Free Republic

I would agree with that. It’s one thing to kill animals for food that are bred for food. It’s even one thing to kill animals that are in constant abundance (darned deer problem we have in MN). But killing species that could become endangered because of it when there are alternatives is irresponsible. And besides that, my wife loves dolphins and so I have a marital responsibility to feel incensed when they are killed. ;)

Many Japanese believe dolphins should be treated like fish. They have been hunting dolphins for centuries and see any criticism of this as an attack on their culture. This reminds me of the hullabaloo with the Native Americans (Amerindians? Indigenous peoples? What the heck am I supposed to call them?!?) in the Pacific Northwest some years back. They wanted to hunt whales, because of culture, and the animal rights activists wanted them to stop. I'm always slightly amused by the battle between "culture preservation" and "animal preservation."

How about the swine herd possessed by daemons? Or the many references to Jesus casting out (exorcising) demons out of various people?

I don't deny demon possession at all. In fact, I believe it was true in Scripture and I believe it still happens today. I just think we need to be careful about not being too quick to say, "Oh, he was definitely possessed," because we don't necessarily know.

I guess I put little stock in what someone has written about how demon possession works if they have no actual Biblical support to back it up, because we're dealing with things unseen. Whereas observations can be made about how a particular person was possessed, it does not mean that all possessions therefore occur that way. So, to make a hard fast rule about it without Biblical support is, in my humble opinion, poppycock. Now, I'd be interested to see any Biblical support for the idea that a person must enter into a contractual arrangement with the devil in order to be possessed.

To that point, was the man in the region of the Garasenes someone who had entered into that sort of agreement? We're not told, but it certainly doesn't seem he was a willing victim. And neither were the pigs.

I'm curious where you draw your explanation from. Is this something you can point to in Scripture? I really don't think it can be supported. If we're going to talk about spiritual matters, hadn't we better stick to the authority on spiritual matters (the Bible)?

Does a man have to be possessed by the devil to be evil through and through? "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5).

It seems to me to be an attempt at taking the culpability for sin away from the person and placing it on the devil.

If you insist that others believe that, then you are wrong to do so.

I don't insist that others believe anything. I do say that if you choose to ignore the clear meaning of any one piece of Scripture, then you must do the same to the rest of Scripture, and then who is to say that man is really sinful? Did Jesus really actually live? Maybe Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead? The foundation of Christian faith crumbles and belief is just a pretty way to harness the young and bring some comfort to the old.

I believe that if we are not willing to take God at his word then we might as well not believe at all. I, however, choose to believe what God clearly says, and not seek an alternative interpretation that doesn't actually fit the text.

The definition of faith is not denying the truth once it is known, but believing the truth before it is known.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

I find your definition of faith far more confusing than the clear meaning of Scripture. Furthermore, your argument about the rotation of the earth is ridiculous. It only makes sense if you assume that creation took longer than six normal days, but you're supporting the idea that creation took longer than six normal days by citing the possibility that the earth rotated slower. It's a circular argument. (If A, then B, therefore A)

But, I suppose some folks believe it is, as written, a detailed account of how things happened. That's their privilege, as it is the privilege of other Christians and Jews to see it as allegorical.

Anyone who claims to have a full understanding of the Bible is fooling with you. That's impossible, as those hundreds or thousands of denominations of Christianity affirm.

In other words, you think God intended that all people should just get whatever they want out of the Bible? God didn't have a specific message in mind that he wanted all people to receive?

I believe that God does want us to know the truth. Jesus said, "Sanctify them by the truth, your word is truth." If truth is something that is based on anyone's interpretation, then it is no truth at all. And I reject the idea that an omnipotent God is unable to make something clear enough that it can be understood. I cannot agree with your statement that it is impossible.

The reason there are so many demoninations is not due to the impossibility of understanding. It is due to man's own sinfulness and lack of perfect ability to understand, and his unwillingness to accept what God clearly says.

But once again, I fall back on what I said before: We must take Scripture at its clearest meaning, taking into consideration the context of verse, chapter, book, and entirety of Scripture. In this case, the context makes it fairly clear that we're talking about a normal day, not any great length of time.

Yup. Also, the very term "day" is frequently used, even in modern English, in very vague ways. For example: "Back in the day of the victrola, audio recording was poor at best.", or, "The day of reckoning had arrived for this corrupt politician." I think you're ignoring the fact that it is irrelevant how the word is used in English or any other living language, vaguely or otherwise. What matters is how it is used in Hebrew. In the case of the Genesis account, when you combine it with the context of "and there was evening and morning," which is typical Hebrew literature denoting a specific period of time, the clearest meaning of the words is a normal, regular day, not an indefinite period of time. If we stop taking Scripture at its clearest meaning and viewing everything within the context, then we leave all of Scripture up to the wildest forms of interpretation. It's exactly that which leads to all forms of heresy.

Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like the WAN is upset because they are having trouble maintaining their monopoly on the "truth." They don't like the idea that people can get information without having to pay for it. In another article on this issue a spokesman for the WAN condemned Google for its "absolute view" that information should be free. Sounds a little lefty to me.

What the heck is wrong with Toby Keith fans?

The story only said "assailant", not "assailantS", so I think we can assume that this was one person who did the attacking. As such, I don't think it's fair to say, "What's wrong with Toby Keith fans?" I am a fan of Toby Keith, as well is my whole family, my fiancee, and many other people I am close to, and I can say that not a single one of us would have this kind of response to one of our soldiers. More likely, if I saw a soldier at a Toby Keith concert, I might walk up and shake his hand, give him a hug, thank him for his service, wish him God's greatest blessings, and ask where I can mail letters of encouragement to him. As it is, I'm looking forward to doing just that anyway, if possible. And given my understanding of Toby Keith, I don't believe that he would condone the beating of one of our soldiers. If fact, I think if Toby had seen it going on, he might have jumped off the stage and started beating the snot of the soldier's attacker. So, all that said, let's be fair on the matter. Toby Keith fans are, by and large, patriots who love and support our troops. This was one rogue scoundrel who has a real problem with his priorities, who doesn't understand what America is all about, and who probably has plans to go to the next Dixie Chicks concert as well.

You know, I honestly believe that she thinks that SHE is going to be the President!!!

Wait! The first lady isn't actually the President? I'm confused, I thought she was, I mean, after those eight years where Hillary was in office...

"I didn't invent the internet for you Free Republic bastards to exercise free speech!"