and "paint" the ranchers as the bad guys. The current administration is not the only administration to engage in selective enforcement but I think they’ve raised it to an art form never before seen in the history of this country. When law is applied as a politicized weapon rather than a reflection of society’s shared values it puts ALL of us in danger. Elected officials who weaponize law lose their presumption of legitimacy. Consequently, this situation is turning into the federal law versus the federal outlaw. Don't be surprised if the larger public starts to see this as a Goliath against a David. After all, Americans love to see the underdog win. Time and events will ultimately provide the answer. Either way, I think this ends bad for someone, I just don't know who.

Don't know about the Packers Season Tickets but I do know my brother-in-law and a cousin of his inherited the family's Packer Season Tickets from an Uncle and they dare not give them up.

Certainly NOT a Raiders fan...but these days the Raiders ain't much to write home about. Gone are the days...

Mr. Williams called the Seahawks practice "unconstitutional." It might be given the Interstate Commerce Clause. But I'm not a Judge; for that matter I'm not a lawyer...but I can smell a whiner when I read about or see one. Yup...call ther WHAAAMMMBULANCE!

WWJD? "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

The following URL is offered as it is I think an opinion that clarifies the larger issue that many of us are debating here. I encourage all those here to read it regardless of the position each of us takes in this matter. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php Don't let the title dissuade. Like books and their covers, don't judge the substance from the title. This article also speaks to a larger issue of the unscientific poll conducted at the start of this thread; we are a divided country with two different visions of how to proceed into the future. The issues behind the competing visions are creating deep and irreparable divisions. The question now is whether all of us can step back and seek a compromise. History is a great teacher. The issues behind the Civil War were similar in nature in that no one was willing to compromise. Some issues such as slavery could not be compromised but other issues such as an internal colonialism imposed by an industrial North upon and agrarian South just might have been solved had cooler heads prevailed. Cooler heads did not prevail. The result; approximately 650,000 American dead, killed at the hands of other Americans. At the time, that was 3% of the population and that was quite substantial given that point in our history. Serving in the military for many years had its academic responsibilities. Contrary to the belief of some, we do spend a lot of our time in classrooms studying the nature of war, civilizations, economics, politics and national security etc etc. While war is a series of extremely violent actions that produces horrific results, it is a result of many factors; the inability of two opposing parties to resolve violently what they could not peacefully. Let's make no mistake, this was an armed confrontation of Federal Law Enforcement officers versus those sympathetic to Mr. Bundy. No shots were fired, no wounded, no death...THIS TIME. The next time may be different. The sad fact is, the issue out in Nevada is far from resolved and as the author argues, NEITHER side holds all the cards of virtue. I'm going to stick my neck out here and I don't take much comfort but the issue is worth such action. All of us on both sides of the political spectrum would do well to take a few steps back and make a bold and concerted attempt to understand the position of the other. Those of us who have been in war and/or seen the results up close and personal know the horror and in the end amongst the smoldering carnage, the survivors ask, "What got us to this in the first place?" This is my last post this subject but I still have to ask Billvon; "Is that all you got?"

Then take your ball, your bat, and your marbles and go home! I've had General Officers throw me out of their offices and in some cases call me back the next day to tell me that after thinking it over I wasn't too far off the mark after all. I've pissed off a lot of people and lived to tell about it so get in line and take a number. I'll ask you again...Is that all you got?

Uh no...the internet is rife with this guy's escapades so why don't you let your fingers do the typing and do the search yourself...I'm not here to spoon feed you!

Do you know who Al Sharpton is?

You are using the privilege of historical hindsight or put it another way...Monday Morning Quarterbacking. At the time of their "crimes" those cited weren't exactly considered to be societal heroes, cultural icons etc etc. With apologies to DeNiro..."Is that all you got?"

OK..who are the thugs here? What if Gandhi had NOT ignored the law? Martin Luther King? Rosa Parks? Had Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton et.al. NOT told HRH George III to shove it where the moon don't shine, things would be different. But let some cowboy tell the government to shove it and a chorus cries out that he ought to hung and left there for all to see what happens when you cross the US Government. After all, he's just some hick redneck dumb ass cowboy. Bundy may or may not be wrong but he just might have a case worth hearing and I'm not one who believes this case has been fully heard. In the meantime, what has happened ought to shock the the hell out of everyone here whether we agree or disagree on the merits of this case. WHERE is the hard core scientific data and other evidence that the desert tortoise is endangered and/or further endangered by the cattle? Cattle have been grazing on that land long before the Endangered Species Act became law and it appears the turtles were doing quite well thank you. So a "hick cowboy" gives the finger to the Feds and how do they respond? They come in like a bunch of Spec Ops wannabes in their paramilitary garb, automatic weapons and snipers hidden in position and one of them has the temerity to tell one of the demonstrators that "We're here to keep you safe!" Good gawd give me break on that one. Law Enforcement Officers were once called "Peace Officers" but that day is long gone. Damn near every government agency has by law an enforcement mandate now has their own paramilitary SWAT team. Instead of taking from the Sub-Tzu principle that "to win without fighting is best," these clowns show up ready to fight before they even think about having a mature discussion with the very people they are supposed to serve and in the words of Alexander Hamilton to a British Envoy nearly two centuries ago, "Here sir, the people rule." Having served in the military myself, I find it a personal affront and insult that the police find it necessary to dress themselves up like the military. Like I said, they should be peace officers NOT a bunch thugs having wild assed fantasies about being in Seal Team 6. What should be further alarming is that there are compelling rumors worth follow up that amongst the law enforcement were contractors augmenting the police force and they were armed. Huh? Blackwater et al is questionable as it is in the international arena, I sure as hell don't want contractors raising weapons against American citizens and I don't think anyone here with any position would want the same. The BLM folded when a whole bunch of armed citizens showed up. and they were ready to have a gunfight if it came to that. The BLM folded like a house of cards. The Spec Ops wannabes fled like a bunch of cowardly pussies. If those clowns with the badges were true warriors they would not have run like the bullies that they are. They retreated under the excuse that they'll let the courts decide the matter. The case should have stayed in the courts in the first place. It is obvious from the unscientific poll at the beginning of this thread that there is some significant division in this matter. But in the short time I've had the privilege to be in the skydiving community, there is low tolerance for bullshit and a high commitment to do what is right...after all doing what we know is right can save our lives. As a people, we deserve from our government, a rational tempered response that enforces the law without making such a scene. We should demand it; but somewhere we lost our nerve to tell the government,"this far and no more!" If they can do it to some knuckle dragging cowboy, they'll do it to anyone here.