Alex Summers

I am not speaking for anyone. I am telling you what was said on campus if you didn't support Obama. In fact it has been suggested by the left that lack of support for Obama was motivated by racism

You spent a lot of time on campus back in 2008 did ya?

Ok alex you first, what are your news sources?

In no particular order:

NPR

BBC

CNN

WSJ

FoxNews

Al Jazerra

France-24

Der Spigel

Jewish Press

the Fiscal Times

Reuters

The Economist

Forbes

Plus some other random sites

For young people it had nothing to do with who the opposing candidate was. It was all about voting for the black guy and if you didn't vote for Obama you were a racist. If you complained that "hope and change" didn't explain his policies you were racist. If you questioned his ideas about redistributing wealth, you were racist.

It would have made NO difference in either election who the opposing candidate was... It was all about voting for the black guy. I was in school at the time, and all that was going around campus was how historical it was to have black candidate. they didn't know beans about his polices and it didn't matter. If you said you were not supportive of Obama, you were branded a racist.

I love it when old *removed**  (people) try to speak for the younger generation. You sound just like my grandpa!

in 2008 people were forced to choose between Obama and McCain. Is it any wonder so many went for Obama? People knew what McCain stood for, more dead military members an endless war. Obama was by far the lesser of the two evils (not that I voted for either one).

In 2012 you had Obama vs Obama-lite.

Both of Obama's wins had as much to do with the low quality opponent as it did him

Perhaps we should take a take a short poll and see where people get their news and information.

I don't think so. I can't even link to a "left" leaning site on here without getting attacked.

Do you honestly think those far right people posting on here use sources that are not far right?

I reject the idea that the younger voter is less informed than an older one.

Most younger people are like me and get information from multiple sources from all political perspectives.

Older folks tend to just get their information from one side or the other, just being fed what agrees with their preconceived opinions of current events.

When I was younger I was not nearly as informed or knew what I wanted in a President.And actually I really did not care.

Times have changed, a lot of younger people are news/information addicts like me. A dozen different apps on my phone feeding me information all day long.

I reject the idea that the younger voter is less informed than an older one.

Most younger people are like me and get information from multiple sources from all political perspectives.

Older folks tend to just get their information from one side or the other, just being fed what agrees with their preconceived opinions of current events.

Congratulations, that is one of the greatest straw men I have ever seen put into words.

Seems a better system than our "sort of" two party system with the two parties looking more and more alike

Well Shiloh, we have now established there will be no death in the new world. Of course nobody has said anything different so I am not sure why we needed to do it again.

The topic of discussion is the world prior to the first sin.

The so what is that you can't point to the new world's lack of physical death to show there was no death prior to the first sin.

Shiloh, please read what I write and not make things up.

I know there will be no sin in the new world. But as I have now said 3 times, the first creation was made with the possibilty of sin. The new one will not. That is a pretty significant difference in my opinion.

The possibility of sin was part of the original creation. Which is what I said initially.

Will there be the possibilty of sin in the new/restored earth?

The possibility of sin was part of the first creation, it will not be part of the new/restored earth.

How can you claim that the new/restored earth will be just like the pre-sin world when that seems to be a very big difference.

My question is on what basis do you make the claim the TR is "the" exact copy of the letters by Paul and the rest of the New Testament?

None of the older manuscripts of the TR exist prior to the 1500's. So for all you or anyone else knows it the TR was changed 100 times between 200 and 1500 AD. With each copying process for new paper and for each church to have a copy there is an opportunity for changes to have been made.

Then we are back to square 1.

If I am not mistaken classical Christian thought on this matter is that physical death is the result of Adam's sin, it is part of the curse of sin.

That would be spiritual death, separation from God. There is nothing in scripture that supports the idea that Adams physical body would of lasted forever.

As shiloh said:

Physical death is associated with the fall of Adam in Rom. 5:12-21.

Romans 5 makes just as much sense speaking of spiritual death as it does physical.

How does the TR date back to the early church? There are no copies of what the early church used so on what do you place your faith the TR of today is the TR of the 2nd century?

Then we are back to square 1.

If I am not mistaken classical Christian thought on this matter is that physical death is the result of Adam's sin, it is part of the curse of sin.

If this is the case, then it stands to reason that Adam would have lived forever had sin not entered the world.

If that is the case, a Tree of Life served no purpose in the original creation. But that does not really seem right either.

So, can anyone help me with the purpose of the Tree of Life in the Garden?

If Adam was created to never die, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life, which according to Gen 3:22 would have allowed him to live forever?

who said that he was not eating of it before the tree of knowledge... that one tree was the only one forbidden.

I am very open to that idea, but I am not sure it squares with the idea physical death is part of the curse of sin!

Bureto, the history of the TR dates back no further than the 1500's.

What was the "official" Word of God for the 1500 years prior to that?

That is a good question. It was the thread on physical death that got me to thinking about the tree of life.

In that thread the best answer stated that physical death was part of the curse of sin, if this is correct then Adam would have never died had he not sinned.

I actually struggle with that concept becaue our entire biological system is a continous cycle of life and death.

I read through the last 2 pages, sorry if I missed something.

If Adam was created to never die, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life, which according to Gen 3:22 would have allowed him to live forever?

Or, why couldnt the first 1611 KJV bible be mistake free?