pajarito

I obviously give the terrorists/insurgents more credit for intelligence and organization than you do. Some may be acting by themselves tactically due to reasons you mentioned but I’m pretty sure they are ultimately answering to someone who has a long-term strategic plan. I would think that transporting chemical weapons into Iraq and the consequences of using them would be controlled from way up the terrorist food-chain. The war isn’t always fought on the battlefield. I still say that keeping the US looking bad in front of the world community is a good tool for Al-Qaeda. It’s probably worth as much as killing a bunch of people to them. The US producing WMD can’t be good for their cause if it then completely justifies the invasion of Iraq. Even in the eyes of all the critics who only see WMD as the only justifiable reason to invade. I don’t believe the guys that planted this IED knew what they had. I don’t think it was brought in from somewhere else and I don’t believe it was planted. I’d expect most to hope that they find and destroy as much as they can. The troops are there to fight the fight. The mission comes first. They won’t be the ones to back down when it gets tougher. The no-backbone liberal US population might but the soldiers on the ground won’t.

Yeah....me too....Geez!!

Has anyone brought this up yet? It just doesn’t make sense to me that insurgents would bring WMD into the country. Their leadership is smart. Politically and in the realm of public opinion, I think it would hurt their cause. WMD found in Iraq will further justify our cause. That was one of the main reasons we went there in the first place (not the only major reason, mind you). Right now, everybody is convinced that there weren’t any and that we were unjustified in the invasion in the first place. That makes Iraq look like the victim and the big bad guy is the United States. The insurgents could potentially make a very big hit with a WMD brought in but, unless they’re able to use it in an appropriate manner, I just can’t see it helping their cause by any of it being there. I think they’d want to use other tactics besides WMD in Iraq. Am I wrong?

I set up in deep brakes with a wrap for controllability. Depending on the wind, I can then release and build up speed if I feel I need to (but I keep the wrap). I like to come in as slow as possible. I then try and plan my flare so that I come straight down the last couple of feet. So, I guess the stall/surge method.

I can't believe I just read that. So, even if we find a stockpile, you'll call "BS"?? WTF is that? Seems to be the strategy. Give everybody the benefit of the doubt before the U.S. Should be ashamed. I sincerely believe that these bleeding hearts will call BS when/if a stockpile is found. No amount of evidence will be enough.

We've only been there 1 year for crying out loud and that's been fighting uphill the entire time. How soon after we got there would be an appropriate amount of time to you for the US to find WMD? You see, I think that the general US population is so used to getting what they want "fast food" style that they've got no gumption to stick it out for the long haul. I'm so sick of hearing people bellyache over something that takes actual work and sacrifice to achieve. I refuse to dishonor those who have fallen in that way.

I swear I was thinking about this before I read your post. I was going to start the whole space aliens put the WMD bomb there just to make it appear that there were WMD in country when there really are not. That the space aliens (ok...Martians) are in good with GWB and the Republicans (because they're of a higher order in intelligence, of course) and that it was all part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory to get GWB re-elected. Because it couldn’t be WMD. We’ve already established that there were none. I mean, it’s already been on all the talk shows and CNN. Seriously folks. Even if you're liberal and hate GWB. You're American. How about a "way to go guys" for our troops and our country. Even if it's a small find, it's still a check mark in the win category for us. How about being on your country's side, by default, for a change instead of being the first to criticize and downplay.

Yes. If I wasn't married with kids, I only operated within friendly line perimeters, and I was allowed to be very well armed just like the military. Otherwise, as a civilian?...HELL NO!!! It would also have to be for a significant amount of money. Tax free, of course.

No problem with that.

Better or worse than another sex scandal? Hmmmm. You're actually blaming religion or God for this? Do you think he was truly acting on behalf of God or do you think he might have been acting completely from his own selfish and sinful nature? A Catholic priest is no better than any of the rest of us.

I never...EVER...disagreed with that. But it is definitely not "blind faith." That's verbiage that a non-believer uses to make believers seem ignorant, gullible, less intellectual, and foolish for believing what they do. I'm saying that the preponderance of the evidence is with its validity and not with its discredit.

Simple is great but this is not a simple issue. You’re not being intellectually honest with yourself. You’re living by a creed, code, and morality. You’re living by your own creed, code, and morality. You don’t know for a FACT if it is right or not. You are in fact living according to your own whimsical selfish desires. David Koresh did not perform live a sinless life, perform miracles (as witnessed by thousands), predict the future, endure torture, get put to death by one of the most horrific methods imaginable, get resurrected from the dead, preach more to his followers, and ascend into heaven. I don’t know about you but, if I was a follower and had lived through that experience with David Koresh, it would have become very apparent to me that he was not who he said that he was. I certainly would not witness for him after it was all over to the point of being crucified in order to keep the movement going. My point is they wouldn’t die for a lie if they knew it was a lie. The disciples knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus was who he said he was after it was all over. The all bet their lives on it and died horrific deaths themselves final testimony. It is very illogical to me to believe someone claiming to be God without extremely good evidence. By the way, what an easy way to go by drinking the “purple Koolaid.” Just doesn’t quite compare. My response is the same as it was for David Koresh. I wonder what those suicide bombers are thinking now. You know…the ones who have already gone off to meet their virgins. Kind of like that dude who decided that he and his followers were going to meet the aliens on the comet when it flew by. The quote below is not my quote by the way. You responded to it following my responses. I don’t want to be responsible for what anyone says but myself. In reference to?... People are selfish by nature and there will always be some who misuse “whatever” for their purposes (even the Bible and Christianity). Some will hide behind religion, take things out of context, and use it for evil purposes. That does not make it right and it does not in any way take away from Christianity or God’s purpose for us. I respect your position. I just believe differently.

You're describing what many here have referred to as "blind faith." That is simply not the case as there is much evidence to consider. That's what I've been trying to get across. Yes, there are elements of Christianity that must be taken on faith, however, one does not have to enter into the decision blindly.

This doesn't answer all but it looks like an interesting site concerning archaeology. http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

Those are not my words and there’s nothing wrong with my logic. You’re greatly oversimplifying the issue. You admit in your first statement that evidence exists. The problem will always be that it will never be enough evidence for some people to believe. I agree that you would come to a conclusion of illogic if you were to argue as in your Q & A but you have to put it into context. Your “A” infers that there is but one verifying source. There are, in fact, many. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and DEMONSTRATED this through his life, teachings, miracles, prophesy, torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection witnessed by hundreds of people. Almost all of the disciples (witnesses to the events) died gruesome martyr’s deaths after Jesus was gone because of their continued testimony to the truth and their refusal to stop. 1. Peter – crucified 2. Andrew – crucified 3. Matthew – the sword 4. John – natural 5. James, son of Alphaeus – crucified 6. Philip – crucified 7. Simon – crucified 8. Thaddaeus – killed by arrows 9. James, brother of Jesus – stoned 10. Thomas – spear thrust 11. Bartholomew – crucified 12. James, son of Zebedee – the sword Would anyone die for what they knew to be false? Would a group of people want to spread their new religion so badly that they would risk and accept that kind of fate (extended torture and death) if they knew it wasn’t really true? That’s very different from the followers of David Koresh who died beside him in the fire. There was no proof ever given of divinity other than what he claimed. His followers that died believed his word on its face and died with him. You’re right. I would NOT believe someone if they told me that they were God unless they could demonstrate it and it would have to be a very convincing demonstration. I’m a very skeptical person. I agree that the logic that you presented is illogical. You don’t prove the authenticity of a literary work by means of science as in your statement. Also, there is independent verification. You just don’t accept the sources. There is faith involved but the Bible, as demonstrated already, is NOT just a document of faith. There is also much verifiable historical evidence to support the Bible. It is used as a reference by many historians and archaeologists. Verified independently. You are correct in that ‘ONE’ source cannot verify itself. I completely agree with that statement!!!

You know as well as I do that documentation you are talking about from that era is extremely limited. How much will be enough for you, or others, however? Will "just one more" piece of evidence be enough to declare authenticity? Or will it take 2 or 3? Does it have to just be of Roman origin? Are they the final authenticating source? What other group of people might be credible? Seriously, there is quite enough evidence just in the collection of books known as the Bible. That is, if you know what's in it and aren't just reading atheist web sites on the internet as your authoritative source of information concerning the Bible and Christianity (not saying you are. Just giving an example of what I think some here are doing). The evidence is staring you right in the face.

You don’t understand, so it must be flawed… Ok…I admit to not being a Genesis guru. I reviewed it, however, and found absolutely no mention of an “apple” as being the fruit that Adam and Eve ate. Someone correct me if I’m wrong. I’m looking at my NIV study bible. However, I verified it with a friend of mine who has a New American Standard. I’m pretty sure that the whole “apple” thing has just been artist representations in paintings of what they thought might be the case. That doesn’t make it so and certainly doesn’t make it a “flaw” in Genesis. In the garden, there was the “tree of life” and the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” What grew on the tree was mentioned to be fruit but not a specific kind. Like I said, though, it doesn’t matter. What Adam & Eve did was exactly what is also told in Romans (who knows how many thousands of years later) that “no one seeks after God” and “all have sinned.” When Adam & Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they rejected God’s will and fell from grace. They ran and hid. They had no intention of seeking after God for forgiveness. God had to come after them first. You’re obviously not reading all that’s been posted. You’re not being logical to call the Bible one text. There are 66 books in the Protestant Christian Bible. You’re right, I’m not God. Again, you are demonstrating extreme illogic to make your arguments for the Bible as if it was one text. That’s simply not the case and you cannot treat it as such. Yes, it does (as collection of different works) authenticate itself. Read it and you’ll see. Yes, I do accept it as truth partly based on that.

Paul was also a citizen of Rome and requested, due to his citizenship; which was his right, to be taken before Caesar in Rome to be tried.

I'm not too sure about the 1 in 10 thing. Here is another very interesting perspective. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html Many different age groups from different areas of the country were samples and most fit in the 1-2% range. Much lower than the 10% SWAG. Take it for what it's worth. From my personal experience, I've not every noticed that 1 in 10 are gay. Maybe they're just good at hiding it. I don't know. Maybe it's just because of where I live. I can't buy the 10% rule, though.

Homosexuals are sentient, and can consent to marriage. Animals presumably lack the ability to understand and consent to such an arrangement. Yes, but the human is and has a right to be happy by marrying his pet. Is he/she might be discriminated against. Now you're putting the stipulation that the animal must sign the piece of paper and consent which it can't do (unless it's one of those smart gorillas that might have the capacity to hold a pen and make a mark on a piece of paper because it loves its master and wants to please him/her). Therefore, you are denying the human the opportunity to live, love, and marry just like every heterosexual couple is able to do. Human rights issue. What would it hurt you or do to your legitimate marriage if that was to happen. Nothing...right? The animal argument is of course the most extreme. A retarded person might not have the capacity to understand all that's involved with marriage but might also want to marry another retarded person. He/she might not "fully" understand the consent form that their signing either. Would it be right to deny them also? What would it hurt you or your legitimate marriage? All I'm saying is, as soon as you open the floodgates, marriage could mean anything you personally want it to. Forget the law. Go with whatever makes you feel good at the time. It will reduce its value to "0" IMO. That is, if it's nothing more than a way to obtain benefits from the government. I refuse to believe that. What a waste that would be. Anyway, I know many of you don't agree with me. I'm ok with that. I believe we've beat this one to death.

Which particular book Nightingale??? The entire Bible is composed of 66 books divided between the Old and New Testaments. I know what you’re getting at but your question doesn’t make sense as it’s written. As for the New Testament, Paul wasn’t a disciple. He wasn’t a member of the inner circle who followed Jesus. He actually hunted down and killed Christians for a living before his conversion. He was one of their worst enemies. He wrote 14 books of the New Testament (over ½). They all corroborate accounts in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and would be considered “outside” sources for their credibility. So if a book is included in the collection of books known as the Bible and was written by a Jewish follower of Jesus, it has no credibility with you and you reject it? If you need another source, however, I posted this much earlier but here it is again. The Unwitting Testimony Of Unbelievers To The New Testament We add to this the testimony of unbelievers. Unwittingly, they have given testimony to the early composition of the New Testament. Speaking of Celsus, a man living in the second century who hated Christianity, Bishop Fallows writes: This unbeliever, although he caused great annoyance to the believers in Christ living in his day, and seemed to be disturbing the foundations of the Christian faith, rendered more real service to Christianity than any father of undisputed orthodoxy in the Church. He admits all the grand facts and doctrines of the gospel, as they were preached by the Apostles, and contained in the acknowledged writings, for the sake of opposing. He makes in his attacks eighty quotations from the New Testament, and appeals to it as containing the sacred writings of Christians, universally received by them as credible and Divine. He is, therefore, the very best witness we can summon to prove that the New Testament was not written hundreds of years after the Apostles were dust; but in less than a century and a half had been received by the Christian Church all over the world. He expressly quotes both the synoptic Gospels, as they were termed (the first three Gospels), and the Gospel of St. John (Bishop Fallows, Mistakes of Ingersoll and His Answers, pp. 91,92).

Define group. Christians? Jews? I listed lots of claims made by characters in the bible. Which one do you refer to? Later...

That wasn’t your question. Your original question: Matthew is an original. Mark is an original. John is an original. Luke may be a composite because it was written to tell a more complete history. Acts & Romans are each originals validating much in the Gospels. Mark is an outside source validating John and visa versa. I ask you again. What exactly are you trying to prove. You’re making it into a very loaded question. I’ll be back later tonight. My family and I are leaving. Hasta!

What I gave you fit the requirement of your previous request. Now you’re putting specific conditions on your requirement so that what I gave you is invalid. What exactly are you trying to prove?

The Bible is a collection of books. Just because it’s bound together doesn’t make it one work even though I usually speak of it as such. Therefore, John would be an “outside” source for Mathew. Luke would be an “outside” source for Mark, etc.