Posted on 12/06/2006 9:18:37 AM PST by areafiftyone
Well, that man of temerity of whom you speak finally admitted he set up the "jailing" incident to make his point. And everyone else, including his own attorney concluded that nothing of the sort of story Parker first told ever happened. Heck, even your old buddy who seems rather absent these past few months admitted that.
But as I said at first, any lie or distortion is ok if it promotes certain agendas here. Using a lie to promote a moral position is at best disingenuous. I don't want to destroy the man, just point out how he has continually been using his own son as a pawn in his little political game. Sad. It'll be interesting to see a few years from now who grew up in a loving home, learning decency, tolerance, and an ability to think...Mary's child or Parker's? I know who my money is on.
There, fixed it for you.
Thanks so much. But I think most here know an extremist when they see one, you needn't keep pointing to yourself. And as I said, any lie or distortion to help the agenda. And your tactics differ from DU.....how?
Still doesn't answer the question of why God would imbue a person with homosexuality and then punish him for simply acting within that nature. I'm sure you can understand those of us who would question such heavenly logic.
Do parents 'need power' when they lay down the law to their children? (ideally I mean- some parents of course get their kicks from power- but I'm talking ideally) No. They lay down rules not out of vindictiveness, but out of love for their children because they know that abiding by some rules, the child will have the best possible chance at a healthy life. Same with God's 'laws'.
You make an interesting point. The parent sets rules for the child because he wants the child to learn how to cope with society, and learn some basic moral and ethical values. But those values vary widely depending on the religious thinking of the parent. God has no such need, since the concepts of heaven and hell have no society one needs to be prepared for. If it is to "serve" God, then my power argument comes back into play. Why would God need any such acclaim, worship, adoration? It simply doesn't make sense.
As well, just a cursory examination of the scriptures will tell you it was a Holy inspired word that simply could not have been written by man- the prophesies foretold, the fact that it was written over thousands of years without knowledge of the other chapters, yet all chapters work together flawlessly, prophesies still comming 100% true etc.
A student of biblical history might take some exception to that pointing out such anomalies as how certain "historical events" were taken from earlier religions, how and why so many of the gospels and other writings of the time were omitted...by humans, and why various translations turn up differences, some petty, some not petty. Here is where faith has to play a big role, because quite frankly, anyone who critically assesses this history is not going to conclude what you have.
Words meant a great deal more in days gone by & the translations we have today are so close to the original writings that you can not bring up this charge seriously.
Well, I could very easily point you to just one example where the translation took you from a completely natural event, marriage, sexual union, and birth before the translation to immaculate conception after the translation. But you can look this up as well as I can, if you wish. That is merely one example that has been pretty well documented. So translations play a huge part throughout the ages. And all of these decisions regarding translation, deleting books, adding books, were all done by mere humans.
As for the metaphore bit- The Holy Spirit will dispell any of those doubts immediately through His revelation.
Perhaps, but few Christians today still subscribe to the literal meaning of 7 days of creation. And the biblical accounts of the genealogy of man from Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago or so, simply fails to account for the millions that existed 20,000 years before that in most parts of the world. So yes, most believe that at least some of the Bible is written in metaphors. Nor do I believe that it loses its message of goodness because of it.
God speaks personally with His people through His word confriming it's truth al lthe time, but the only way to experience that is to take Him at His word and trust Him
God I trust. It's all the others who deign to speak for Him that concern me.
too much here to comment on now- Just one point- I think 600,000,000 True born again Christians would dissagree with the statement that 'most Christians don't subscribe to a literal translation. Yes, there's many millions more who claim to be Christian, but I tell you the truth-0 God's True peopel are endowed with His truth and know it to be fact- those claiming to be Christians simply have a head knowledge and not the saving heart knowledge that comes with salvation & therefore they truust hteir own wisdom above God's truth (but the actual fact is that in order to 'trust their wown wisdom' about things like evolution- they need a powerful lot more faith than beleiving in God- Evolution is biologically impossible, yet they have qualms about suspending that fact in order to bleeive in evolutioin? Thanks, but I'll take God's truth over a biologically impossible fantasy anyday.
Would be interesting as to how many actually believe the literal interpretations. For example, we know what a day is, and the Bible mentions 7 days. But what was the first day, since the universe did not exist? How long was it? From there it does get a lot tougher, for as I said, unless God planted a lot of corpses and buried villages that were tens of thousands of years old...much older than the time line in the Bible, something must be wrong.
Yes, I agree, to believe one has some special insight to God's thinking takes a heap of faith. But then over the years there have been thousands of religious sects and groups who each thought the same thing. You do realize for example that the idea of the flood came from religions not remotely associated with the Jews, don't you? The same for quite a number of the stories in the Old Testament. Their origins can be traced to pagan religions and to a much earlier time.
Evolution is biologically impossible, yet they have qualms about suspending that fact in order to bleeive in evolutioin?
You have to admit that even today, scientists can sometimes be baffled about religious beliefs. For example, Christians work overtime to demonstrate that science is the basis for believing that a soul exists at conception. And this is an extremely important point because for most of the Christian era folks believed that it was not murder to abort an early fetus because there was no soul until later on. The way Christians spin it now is that the early Church up until the late 19th Century was unaware of the scientific basis for declaring ensoulment at conception. So science saves all.
When the topic of evolution, however comes up, all of the science in the world is ignored because it tends to disagree with a literal reading of the Bible.
Then of course we have the age old issue of geocentrism and Galileo. Christians staunchly defended the Church's belief that the earth was at the center of the universe, because the Holy Scriptures so stated. Galileo was imprisoned as a scientist because he taught differently. Others of the time were in fact executed for such blasphemy. Even the Pope, who apologized for it said that everything in the Bible need not be taken literally. Some things are simply metaphors. But even today, some Christian fundamentalists still believe it. Why, because it is the written word of God.
But as I have said before, faith can solve a lot of questions for some, but not for all.
There weren't millions and millions of single parent or "faux mommy and/or faux daddy" households in the era of Ozzie and Harriet.
Sorry MacV- Real dizzy tonight- having trouble focussing-
The 'day lengths' I can grant as it does say a day with God is as a 1000 years- however, while it might be soemwhat possible- there are indications that the days were literal- there's evidence on the net- can't recall them now- I lean toward the literal on the day issue- but htis is really not a form of doubt, but one of interpretation backed up by evidences one way or the other.
10's of 1000's of year old villages? By what calculations are we to determine factual timelines? Radioactive measurements? RA measurements taken immediately after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens showed material was '100's of 1000's of years old' yet we know for fact that they were present day materials instantly fossilized by great pressures- Coal that was once htought to happen only over millions of years is now discovered as happening rapidly- Radio isotope measurements emenating from Zircons, a form of measurement- shows a huge discrepency with radioactive measurements and carbon dating methods. etc etc etc- on and on it goes.
No sir- the bible's flood was taken from eyewitness acounts handed down through the ages from Noah's kin- taken from there- perveted by other religions 1000's of years later- Let me ask this- If Man first walked with God, beleived in God, and their children likewise and their children- then some broke off and started worshipping rocks, stars etc- who got who's accounts of history from whom? While there are indeed some ancient religions- NONE predate man's walk with God- not even close- they miss that distinction of being 'the first religions' by a few 1000 years. If it is claimed Christianity got their 'messages' from these ancient religions- then it can rightfully assumed that those religions got their traditions from the TRUE religion and simply perveted the messages to fit their particular bent of ideology.
you are absolutely wrong about science being ignored to discredit evolution- infact it is science that is the primary key to discreditting evolution- as I stated earlier, evolution is a biological impossibility- right from the very beginning- it is impossible for left hand amino amino acids (the ONLY kind that can be created by zapping a primordial soup- as proven by carefully controlled lab experiments for decades)(one more point-the left hand amino acids (which inccidently didn't survive for long- EVEN under carefully controlled circumstances) are the WRONG type for life-) to make the jump to protiens- then you have the impossible jump from protiens to higher forms, and on and on it goes.
Science has shown that in order to get even one mutation that would be deemed viable for stimulation of organs that would be deemed benificial, you would need to have an entire universe full of DNA- constant lightening strikes on this DNA 24/7 for something like 100 billion years- BUT, and htis is important, That mutation ONLY alters existing information- Key in on that statement, because herte is where evolution as Darwin proposes, completely breaks down. In order to change one species into another you MUST introduce NEW information from another species- You can not simply mutate existing information in cells to form NEW and unusual information that would be absolutely necessary for a species to change into a completely different one.
To make this a little clearer. Cats can ONLY mate with cats- mutations can occure, but no matter how many mutations you have, it will always be a cat- biologically, this is the law so to speak- one which can not now, nor ever could be transcended biologically.
The ONLY way to introduce new information necessary for one species to morph into another would be to introduce cell information from another species artificially- for instandce, science has, beleive it or not, introduced spider genes into a goat & the goat has produced milk with silk in it.
This however has it's limitations as each species has several layers of defenses which prevent morphing to take place and keep the species kind within it's own kind. They are built in protections within the DNA and gene cells-
As science looks further and deeper into even the tineist of cells, they are amazed at the complexities of the structures and the built in protections that exist preventing severe deformities. Mutations as we've found out through decades of investigation are always either self destructive, or at best neautral (Although only a VERY few have ever been found to be truly neutral- even they turn out to be destructive- and htis goes absolutely counter to the theory of survival of the fittest)
One other point- that 'staunch defense of the world at the center' being the church's doing is a lie that has been foisted on the world- Google it- the truth will surprise you. And keep in mind also that the early Church did NOT represent God- it represented Rome and was absolutely corrupt and NO part of God's TRUE church- People accuse Christians of having thought the wordl was flat- however, the earliest beleivers were told first hand that the world was spherical LONG before science found this out- that was another lie that had been foisted on the world- Christians never beleived in flat earth.
Wanna hear another mind blower? Darwin wasn't even the first to formulate evolution theory- Again, the world accuses Christians of stifling science- however, early beleivers were the first ones to recognize micro-evolution- Darwin took THEIR findings and came up with MACRO-Evolution theory which he could NOT confirm through factual evidences & which he himself was not a sound theory.
Not sure how this applies to Mary Cheney, but yes there were millions, if not millions and millions of divorces, single parent households, dysfunctional households, alcoholic parents, abusive parents, etc. Abuses in the Catholic Church certainly go back to that era. Were there as many divorces as today? No. But none of that is relevant to Mary Cheney. As I said, Ozzie and Harriet no longer exist, and we are here in today's society for better or worse.
You can't stick by any word you say, can you? You're the one who brought up "millions and millions" in the times of Ozzie and Harriet, or did that slip your ever slipping frontal lobes too?
You don't debate much, do you? If you want to distinguish between "millions" and "millions and Millions", be my guest. The fact is exactly as I stated in my last post. I am discussing the issue of how many hypocrites condemn both her and her father, while ignoring many other issues affecting children. Now, if you wish to debate me on the issue fine, otherwise go pester someone else.
Oh then, there's that pesky old lawyer of Parker's. Is he part of the pro-homo agenda? Or how about the news conference where Parker admitted he set up the jailing incident to make his point? Is Parker also part of the pro-homo agenda? Maybe Parker's son who admitted it was just a fight between two friends. That's it. His son is part of the agenda? Bingo! He was brain washed! Let's get this over to World Nut Daily right away.
I don't make bets like that. I pray that both situations turn out for the best. Children in bizarre, non-traditional, fantasy-land "families" start out behind the eight-ball, though. That much is crystal clear.
Really? Got some "real" data on that...or did Parker tell you?
Exactly. Generally speaking, the extremist is the guy who wants to overturn 2,000 years of Western tradition on marriage (leaving Nero and Caligula aside, of course). That would be you, bub.
Yeah, I'm an extremist. You know the scary part? There's a lot like you on here and a couple of other forums/blogs who would agree with you. When tolerance translates to extremism, our great Nation is surely doomed. But there is hope. The extreme right raised its ugly head one too many times and the voters actually caught on in November. It happened in 2004 when the voters rejected Kerry links to the extreme left. But vigilance is the key. Shining a light on the two extremes is a necessary for all those who cherish freedom.
Every time you say that, look in the mirror. Might clear some things up for you.
You seem only able to attack me personally, which tells me that while your agenda is scary, your ability to push it is limited. Your posts here never challenge a point, but almost always a poster. The reason is you can't. If I were you, I'd stay clear of anything requiring critical thinking skills.
It is a sad day when any baby is born without a father. It will still qualify as a bastard child.
Turkey Basters, apparently.
Here I thought Mary Cheney, the subject of this thread, was having her own child. Is that not so? So if I read you correctly, you are suggesting that it would be intolerant to wish her and her new baby the best.
TOLERANCE IS NOT redefining marriage to accomodate the confused delusions of a tiny percentage of the population.
Don't recall anyone on this thread discussing the marriage issue. I wonder though, as long as you brought it up, if tolerance would include minding one's own business if a state chose to expand the definition of marriage within its sovereign borders?
What you and those like you are proposing is the wholesale redefinition of marriage and family and the forcing of an unwilling society to accept this revolution by judicial fiat. THAT IS EXTREMISM.
Are you sure you're on the right thread? I don't recall ever making such a recommendation. Nor do I know exactly what you are referring to about forcing an unwilling society to do anything. Slow down...take your meds...rethink what you are blustering about...and put it into simple English.
We've got an internicene fight going on in the GOP right now because folks like you--I call them the Mark Foley Fan Club--refuse to realize that promoting the homo agenda is a loser politically and a disaster for the GOP. Or (as is my suspicion) you do realize it and think the idea sounds kind of cool.
Well, I'm not sure you know enough about me to quack like that. I don't frequent these homo bashing threads often, just when I think I can make a point to parry an obvious lie or distortion...which reflects badly on my Party. But I sense you never miss one, which is fine, because hatred is simply not one the moral values appreciated by most Americans. People like some here have given the Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln, a bad name, and I along with quite a few here simply won't put up with it any longer. I don't fear for Mary Cheney's child, but I do fear for the children who come under the domination of the likes of a few I've seen here.
Not to be picky, but you pointed to yourself as the extremist. I didn't argue with you though. But if you're not, you're not. After all, I would only consider someone an extremist if he wants to replace the Constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy and due process with religious tribunals designed to ensure that only citizens like "him" have the right to live, work, worship and engage in relationships. I would consider an extremist to be one who is so worked up over 1 percent of the population that he will resort to deception, lies, distortions of facts, and spend every waking hour tracking down their activities, that he never has any time to spend considering the real issues that face this great Nation.
I consider an extremist to be one who believes the 14th Amendment is one of the great calamities in our history. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Now go back to your ping list buddies and cry about what a pro-homo, communist loving disgust-o-crat I am. Meanwhile I will continue to shine the light on the likes of you in an attempt to show the world that we in the Republican Party can control our radical elements and be once again respected for conservative leadership.
You're one of the principal boosters of the sleazy homo-positive agenda on FR. I've had your number for a long time.
And as you can see from above, I, yours.
Hope you're feeling better today.
My intent here on this thread was not to engage in debates over evolution v: creationism, as that is not the purpose of this thread, nor do I frequent those discussions. I was raised in Catholic schools for quite a few years. I learned then, all the way back to the 1940s and early 1950s that God created the sciences, and that there is no conflict. Most did not argue the estimated age of the earth by scientists (about 3 billion years), nor of the general development of the various species and the ages of the prehistoric periods, nor of the general estimated age of man (then only a few hundred thousand years). I was taught that God took His time creating it all, and worked with science, not against it. But again, I respect those who reject all of that, I just don't understand why.
No sir- the bible's flood was taken from eyewitness acounts handed down through the ages from Noah's kin- taken from there- perveted by other religions 1000's of years later-
Yes, lots of such stories came from many religions around the world. But think about it for a minute. I think there are around 2 million different species in the animal kingdom from around the world. We know most of them never lived near Noah, so how do you think he rounded them all up, including the birds, both male and female, and stuck them all in one boat? Where did he store feed for that many animals (4 million)? And the Ark was only one third the length of a large cruise ship by today's standards. never mind such issues as keeping the meat-eaters away from the rest, waste disposal, health issues, etc.
If Man first walked with God, beleived in God, and their children likewise and their children- then some broke off and started worshipping rocks, stars etc- who got who's accounts of history from whom? While there are indeed some ancient religions- NONE predate man's walk with God- not even close- they miss that distinction of being 'the first religions' by a few 1000 years.
Well, someone's timeline is sure out of whack. Just how many years ago do you think man first walked with God? I've seen biblical genealogies that show about 6 thousand years from the time of "Adam". Is that your understanding?
If it is claimed Christianity got their 'messages' from these ancient religions- then it can rightfully assumed that those religions got their traditions from the TRUE religion and simply perveted the messages to fit their particular bent of ideology.
That's certainly possible, though there is no evidence supporting that. All of the evidence seems to confirm it was the other way around. But again, that's where you can't argue with faith.
One other point- that 'staunch defense of the world at the center' being the church's doing is a lie that has been foisted on the world-
Actually, the Church got it from the Greeks who also believed that, just as did almost every religion going back to the beginning of history. That belief made the writing of Genesis very easy. Everyone believed it. Does not the Bible refer to sunrise and sunsets? If the Bible is the word of God and not man, wouldn't God have know there was no such thing? Why would God distinguish between the sun and the stars, which are the same things? These are but a few questions that lead most to realize that the Bible does contain many metaphors.
And keep in mind also that the early Church did NOT represent God- it represented Rome and was absolutely corrupt and NO part of God's TRUE church-
I'm glad you recognize that fact. But, it was the early Church that essentially put the Bible together, that controlled its content, rejected those books that differed from its goals, added those that were needed and suddenly you have a Bible, one that in spite of its hundreds of translations (all different, yet all the word of God), is the book touted today as the word of God. Even if you think these differences are not substantial (which they are), why would God speak differently in different Bibles?
Wanna hear another mind blower? Darwin wasn't even the first to formulate evolution theory- Again, the world accuses Christians of stifling science- however, early beleivers were the first ones to recognize micro-evolution-
Christians didn't stifle science, they merely controlled it so that any "findings" were only those that supported the basic theses of Christian thought. And as we both know, early Christian scientists were paid by the Church, and those who did not toe the line were fired, disgraced, imprisoned or executed. Heresy was the sin of sins. And the Church determined what was doctrine...all else was heresy. Science that tended to be supportive of the Bible was acceptable, studies which did not were condemned along with their hapless authors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.