The Japanese "water Cure" Was To "waterboarding"..

Censored by Laurie · May 8, 2009

Here is an honest question.........which if any of the Ten Commandments do you disagree with?

You've never met my neighbor's wife.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 8, 2009

The Bible is a nice lesson book that teaches good family morals. It is supposed to start with the start of the Earth and move through the times of J.C. It was originally written in a dead language and has been translated into 500 different languages to reach the status that it is in today. The most accepted version - the King James version, was chistened by a politician and he was the final editor so what he wanted in stayed in and the rest was interpreted in a different way or excluded. The Bible has always been used as a controlling mechanism and it saddens me that so many people take it literally and actually quote scriptures written by some hired hand after they had gone through rroughly 500 translations due to language changes. Heck, if you try to ask a guy from Spain how to say a sentence - he will tell you, "well, you could say this but it wouldn't mean the exact thing.. but that is as close as you can get"... now try doing that over thousands of years with politicians involved.
It does not account for the true age of the Earth. Speaks nothing of dinosaurs. And much of the crazy stuff that happened can be attributed to reasonable explanations like plagues and volcanos and earthquakes and hurricanes. If you want to quote scripture, maybe you could quote how a man has the right to cheat on his wife and have multiple wives at that. It doesn't account for evolution - which is going on RIGHT NOW - the average age, size, and DNA make-up of our race has changed drastically over the last 100 years. I really could go on and on... a civilized, educated country takes the good and uses their reasoning abilties to understand that you can't take everything in the Bible literally. But there are always those that were scared as kids on a ski retreat or by their parents that know nothing else - and to find out at this point in their life that everything that they know to be as God's Word might just be Man's Word but hiding behind the moniker of God's word - well, I would be fearful as well and try to convert people to be more like me. I could care less if you believe what I believe in, and I am sure that I will get REAMED for this post if anyone bothered finsihing it.

I don't doubt that the first part of your post is well-informed, and it is incredible to hear of sick tactics like that being used on children.

As for this last part of your post, you are extremely ill-informed.

1. The purpose of the Bible was never to be merely a "nice lesson book that teaches good family morals." It is meant to show man his need for reconciliation to God, and the provisions God has made for man's reconciliation to Him.

2. King James never served as "final editor" of the English revision bearing his name. He authorized the work to be done, but he never even accepted it once it was completed. The Bishop's Bible still prevailed in the churches and the Geneva Bible among the people throughout his reign.

3. The Bible used as a controlling mechanism? Perhaps there have been those who have tried to use their own spin on a few select passages to control others. But the Roman Church controlled the populace for centuries by keeping the Bible out of their hands. Why do you think they fought so hard against it being translated into the vernacular? Because once the people could read the Bible for themselves, they could know the truth.

4. Your description of the translation process is misleading. It may have been translated into 500 languages, but that doesn't mean it was translated from Greek to Latin, and from Latin to German . . . (through 496 more languages) . . . and finally into English. The good English translations we have are directly from the Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT). Yes, there is a certain amount of subjectivism where translation is concerned. But I know the Greek and Hebrew fairly well; and I assure you that, although some nuances may be lost in translation, the message is faithfully preserved as it is faithfully translated.

5. "True age of the earth"? What is that? Scientists continue to redate the age of the earth based on ever-changing interpretation of data. Scientific means alone are unlikely ever to provide a reliable age of the earth.

6. "Speaks nothing of dinosaurs." Sure it does. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so" (Gen. 1:24). There are a lot of animals that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible--housecats, sharks, etc. But they are included in the creation of all animals. The Bible's purpose is not to be an encyclopedia of animals. Regardless, there are a couple of mentions in the book of Job, the first-written book of the Bible, which may be allusions to dinosaurs (Job 40:15-41:34).

7. Have no idea what you mean about the Bible allowing one to cheat on his wife. Under the Old Testament, God tolerated certain things that he doesn't now, such as divorce for any cause (Matt. 19:1-9). But adultery is condemned throughout.

8. Evolution is not going on right now. Limited change within a kind is one thing. But no one has ever observed a monkey giving birth to a man. No one has ever even observed a monkey giving birth to a non-monkey. Likewise, however many changes may occur among your descendants, they will still be human beings.

9. You certainly can't take everything in the Bible literally. Some of it is figurative. When Jesus called Herod Antipas a "fox," he did not mean he was literally a furry little creature that kills chickens. But all the Bible is inspired of God (II Tim. 3:16).

10. Your generalization of those who believe the Bible is incorrect. I was not particularly reared to believe that the Bible is the word of God, though I was taught that it was important. But by the age of 17, I was somewhere in the atheist-agnostic spectrum. But as I began to examine the Bible more closely in my mid-20's, I became convinced by the evidence that it was true. If you would be interested, I would be more than happy to provide you some of that evidence, and more.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Mean Green 93-98

CMJ · May 8, 2009

Here is an honest question.........which if any of the Ten Commandments do you disagree with?

Well someone who doesn't believe in a god wouldn't really care about having other gods before "God" because it's all the same. And saying"oh God" in exasperation(something that is done by Christians and non quite often) wouldn't really bother you. I guess it depends on your definition of an idol about that one....some folks have way more stringent of what constitutes that. What would Sabbath mean to someone who didn't believe? (For that matter are pro athletes not properly observing it because they're working that day and more than likely not worshiping, and if so are Christians who watch games on the tube complicit in that)

There's really only 6 Commandments that really would make absolute sense to non believevers don't ya think?

Edited May 8, 2009 by CMJ

UNTLifer · May 8, 2009

I don't doubt that the first part of your post is well-informed, and it is incredible to hear of sick tactics like that being used on children.
As for this last part of your post, you are extremely ill-informed.
1. The purpose of the Bible was never to be merely a "nice lesson book that teaches good family morals." It is meant to show man his need for reconciliation to God, and the provisions God has made for man's reconciliation to Him.
2. King James never served as "final editor" of the English revision bearing his name. He authorized the work to be done, but he never even accepted it once it was completed. The Bishop's Bible still prevailed in the churches and the Geneva Bible among the people throughout his reign.
3. The Bible used as a controlling mechanism? Perhaps there have been those who have tried to use their own spin on a few select passages to control others. But the Roman Church controlled the populace for centuries by keeping the Bible out of their hands. Why do you think they fought so hard against it being translated into the vernacular? Because once the people could read the Bible for themselves, they could know the truth.
4. Your description of the translation process is misleading. It may have been translated into 500 languages, but that doesn't mean it was translated from Greek to Latin, and from Latin to German . . . (through 496 more languages) . . . and finally into English. The good English translations we have are directly from the Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT). Yes, there is a certain amount of subjectivism where translation is concerned. But I know the Greek and Hebrew fairly well; and I assure you that, although some nuances may be lost in translation, the message is faithfully preserved as it is faithfully translated.
5. "True age of the earth"? What is that? Scientists continue to redate the age of the earth based on ever-changing interpretation of data. Scientific means alone are unlikely ever to provide a reliable age of the earth.
6. "Speaks nothing of dinosaurs." Sure it does. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so" (Gen. 1:24). There are a lot of animals that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible--housecats, sharks, etc. But they are included in the creation of all animals. The Bible's purpose is not to be an encyclopedia of animals. Regardless, there are a couple of mentions in the book of Job, the first-written book of the Bible, which may be allusions to dinosaurs (Job 40:15-41:34).
7. Have no idea what you mean about the Bible allowing one to cheat on his wife. Under the Old Testament, God tolerated certain things that he doesn't now, such as divorce for any cause (Matt. 19:1-9). But adultery is condemned throughout.
8. Evolution is not going on right now. Limited change within a kind is one thing. But no one has ever observed a monkey giving birth to a man. No one has ever even observed a monkey giving birth to a non-monkey. Likewise, however many changes may occur among your descendants, they will still be human beings.
9. You certainly can't take everything in the Bible literally. Some of it is figurative. When Jesus called Herod Antipas a "fox," he did not mean he was literally a furry little creature that kills chickens. But all the Bible is inspired of God (II Tim. 3:16).
10. Your generalization of those who believe the Bible is incorrect. I was not particularly reared to believe that the Bible is the word of God, though I was taught that it was important. But by the age of 17, I was somewhere in the atheist-agnostic spectrum. But as I began to examine the Bible more closely in my mid-20's, I became convinced by the evidence that it was true. If you would be interested, I would be more than happy to provide you some of that evidence, and more.

Excellent post. I am humored by those that think we are all creatures brought here through the process of evolution, yet fossils have never been discovered of any animal in this transitional process.

Michael Scott · May 8, 2009

Excellent post. I am humored by those that think we are all creatures brought here through the process of evolution, yet fossils have never been discovered of any animal in this transitional process.

Are you humored by those who think it is okay that God could have easily set all of the wonderful science in motion and that the two creation stories in the bible that don't match up could simply be "myths" with the basics of truth that He intended to pass along? What if, through Divine inspiration, God thought it might benefit humans more to learn about his key points and takeaways rather than create a blow-by-blow manual of math and science? He might have even "unfairly" expected that the more we learned about the world around us, the more we would appreciate everything He has done and made for us.

I blame the Catholics and the Jews.

Censored by Laurie · May 8, 2009

Are you humored by those who think it is okay that God could have easily set all of the wonderful science in motion and that the two creation stories in the bible that don't match up could simply be "myths" with the basics of truth that He intended to pass along? What if, through Divine inspiration, God thought it might benefit humans more to learn about his key points and takeaways rather than create a blow-by-blow manual of math and science? He might have even "unfairly" expected that the more we learned about the world around us, the more we would appreciate everything He has done and made for us.
I blame the Catholics and the Jews.

Have you seen my neighbor's wife?

greenminer · May 8, 2009

Evolution vs. adaptation?

eeally · May 8, 2009

yes and yes

If you mean waterboard Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh for their propaganda lies and treason of the United States majority ... Well No...They do have their right to free speech...

Rudy · May 8, 2009

treason of the United States majority

WTF is this?

eeally · May 8, 2009

WTF is this?

Rudy....Bro...tell me it ain't so...you are one of the tea-baggers? All this means is a majority of US citizens voted to support our current administration. However a minority, of extremists, want to succeed from the Union and not follow the constitution they pledged to uphold.

SUMG · May 8, 2009

Rudy....Bro...tell me it ain't so...you are one of the tea-baggers? All this means is a majority of US citizens voted to support our current administration. However a minority, of extremists, want to succeed from the Union and not follow the constitution they pledged to uphold.

Does MSNBC know that you're available?

Edited May 8, 2009 by SUMG

EagleD · May 9, 2009

Excellent post. I am humored by those that think we are all creatures brought here through the process of evolution, yet fossils have never been discovered of any animal in this transitional process.

Bill Hicks on evolution

"Why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?"

"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when jesus comes back he ever wants to see another cross?"

GreenMachine · May 9, 2009

Rudy....Bro...tell me it ain't so...you are one of the tea-baggers? All this means is a majority of US citizens voted to support our current administration. However a minority, of extremists, want to succeed from the Union and not follow the constitution they pledged to uphold.

why do you label them "extremists"? Is anybody that doesn't agree with this administration an extremist? It is so funny that several months ago so many of the non-bathing tree huggers bashed W for every single thing he did but when somebody questions BHO, people go absolutely ape shit. The true extremist are to the far left.

eulesseagle · May 9, 2009

Rudy....Bro...tell me it ain't so...you are one of the tea-baggers? All this means is a majority of US citizens voted to support our current administration. However a minority, of extremists, want to succeed from the Union and not follow the constitution they pledged to uphold.

do you mean succeed or secede? some people hope they succeed when the states sucede.

It is evident that you have succeeded in learning political correctness not US history. to call American citizens "extremists" by the simple fact of them voting for another party is pure socialistic.

What is wrong with states drawing up articles of sucession if they feel that the US government is over steping the bounds of the Constitution? Is it not the interpretation of individual state legislatures, of the the people, to make that decision? I do not know if you are keeping up with current event but there are a handfull of states looking at this option and Oklahoma has already passed this legislation this week. This administration will definitely "draw the line in the sand" for many Americans in the "extremist" minority.

Censored by Laurie · May 9, 2009

do you mean succeed or secede? some people hope they succeed when the states sucede.
It is evident that you have succeeded in learning political correctness not US history. to call American citizens "extremists" by the simple fact of them voting for another party is pure socialistic.
What is wrong with states drawing up articles of sucession if they feel that the US government is over steping the bounds of the Constitution? Is it not the interpretation of individual state legislatures, of the the people, to make that decision? I do not know if you are keeping up with current event but there are a handfull of states looking at this option and Oklahoma has already passed this legislation this week. This administration will definitely "draw the line in the sand" for many Americans in the "extremist" minority.

I wish we had a red pencil feature on this board.

Rudy · May 9, 2009

Rudy....Bro...tell me it ain't so...you are one of the tea-baggers? All this means is a majority of US citizens voted to support our current administration. However a minority, of extremists, want to succeed from the Union and not follow the constitution they pledged to uphold.

No, I didnt go, but I support those who excercised their Constitutional right do protest. So, if someone doesnt support borak obama, then they are extremists? What about everyone who bashed Bush for no effing reason? Oh, that is ok?

The United States Constitution provides for checks and balances, and one of those is that if the government itselfs violates it, it is not aboove the law. I do not believe simply seceeding from the Federal government is a violation of the constitution, it depends on the reasons and circumstances.

meangreenacct · May 9, 2009

I think some of you are missing eeally's point regarding extremists. I think he is not saying people who protest are the extremists, rather the people who think their respective states should leave the US are the extremists. I may be wrong, but I only heard liberals make threats to leave the country themselves - not threats to make their states leave the country. I fully support the tea party and all other peoples right to protest, that what you should do when you don't agree with what the government or some other entity is doing. I do think it crosses the line into extremism when the idea of seceding is thrown on there.

eulessismore · May 9, 2009

I think some of you are missing eeally's point regarding extremists. I think he is not saying people who protest are the extremists, rather the people who think their respective states should leave the US are the extremists. I may be wrong, but I only heard liberals make threats to leave the country themselves - not threats to make their states leave the country. I fully support the tea party and all other peoples right to protest, that what you should do when you don't agree with what the government or some other entity is doing. I do think it crosses the line into extremism when the idea of seceding is thrown on there.

Hey, it worked so well before.

Green Guy Bass · May 9, 2009

I do love the organic flow of the debate here, but I do think it should be re-visited that many conservatives in this country are sort of championing torture...The republican party is in general disarray. That the extreme right is casuing a real rift and showing a stark difference between themselves and the more moderate conservatives in this country.

As a liberal it does amuse me a bit, but I would love to see the Reps sort of get their crap together so something can get done in this country in the near future. A devisive mind-set between Dems and Reps is bad enough, but the Reps are having a hard enough time galvanizing their own party.....kinda sad. When morons like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are the public voice of the Republican party - they have massive F'ing problems. Who is actually going to be a legit voice for the conservatives over the next decade??

I do think that the religious right have gone way too far right and are sort of ruining the overall momentum of what once used to be the party of intelligence and business, but now is one that doesn't value civil rights (gays), some in the party are desperate for a Christian-theocracy, and on top of it all Gun crazy. If I were a rational conservative in this country I would be very upset over the current state of the Reps, and would do my best to distance and possibly give the boot to those who are not helping forward momentum.

But hey, Ronald Regan wanted the Christian vote back in the 80's - and now it is coming back to bite the party in the arse.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Green Guy Bass

SilverEagle · May 9, 2009

I never thought I'd ever see the day when I'd miss guys like Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. But thanks to all the religious right crazies who seem to have a hard-on for Armageddon, and have taken over the Republican party...I do miss the 60's Republicans.

oldguystudent · May 9, 2009

I never thought I'd ever see the day when I'd miss guys like Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. But thanks to all the religious right crazies who seem to have a hard-on for Armageddon, and have taken over the Republican party...I do miss the 60's Republicans.

The religion issue is the single issue that turns me off on the Republican party. I hold my right to worship or not in any way I see fit as more valuable than the misguided policies of the Democratic party. This country left a theocracy once and some would have it return to its roots. If Barry Goldwater were still around, I'd be a fan.

oldguystudent · May 9, 2009

I wish we had a red pencil feature on this board.

I wish I had a picture of your neighbor's wife.

eulesseagle · May 9, 2009

The religion issue is the single issue that turns me off on the Republican party. I hold my right to worship or not in any way I see fit as more valuable than the misguided policies of the Democratic party. This country left a theocracy once and some would have it return to its roots. If Barry Goldwater were still around, I'd be a fan.

so ogs, what is the "one particular" religion that the republicans trying to indoctrinate you? and who in the republican party wants to go back to a theocracy? I can probably tell you that there are some that would like for the usa to become a theocracy but they aint republican and there is one in the democratic party.

you so conviently point to religion turning you off to the conservative party and give some lame excuse of supporting something that does not really appeal to you rather than submit to religious republicans and their policies that may agree with you more? there has to be more to this than what you stated.

conversly,

republicans and religious republicans are, also, turned off by the democratic party....because of a laundry list of issues (which have been dragged through the dirt several times on this board).

* if you like this taxation ride we are taking then that is your decision.

* i think that with the admin making more oil/gas land off limits to drilling to protect the fauna and flora, this is nothing more than eventual higher prices at the pump.

* higher prices at the pump.....higher prices for consumer goods.....this is your decision ogs.

* higher prices means more people fall through the cracks to social welfare programs that we all have to pay for.....which means more taxes from us to support them.

ogs, i suggest you think through what you stated.

CaribbeanGreen · May 9, 2009

THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT PICS!

UNT90 · May 10, 2009

I do love the organic flow of the debate here, but I do think it should be re-visited that many conservatives in this country are sort of championing torture...The republican party is in general disarray. That the extreme right is casuing a real rift and showing a stark difference between themselves and the more moderate conservatives in this country.
As a liberal it does amuse me a bit, but I would love to see the Reps sort of get their crap together so something can get done in this country in the near future. A devisive mind-set between Dems and Reps is bad enough, but the Reps are having a hard enough time galvanizing their own party.....kinda sad. When morons like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are the public voice of the Republican party - they have massive F'ing problems. Who is actually going to be a legit voice for the conservatives over the next decade??
I do think that the religious right have gone way too far right and are sort of ruining the overall momentum of what once used to be the party of intelligence and business, but now is one that doesn't value civil rights (gays), some in the party are desperate for a Christian-theocracy, and on top of it all Gun crazy. If I were a rational conservative in this country I would be very upset over the current state of the Reps, and would do my best to distance and possibly give the boot to those who are not helping forward momentum.
But hey, Ronald Regan wanted the Christian vote back in the 80's - and now it is coming back to bite the party in the arse.

The problem facing the republican party is that too many of them have abandoned conservatism (See John McCain as a prime example). They have no one strong enough to voice true conservative principles in an intelligent way and know how to handle the extremist, racist, gay-hating, gun crazy, women hating claims that will be thrown at him/her immediately by mainstream media types. Ronald Reagan was genius at this, not to mention one of the best Presidents in the last century.

Too many now suck up to the media and try to show how "moderate" they are. Freaking sickening. The Republican Party will become strong again when they move much farther right, not left.

Like I tell my friends, I had to choose between a Democrat and a Socialist for President last time. I voted for the Democat, but dang sure not with any enthusiasm.

Edited May 10, 2009 by UNT90