Sinkster

No kidding. It sounds like Slander is getting some slander. (har har)

If you are unfortunate enough to be a liberal you will need to throw holy water on her book! (but she's right ) I love Ann Coulter!

Yes. Now compare that to what Jesus said. This is part of what SpeedRacer was talking about concerning the old testament. Jesus brought the new covenant in and thus the "eye-for-eye" is abolished. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, ‘Do not resist injuries ("evil" in KJV), but whoever strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other as well’" (Matt. 5:38-29) (Jesus often quoted the old testament like that.)

When you explain how you are right about the "eye-for-an-eye" thing even though I gave you words from Jesus Christ Himself then I will interpret the passages for you. Even if I did give you the truth you would probably brush it aside in like manner.

When did I say I was going to stop anyone from doing anything? I am only saying what the Bible says.

Good point. That is why God gave us good reasons for believing that the Bible is His Word. For example: The Bible claims, within its own text, to be inspired by God. That is to say, God Himself is really the author of the Book. It has even been acknowledged by atheists that the Bible is the only religious Scripture that shows a real God stepping into real history. Critics of the Bible have tried to say that the Bible is not true because of "historical errors" it contains. The truth is, much of the ancient history within the Bible has been proven to be accurate by archeology. In fact, there is an entire special branch of archeology called Biblical Archeology, that does archeological research relevant to Bible History. An enormous amount of archeological evidence has been found that supports the historical truth of the Bible. For example, in the Book of II Kings, chapter 3, there is a story about a war fought by the kings of Judah and Israel (Israel was split into two nations at the time) against the King of Moab (an ancient kingdom east of the Dead Sea). In the British Museum in London is an ancient inscribed stone tablet called the Moabite Stone. It tells the story of that war from the viewpoint of the king of Moab. And this is a very tiny fraction of what has been found. Look for yourself, and you'll see what I mean. This doesn't even factor in all the prophecies made hundreds of years before their time that turned out to be true. No one sane will deny that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago and performed miracles (recorded by ancient historians) and was crucified and the tomb was found empty with no body. Factor in that Jesus was seen by at least 500 witnesses after his ressurection and factor in that all but one of the apostles was martyred for their faith (so they were'nt lying) and there is a pretty darn good case for Christ.

BRAVO! Finally a noble choice that doesn't require twisting the Bible! Thank you!

You are misinterpreting the Bible. For example, Jesus (who brought in the new covenant) said: You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39) I have never heard about infidels in the Bible, you must have it confused with the Koran sorry. Slavery is actually condemned in the Bible: "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16. etc. There are even instructions about manditorily releasing slaves: "And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee." Deut. 15:12 The above was a specific law for the Jews however. Us gentiles didn't get in on the act until Jesus came as prophesied. God even set his people free from slavery: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this." (Deuteronomy 24:18) The verse that you're talking about does not condone or condemn slavery, it is talking about doing what is right even if you are treated wrong. (remember the verse about turning the other cheek?) "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart." Ephesians 6:5-6 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

And I agree with you. I think fornication is wrong too, hence I have chosen not to have sex until marriage. Just because most people think it's right doesn't make it right. The law is the law. If you don't agree then discard it, but don't twist it to try to make it say something it doesn't.

Here you go: Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh." (right way) "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22) Leviticus 20:13. "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act."

LOL. What I find very amusing is that you are trapped in a paradox by using the Bible to discredit itself! You say that according to the Bible humans are 'imperfect' and then that the Bible must be wrong because of that. But, if the Bible is wrong then are humans really imperfect since you got that from the Bible to start with? So you're argument is trapped in a paradox that I find very amusing. What about assuming that God wants to communicate with us and that he can overcome whatever imperfections we have to get his message out like He wants it? There's another option for you. A novel thought in this day and age of excuses.

Just to correct you about the laws/bible thing, the command forbidding homosexuality is repeated throughout BOTH the old AND the new testament. The laws most people don't follow are the Old Testament laws that specifically applied to the Jews. If you say homosexuality is ok according to the bible then you better be prepared to say murder is ok, and lying, and... well see for yourself from the new testament: 1 Timothy 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching" 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." My point? If you want to justify homosexuality don't bring the Bible into it unless you're a real good con-artist. I'd rather see it ignored than twisted in such an obvious way.

ya. he didn't say he used the directions though. Just that it didn't go together like em'. (wonder why ) heh I always wonder why there is an extra bolt or thingamagigie left when i'm done reassembling something. (and it works) One of those mysteries of life I guess!

Ditch her dude and don't look back! There is no excuse for what she's done to you. Don't be a wimp and stay with her. Be a man and show her that integrity and trust mean something to you! Ka-ching.

I think the argument is to not cutaway. The reason is that the military did a ton of tests concering two canopy out situations and concluded that not cutting away (unless downplane or clear situation) was the most survivable strategy. Therefore, if you cutaway and then the main comes out partway (which it probably will to provide enough force to detatch the risers on many rigs), it can still entangle with your reserve and then since you already cutaway there is nothing you can do and the entanglement is worse.

As long as you draw enough samples of an appropriate size from a population you will get an acceptable measure of what is going on in that population as a whole. In 1999 the uspa did release an article indicating that women who made up 15% of skydivers had 24% of the deaths for the year. Nevertheless, due to the small sample size the results may be statistically insignificant. (only a year) So I will give you that. I was wrong saying that it was gospel that women get hurt disproportionately compared to men since the sample size is suspect for that study. I was going to do my own calculations, but the statistics part of uspa.org is down or the link is broken. The jury is still out on the statistics, but I still think women get hurt disproportionately compared to men in skydiving. At least at my dz it seems that way, but I hope that changes. What I see happening is women jumping gear too big for them (remember the girl who fell out of her harness after deployment in 98'?) and getting graduated too soon and easily because they are so rare. (plus getting on bigger loads and freefly jumps for the same reason) What Tom says about women in BASE is very intuitive. In fact, one could almost have known it just by observing human nature with regards to men and women in general. It doesn't make women any worse than men, nor does it have to make BASE (or skydiving) more dangerous to women, but there are issues that can do exactly that and needs to be addressed, and I'm glad Tom decided not to give in to the PC Police and not post it.

From what I understand though you do not have the same freedom to choose your college or area of study like we do in the USA. Is this correct? I would rather work very hard to pay tuition and choose what and where I want to study than have my life decided for me and handed to me on a silver platter.

I just want to say that I agree with you Mark and support your stance on the war. I also want to say to the bleeding hearts that if the ragheads (thanks for defining the term) were torturing your family or gang raping your wife (or yourself) you would have a VERY different perspective on the issue. It's easy to be all lovey dovey when you're not directly affected by the violence. It *is* a shame that we have to destroy them, but if that's what it takes for our people and civilization to endure then so be it. Why should we let them destroy us?

The Betrothed aka "“You must choose between me and your cigar.” by Rudyard Kipling Open the old cigar-box, get me a Cuba stout, For things are running crossways, and Maggie and I are out. We quarrelled about Havanas—we fought o’er a good cheroot, And I knew she is exacting, and she says I am a brute. Open the old cigar-box—let me consider a space; In the soft blue veil of the vapour musing on Maggie’s face. Maggie is pretty to look at—Maggie’s a loving lass, But the prettiest cheeks must wrinkle, the truest of loves must pass. There’s peace in a Larranaga, there’s calm in a Henry Clay; But the best cigar in an hour is finished and thrown away— Thrown away for another as perfect and ripe and brown— But I could not throw away Maggie for fear o’ the talk o’ the town! Maggie, my wife at fifty—grey and dour and old— With never another Maggie to purchase for love or gold! And the light of Days that have Been the dark of the Days that Are, And Love’s torch stinking and stale, like the butt of a dead cigar— The butt of a dead cigar you are bound to keep in your pocket— With never a new one to light tho’ it’s charred and black to the socket! Open the old cigar-box—let me consider a while. Here is a mild Manila—there is a wifely smile. Which is the better portion—bondage bought with a ring, Or a harem of dusky beauties, fifty tied in a string? Counsellors cunning and silent—comforters true and tried, And never a one of the fifty to sneer at a rival bride? Thought in the early morning, solace in time of woes, Peace in the hush of the twilight, balm ere my eyelids close, This will the fifty give me, asking nought in return, With only a Suttee’s passion—to do their duty and burn. This will the fifty give me. When they are spent and dead, Five times other fifties shall be my servants instead. The furrows of far-off Java, the isles of the Spanish Main, When they hear my harem is empty will send me my brides again. I will take no heed to their raiment, nor food for their mouths withal, So long as the gulls are nesting, so long as the showers fall. I will scent ’em with best vanilla, with tea will I temper their hides, And the Moor and the Mormon shall envy who read of the tale of my brides. For Maggie has written a letter to give me my choice between The wee little whimpering Love and the great god Nick o’ Teen. And I have been servant of Love for barely a twelvemonth clear, But I have been Priest of Cabanas a matter of seven year; And the gloom of my bachelor days is flecked with the cheery light Of stumps that I burned to Friendship and Pleasure and Work and Fight. And I turn my eyes to the future that Maggie and I must prove, But the only light on the marshes is the Will-o’-the-Wisp of Love. Will it see me safe through my journey or leave me bogged in the mire? Since a puff of tobacco can cloud it, shall I follow the fitful fire? Open the old cigar-box—let me consider anew— Old friends, and who is Maggie that I should abandon you? A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke; And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke. Light me another Cuba—I hold to my first-sworn vows. If Maggie will have no rival, I’ll have no Maggie for Spouse!

There is such a thing as "Justifiable Paranoia". For example, if I was a murderer I would be afraid to face judgement and for good reason. I might even be paranoid about people finding out. Even if I didn't think it was wrong it would be foolish not to hide it because of repercussions. Perhaps in this case discretion really is the better part of courage? Or is it? Judges will be judged according to that which they have judged others. Yet, when I read from the law, "thou shalt not murder" and judge my fellow man for the crime am I or the law liable for the judgement? A salute is just a physical act as well, but what it represents is not physical. Honor, deference, respect. Even so, I know you will say that it is only because we create the meaning. Truly, but do we create human nature or does it create us? Perhaps if one is afraid to face judgement there is a deeper problem at work. Shame originates from ones own heart. Ultimately, one has only himself to blame for it--despite societies' pressures. If one has no shame proclaiming what he thinks is right, let him. At least then he would be sincere. Of course, who ever heard of an insincere heretic? What I wonder is whether or not one is culpable for ignorance or not. Still, I will give you this CrazyThomas. In the end, no one can possibly live up to the law perfectly. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" right? Then let the law be the judge. Therefore, don't judge me just because I point to it--for it points right back.

hah! Travis is awesome! Last weekend he had a can of fart spray and was 'getting revenge' on all the jumpers who stink up the cabin. It was hilarious! (and boy is pay back hell. that stuff STUNK!)

Just make the plane nuclear powered. The U.S. Government was working on one a few years back (made engines and more), but it never flew when they decided that the repercussions from a crash were not worth it. But it was technically feasable and could have flown. (Edit: But you never know... maybe that's just a public line and one has been cruising around for a year or two (only airtime limit would be food and water if humans on board probably).)

nothing wrong with that. heck. i used to only smoke corncob pipes because they are cheap, light, cool, and dry! (I agree about the Silmarillion too. "Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the music of the Ainur, which is the fate of all things else;" Illúvatar, The Silmarillion)

oh please, and like skydiving isn't inviting a broken leg or worse In any case: "The end of the last century saw the birth of two Germans who are among the most famous individuals in history: Adolf Hitler, the bloodthirsty dictator, and Albert Einstein, the peace-loving scientific genius. Both men held strong views about smoking, and it is worth examining their opinions as we approach the end of the current century. Hitler was a zealot about many things, so it is not surprising that he was an extremist on the subject of smoking, which he considered vile and disgusting. "Adolf Hitler was a fanatical opponent of tobacco," reports Time. Einstein, on the other hand, was very passionate about his pipe smoking. During one lecture, he ran out of pipe tobacco and borrowed some cigarettes from his students so he could crumple the tobacco into his pipe. "Gentlemen," he said, "I believe we've made a great discovery!"

Interestingly enough, skydiving accidents are also skewed in this manner. Women have a disproportionately high rate of injury and death in skydiving as well. On rec.skydiving the reason proposed was very similar too. (search rec.skydiving for more info) That may be offensive to women, but it's true and worth addressing.