pajarito

I've served, in combat, and have lost friends as well as others wounded. I would not walk up to their parents and degrade them for their grief even though their sons volunteered for what they did (as did I). If they did what Cindy Sheehan is doing, however, I'd question their motives. I guess I just honor my fallen friends in a different way. My way has nothing to do with political partisanship.

You didn’t answer this question: I meant this in the sense that nobody is really buried there. Of course the crosses are real. Again… --Idiot running over a bunch of “real” crosses planted there by family members --Assassination attempt of a sitting President Now, if Rush did in fact declare that we should all stop her by any means necessary and someone did in fact try and kill her, you might have a point (or some other extreme example such as this). He might play and indirect part with his poor ethical standards on the radio. However, this is all fictitious, he did nothing of the sort, and he’s not responsible for this guy running over the crosses. He’s supported her right to peacefully protest from the beginning.

--It's a volunteer force. --Nobody's making them do anything --If you don't agree with what the current administration is doing with reference to the war (or for whatever other reason you have), don't join [ALERT] - DANGEROUS JOB - MIGHT DIE - [/ALERT] Otherwise, STFU and move out. I'm so sick of listening to these whining crybabies.

--Has Rush been calling for people to stop her by any means necessary? I listen to him enough to know that he's supports her right to do what she's doing. He just questions her motives based on her associates and the vast coverage by the press. --Is some idiot running over a bunch of fake crosses really on the same level as your example of someone making an assassination attempt? --Does Cindy Sheehan have more of a right to free speech & expression than Rush Limbaugh or his radio network?

Is Rush responsible for the actions of some idiot in a pickup truck in Crawford, TX? If so, how? Edited b/c I forgot "Rule #1:" It's really Bush's fault.

What was the point you were trying to make?

Did his mother sign that dotted line for him? Personally, I signed my own.

God's moral law (e.g. 10 Commandments) wasn’t put there so we'd have a way to lead a better life or because it would give you peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness (e.g. life enhancement). God’s law doesn’t help us. It just leaves us helpless. It doesn’t justify us. It just leaves us guilty before the judgment of the holy God. --Ray Comfort Peace and joy are legitimate fruits of salvation but it’s not legitimate to use these fruits as a draw card for salvation. --Ray Comfort “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Romans 3:19-26 (NKJV) “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” Galatians 3:24 (NKJV) The law was given “to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.”

She needs to keep doing exactly what she's doing. - She's making herself look like an ass. - She's making the liberal left look more like an ass - She's making the liberal media, who's giving her all this attention, look like an ass Life is good.

Two words man... "Volunteer Military" Her loss is tragic, however, it comes with the territory. I have great respect and appreciation for what he's done. I have none for the way she is handling the situation now. I think she is doing her son a big disservice.

Jesus also said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17 (NIV) Or, for my friend Bill : “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Matthew 5:17 (KJV) I think the explanation below says a lot in reference to what we’re discussing. NIV Study Bible Explanation “It is Christ’s intention that the spiritual requirement of God’s law be fulfilled in the lives of his followers. The believer’s relation to the law of God involves the following: (1) The law that the believer is obliged to keep consists of the ethical and moral principles of the Old Testament as well as the teachings of Christ and the apostles. These laws reveal the nature and will of God for all people and still apply today. Old Testament laws that applied directly to the nation of Israel, such as the sacrificial, ceremonial, social or civil laws, are no longer binding. (2) Believers must not view the law as a system of legal commandments by which to obtain merit for forgiveness and salvation. Rather, the law must be seen as a moral code for those who are already in a saved relationship with God and who, by obeying it, express the life of Christ within themselves. (3) Faith in Christ is the point of departure for the fulfilling of the law. Through faith in Christ, God becomes our Father. Therefore, our obedience as believers is done not only out of a relationship to God as sovereign Lawgiver, but also out of a relationship of children to their Father. (4) Through faith in Christ, believers, by God’s grace and the indwelling Holy Spirit, are given an inner compulsion and power to fulfill God’s law. We fulfill it by living according to the Spirit. The Spirit helps us put to death the misdeeds of the body and to fulfill God’s will. Thus, external conformity to God’s law must be accompanied by the inner transformation of our hearts and spirits. (5) Having been freed from sin’s power, and now being enslaved to God, believers follow the principle of faith by being “under Christ’s law.” In so doing we fulfill “the law of Christ” and are thus faithful to the requirement of the law. (6) Jesus emphatically taught that doing the will of his heavenly Father is an ongoing condition of entering the kingdom of heaven. With reference to killing, the New Testament does make reference to its justification in certain circumstances (see my previous link). “Thou shall not kill” in the 10 Commandments of the Old Testament is actually translated as “murder.” It can also have figurative connotation (e.g. gossip & slander). “Thou shall not kill”

Man... We really need to work on keeping our responses/questions down to a reasonable length (myself included). My A.D.D. won't let me go through all that I've missed in detail. You guys hammered this one out till fairly late. Any simple questions left unanswered? Did we accomplish anything?

I don't have time to respond tonight but will tomorrow. Here's some interesting info on Should a Christian go to War

What do you think it means for a person to be Christian and how would you know for sure if a person was?

What? ......You want proof that we're all not just blind men groping a big elephant? Seriously, the Bible teaches that "no one seeks God." In Genesis, when Adam and Eve ran and hid from God because they now had knowledge of right and wrong (guilt and consciousness of sin; con = with; science = knowledge) and had broken trust with Him, they did not seek God. God had to come and find them (e.g. Grace). “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” Genesis 3:7-9 I believe this also describes our inherent selfish natures. Our “natural” instinct is to “run away” from the things of God. Paul also talks about this in Romans. "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Romans 3:11-12 The elephant analogy doesn’t fit with Christianity. All others are man’s attempt to reach God by their own efforts. In Christianity, it’s not man who is capable of saving himself. Only by the grace of God are we saved. If we are already (spiritually) dead in our sins, what can a dead man do? The grace of God is a crucial component. Otherwise, there is no hope. Until the law was written on our hearts, we did not know we were guilty. Our conscience tells us otherwise, however, whether you choose to admit it or not.

You’re right in that the LDS version doesn’t fit in with Christianity (explained in link below). They’ll claim to be Christian religions as will Jehovah’s Witnesses but they’re not. Roman Catholics and Jews for Jesus, however, agree on what’s ultimately important and so do I. We may have our differences but they are still Christian. Hinckley says Mormons Believe in a Different Jesus I have no idea what you’re trying to say with reference to Hindus or Buddhists. They are also not Christian. They’ll even admit to that. I realize and accept that others don’t agree with me or Christianity. Just because one doesn’t believe in something, however, doesn’t mean that it’s not true. I fully agree. Anyone who claims such should be suspect. It’s one of the Ten Marks of a Cult Religion. David Koresh is used as an example.

I need to clarify just because I can’t be known as “reasonable”, I like to argue incessantly, and I’m extremely hard headed.” Your statement above "is not the absolute word of God" is not the wording I would have chosen. I believe the originals, of which we have none, is the inerrant, infallible, “inspired” word of God written by men. I believe the copies and translations are extremely accurate and can be trusted. I do not believe that any error in copy or translation alters the principals of Christianity. I also do not believe that any errors which do exist were put there with mal-intent. I do believe that what is read in the Bible must be kept in proper context and taken as a whole in order to receive the proper message. Is that what you said? If so then…….well……………..ok.

What is God like? Here is another reason this simple analogy doesn’t fit. “Religion is man reaching out to God.” “Christianity is God reaching out to man.”

Man... Don't sugar-coat it. Tell us how you feel. ...........I agree. Well...at least with these parts: And... ***She strikes me as dishonest, manipulative, arrogant, and "all about Hillary". I don't think she's capable of representing anyone but herself.

I DO NOT take crediit for finding this one. Mockingbird did. I wanted to put it out there because I thought it was very easy to read and understand and complete. It's also notable that it was put together by Jewish believers well versed in the old law. Messiah's Right to David's Throne It's not a long read and worth your time. Most of the info is the same. Just a different perspective. It summarizes why most Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah and why some modern Jews do.

From a legal aspect, it might be the only line that counts, however, from an historical perspective, Mary’s line is very relevant. Again, Luke wasn’t writing to the Jews. He was writing to the Gentiles to give a more detailed historical account. Matthew was writing to the Jews and his style was tailored as such. The legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son. Even with the virgin birth, Jesus’ lineage comes from both lines.

Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3? I'm sure Luke knew the prophesy pretty well and he wrote this (he wasn't trying to hide anything): They traced the geaneology through both mother & father. There was a virgin birth. Therefore, Joseph adopted Jesus. It all matches up and speaks very highly for the accurate and detailed transfer of records over the past ~2000 years concerning this matter. Matthew (written to the Jews) - Legal line Luke (written to the Gentiles to provide a full and accurate record) - Biological line

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side). There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary. Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were un aware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph. Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph. Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

Sorry for the delay. Had to catch up a bit. Why are there two genealogies of Jesus?

I believe the original manuscripts were complete, inspired, and infallible. It is inevitable that errors have crept into the translation and copy of these. They consist of an extremely small percentage. The New Testament is ~99.5% pure. Only ½ of 1% of all copies do not agree with each other perfectly. However, I’d challenge you to find one which alters Basic Christian Doctrine. Not “direct” word of God. “Inspired word of God.” Following the torture, crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, Paul was one of the biggest persecutors and murderers of Christians. He was in fact a “pitchman”, “hit-man”, and “attack dog” for the Roman Empire. He was probably one of the most unlikely persons to ever become a Christian. Jesus spoke directly to him on the road to Damascus (he was on the way to hunt down and kill more Christians there by the way); struck him blind for his disbelief (he later regained his sight). Paul had a very sincere conversion. He was personally chosen by God himself to take his message to the gentiles. His writings were most definitely “inspired” by God and can be trusted.