steveorino

I'm not so sure why it makes a difference that he is a republican. I know your stance ... Republicans are hypocritical because they claim to be the party with the best morals. Still, the issue is this man took advantage of some kids who needed an advocate. If he is guilty, he should pay, and pay dearly. To politicize this injustice does nothing to safeguard these girls and distracts from the message that we need protect our children. JMO steveOrino

yes, daddy. steveOrino

Must be some yankee ... steveOrino

I believe whaat you are describing is a characture of Christian theology. I'm sure it applies to many lay people in the Christian faith, but that has not been my experience with those who choose to study theology seriously. steveOrino

That is not necessarily true. The change of theology at times is based on a different interpretation of information provided. But higher criticism was a new direction in theology based on a change in facts. steveOrino

If I was the caretaker of that dog, I state he loves yachting and riding in a Porche. I'd purchase those things for the dog and take him to the finest restaurants. We'd tour the world. We'd raft down the Amazon, climb the pyramids, and lay on the most beautiful beaches. When he died, I'd have him stuffed in a sleeping pose and keep the charade up for as long as I could. Maybe Vick & Leona would both get to heaven before me ... nah, I know the owner. steveOrino

Sure, but why would you want to? The best thing about OK is it is near TX.

Hardly. I'm not a creationist, and I do not believe Genesis is either a historical or scientific account for the beginning of the world. It is in my view, a story that helps explain man's relationship with God, and perhaps the early oral history of the Jewish people. steveOrino

But it doesn't bother you that two scientist can look at the same "evidence" and come up with two hypothesis? steveOrino

What I see are scientist who clam science answers everything coming up with two very different scenarios based on the "facts" they study. Are their "facts" the same? Maybe, I don't know. Are their facts different? Possibly, again I don't know. But either way each makes a claim they have scientific evidence of their "theory." My point is not to argue science. I'm no fool. I know I'm the weak one in that debate. My point is to challenge your statemnet that because people have different views about the interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean the Bible is not correct in it's intent. steveOrino

Maybe you should explain that comment. It is fairly self explanatory 'Deserved' and 'had coming' are two distinctly different things as I have previously explained and 'following national interests' is a fair description for when YOU do it but for everyone else its 'terrorism'. Oh, I thought it was some kid who made a tandem and loves to get on a skydiving forum so he can stir the crap and feel better about himself? Fundamental Christians are the last people that should throw words like 'kid' around given the childlike necessity required for their beliefs. Get a dictionary and read what a fundamental Christian is. I'm far from that. Why do I keep having this image of some pot marked kid who gets his jollys by making inflammatory remarks while he hides his real identity. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Yeah, thought so. steveOrino

1982 sigh... steveOrino

Who said God is "physical?" JC said God was "spirit." There are a few different problems here. 1. How do you know JC actually said that? There continues a debate (Jesus Seminar) I rest on those who have good work with ancient documents All you have is one written account. Not much go on. 2. If God can show himself to Moses, why can't he show himself to us today? Well, according to the Bible, he appeared as something (burning bush) to Moses. As to why he can't do something for me or you in particular ... Who is to say he hasn't. To me personally? No, He hasn't, but according to the rarity that manifestation happened in the OT & NT, I'd say it is very very rare. 3. If God can do anything then why can't he take on physical form? He can, he did ... JC So many questions with no answers that satisfy me Fixed it for you. steveOrino

Who said God is "physical?" JC said God was "spirit." steveOrino

However, there remains the concept that man's free will can change the mind of God, and thereby change the outcome of said prophecy. See Jonah, 3rd chapter, for example. Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days. On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh: "By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish." When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. steveOrino

We all exercise it in regards to God in some way IMHO steveOrino

How do you know that without a doubt? What happened before the "big bang" in your opinion? steveOrino

I guess that would be a question you'd have. My questions would be a lot different. steveOrino

Curious, how am I "reducing God"? steveOrino

Again, if there is a god that created "everything" and existed outside of time, wouldn't he be unknowable and mysterious apart from what he wants us to know about him, either through nature or revelation? steveOrino

...and what is the problem with that? ;) Hypothetically, if there is a God and if the only way we can study him is through a scientific method that would reduce him to something he isn't, then the outcome of our study would be invalid. steveOrino

Oh, I thought it was some kid who made a tandem and loves to get on a skydiving forum so he can stir the crap and feel better about himself? steveOrino

Maybe you should explain that comment. steveOrino

I'm vaguely aware of the psychological studies that map the brain in regards to love. Since I'm centered on therapy and not research I don't tend to read a lot of those studies. My research and reading tend to be on new ideas of therapy. However, I'm also aware that there has also been studies that map a "god" gene. So what does that prove? My point is not that God is an emotion similar to love, but rather God, by his very nature, is not something that can be reproduced or studied in a laboratory. If the biblical God is correct, He is the catalyst that began creation. He is that millisecond before the "big bang". He is in fact outside of time that he created. If I'm trying to reduce God down to something I can study like a science project, I have reduced my concept of God down to be so small he would no longer be God. steveOrino

Obvious there is more than one way to look at biblical interpretation, just as there are more than one way to look at the cause of psychiatric conditions. For that matter there is more than one way to look at the cause of global warmig. The reason I follow the exegetical mode that says the biblical writer writes to his generation, but because it was "inspired" by God implies eternal truths is because it makes the most sense to me. I'm not so egotistical to think I alone have the correct biblical interpretation, but neither am I egotistical enough to believe that a man inspired 2000 -- 3000 years ago wrote only to my present generation with his writings that were addressed to people of his own generation. steveOrino