jclalor

The cost of this war is a bargain at 1.2 million dollars per deployed US troop. What else could we possibly find to spend that kind of money on? http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/22/am-the-cost-of-a-soldier-deployed-in-afghanistan/

It's ironic that the right is now accusing the left of trying to scare Grandma about her Medicare. It was the right that said Obama and his 'Death panels" wanted to kill Grandma by turning Grandma's life support off. It's a no brainer who would make a more compassionate death panel; someone with no financial interest in the outcome. Nothing like American exceptionalism when it comes to healthcare; we are right and the rest of the civilized world is wrong.

Nah. Lots of 'Christians' are closeted homosexuals who fear leaving their wife for a man and loosing half their assets in the following divorce if their government approves of gay marriage. If they disliked gays merely because of Leviticus they'd be out protesting pig roasts (pigs are cloven footed but don't cheweth the cud), Red Lobster (lobsters haven't fins or scales), department stores (cotton/polyester blends), etc. If Christianity had to follow all the rules, it would not be nearly as fun.

Your preaching to the choir, but God does have a good explanation for evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

He ain't my God - I don't have one. I was only pointing out that most people's hatred of gays is based on 3000 year old superstitions.

I's simple: Leviticus 18:22

Obama has done exactly what he said he would do WRT Afghanistan, so I fail to see how that could be a let down. I expected Obama not to have the " we need to stay the course" attitude despite the evidence. Obama has had almost 2 and a half years to see that we are not making any progress in this war. We are now just pissing away billions along with needless loss of life when the writing is not only on the wall, but has been for a long time. And now he is talking of extending the current troop buildup passed his promise of an August scale down. I voted for him and I will vote for him again, I just expected him to be different when it came to our wars in the middle east.

Context is everything...and a proper understanding of Godly submission. Do Women Have to Remain Silent in Church? 1 Timothy is considered by many not to be genuine Pauline. I find it ironic that the proof you present for the veracity of 1 Corinthians 14:34 is a letter that is also considered a forgery. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a direct contradiction of Paul's teachings, who ever wrote this still had a grudge about Eve. In Romans 16:7, this is the only place in the NT that a women is referred to as an apostle, Junia is praised by Paul in fact for her work. Some scribes tried to change her name to Junias, to attribute her as being a male, but there is no such name as Junias ever mentioned in ancient times. Women were very much apart of the early church. Paul said that "In Christ there is not male or female" The second century Christian critic celsus denigrated Christianity as made up largely of children, slaves and women. Christianity was appealing to women in the early church because that in Christ, they would be on equal footing with men As an Atheist, one of the few redeeming qualities I find in Christianity, is Paul's attitude towards women in the church. I'm curious if you consider every Pauline letter as genuine when the over whelming number of textual critics and scholars that all writings attributed to Paul are not genuine. One example: http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.html

Christians did a great job of upholding the law of the land in Germany circa 1940. If Jesus did ever come back, would be found at an illegal migrant camp or with Limbaugh on the links?

Speaking of context; does "Pauls" writings concerning womens role in the church seem out of context with what he is saying just before and after. Most NT scholars agree that these verses were inserted later by a scribe who was not happy with the role of women in the church. In chapter 11, Paul speaks of women praying only with covered heads in church, (activities that were always done out loud) It's hard to think Paul would contradict him self so badly within 3 chapters. 14:26 What is it then, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has another language, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to build each other up. 14:27 If any man speaks in another language, let it be two, or at the most three, and in turn; and let one interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God. 14:29 Let the prophets speak, two or three, and let the others discern. 14:30 But if a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first keep silent. 14:31 For you all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted. 14:32 The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the assemblies of the saints, 14:34 let your wives keep silent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says. 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly. 14:36 What? Was it from you that the word of God went out? Or did it come to you alone? 14:37 If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 14:39 Therefore, brothers, desire earnestly to prophesy, and don’t forbid speaking with other languages. 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

So I guess she keeps silent at church as Paul says in 1 cor 14:34? Does she ask questione only at home? If she does ask questions at church then it would cause you great shame and you both would also be disobedient to God, and we know you don't want that. No offense, but your theology and understanding of this is juvenile. Please help me understand. If the bible is the inerrant word of God, how does this verse apply to your life, or better yet, to your wife's life. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” I understand this verse very well thanks, just curious on your take. Most scholars agree it was inserted later by a scribe who did not like that Paul would include women in church services. If you look at what Paul is writing before and after this verse, it's obvious that it does not belong. These verses also contradict Paul's other writings about the role of women in the church. So Paul is saying women either need to be silent in church and only ask questions at home or the inerrant word of God isn't .

Nothing else to be said, we will never win and we are just pissing money and lives away for people who could not give a flying fuck about us. We will leave at some point, I just wonder what poor American kid will be the last American to die for Karzai. Obama has been a huge let down on this subject.

So I guess she keeps silent at church as Paul says in 1 cor 14:34? Does she ask questione only at home? If she does ask questions at church then it would cause you great shame and you both would also be disobedient to God, and we know you don't want that.

Who's drinking the koolaid? You almost have a rational argument for God at times until you throw in the 6 thousand year old earth crap. The great flood? I'm embarrassed for you. If you only held the other sciences like medicine and aviation to the same rigors you hold to geology and evolutionary science, but then you would never take a med or step foot on a plane.

What is up with all the armed Pharmacist lately?

One of the worst movies ever made, a complete waste of time. This guy on the other hand is pretty damn funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFEvyH2nS0

Hmm So you do think that if someone has been exposed to the information and they chose to become followers they have been failed in teaching process and therfore have been indoctrinated? Am seriously asking Revised my previous post to reflect my thoughts. I think you've failed in the teaching process when you pose one theory as right and the competing theories as wrong instead of teaching the theories as theories and allowing the individual to make their own decision.Ok, I can go with this too. But answer me this, if they make a decsion that they want to follow, were they taught or indocrinated? PS: At what age would you allow your child to deny your religion and refrain from participating in it? When they move out It is my house All children are born Atheist, no one is born believing in the supernatural. A child must be indoctrinated to be a believer. You would never ask a 3 year old what political party he belongs to and then take his answer seriously. I never once told my daughter there was no God or that I was an Atheist. I just raised her to be a skeptic, and to question things that don't pass the smell test. The last thing I wanted to do was indoctrinate her with my lack of belief in the supernatural and then have her turn into a believer and blame me for trying to keep her from God. I think it's fine to try and pass on your morales and ethics to your children, but the belief in the supernatural should be a choice left to be made as an adult. To try and say the bible teaches morales and ethics is just being dishonest with yourself and your children.

115 billion dollars and hundreds of American deaths a year and the President of Afghanistan says this a day ago, WTF. Is it sill unpatriotic and not supporting the troops to say they needed to leave yesterday? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015198014_afghanistan01.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfF1vkMQ0h0

What exactly are you saying he violated? Your opinion of what he should have done? I wonder what the policy of Walgreens is on what an employee is to do during a robbery? I have a funny feeling that no where does it state to pull out a gun and start shooting. It looks like they do have a policy. http://theh-p.com/articles/2011/05/19/local_news/4823861.txt

The pharmacist knew the rules when he was hired, What kind of nation would we be if an employee does not need to follow the rules of his employer? Chaos I tell you, pure and simple. Walgreens is not stupid, if the pharmacist had been killed or wounded, or customers killed or wounded. there would be a huge lawsuit. He should have done what 99% of police and level headed people say: Don't be a hero and just give them what they want. No where in the constitution doses it say a well regulated pharmacy shall have the right to ......

Legal abortions - Less crime http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

Look what the army did to Pat Tillman and his family for being atheist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM9YnsB-oBo

Looks like an aircraft carrier pilot.

. WTF.