Vendtre

As I was saying about Yahoo, they care about making money, not being pro-Muslim or pro-Christian.  They are pro-money.  That is why the story was moved so quickly, no other reason.

2 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

OK Thanks for your honesty that your opinion is based on tiny smattering of people, and admitting that it is an opinion. I fall into another demographic, I am not sure what the Voice is and have no idea who Kylie Jenner is, is that the former Bruce?

Let me ask you. If those people that were killed in Pakistan had been Muslims would your level of caring be the same?

5 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Again, where  are you getting your statistics, you think that there are 160 million people in the U.S. that cannot find Paskistan on a map? Or, are you talking about other people, not Americans? Do you think that not knowing where Pakistan is on a map, is equivalent to not caring about it's people?I do not see a logical connection You sure have a cynical view of Americans, must be depressing living in your head!

I don't think it is cynial, I think it is realistic.  

In 2006 National Geographics did a poll and only 30 some percent could find Iraq on a map, and that was in the middle of the war there.  Less than 25 percent could find Israel on a map. 

Yes. I do find a correlation between knowing the basics of a country (I.e. Where it is) and caring about the people of that country.  

6 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

It's possible, do you have any data on that, or is that just your opinion base on a few of our 320 million people you have heard from on this? 

It is my opinion based on interactions with people all over the country and from paying attention to the country.  We (as a country) have a short opinion span and care little about what happens outside of our borders, if not outside our own little world.  

It is my opinion we (as a country) care more about who is doing well on the voice and who Kylie Jenner is dating than a bombing in some Muslim country. 

8 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

That's not really true; I, personally, feel terrible about Pakistanis being killed and maimed just as I do about Europeans and any other people.  Why do you think Americans don't care?

Seriously?  Most people could not find Pakistan on a map, let alone care about the people there.  I would even suggest you care because they were Christians killed, had it been a large group of Muslims I am betting the terrible feeling would be missing.  I don't recal seeing anyone complain when Yahoo does not run stories about terrorist killing Muslims.

2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Seems a rather broad generalization, I do not think I care less for Pakistanis than for Europeans!

I would say you are very much in the minority on that.  

It has nothing to do with defending Islam, it is basic business.  People in the US do not care about dead people in Pakistan. We can relate to people in Europe, not so much those in Pakistan 

6 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Check the Scriptures again, especially with reference to the sluggard.

Being idle is not the same as being a sluggard or slothfulness.  

Idleness is akin to anger, neither is a sin but both can lead one to sin.

There is no sin of idleness.

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

Not true.

It is true.  There is no such thing as a "Christian Nation" unless that nation is also a Christian Theocracy. 

The problem I have with the KJV is that the English language has changed mightly since the 1600's.  So now I not only have to rely on the fact the KJV translators did a good job but I have to find a trustworthy source to tell me what a word meant a half a century ago in a different country.  That is if I even find a reason to look a word up. 

The joy of digital bibles is I do not need to have a single favorite, I have multiple versions at my fingertips.  My most often used are the RSV, the ESV and the HCSB

A nation of Christians that built our nation on the backs of slaves and the bones of the local inhabitants.  

America has never been a Christian nation.

26 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

 

I have already shown you 2 articles, provided by the NRA, that shows he has a history of voting against guns, not just that one case you brought up. Or, do your reading comprehension skills need work? Quite frankly, I dont need to prove anything to you. Youve proven over and over again to not care about the facts, all you care about is your own personal agenda and will twist and ignore any fact, that goes against what you teach. The NRA made up nothing-nor did I, nor do I need to provide any more "proof" to you, as its already been provided. your inability to read is not my problem, nor do I care about what your opinion on the matter is.

Your first article said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling.   This is verifiable false and has been verified as false.  

The irony here is that I asked you not to blindly accept what the NRA said and your response is to say "well the NRA said", thus proving you have blindly accepted what they posted. 

As for reading skills, the first one is what this whole discussion is about, and the 2nd one, all of the Supreme Court agreed with, even the guy they are now trying to replace.   

35 minutes ago, bopeep1909 said:

Not necessarily. A person needs to truly love them self in order to deeply and genuinely love another person.

Love is unconditional where liking someone is more shallow. You can like a casual friend.

Love is more of a commitment than liking a friend. When you love a person they may play a more important part in your life.

There are different types of love. A love you have for your mother and father,a love you have for your fellow Christian and a love you have for a girlfriend/boyfriend or a spouse.

You can like a person because they are just fun to be around but the feelings do not go any deeper.

Can you love someone that you cannot stand to be around? 

Same thing happened to Rubio a couple days ago.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marco-rubios-dc-campaign-office-evacuated-due-suspicious/story?id=37670418

7 minutes ago, other one said:

you have given us an example of what en banc could be used for, but you really don't know why he did that.....        And considering Obama picked him right now when he has promised to put in Gun Control before he leaves office gives me great pause as to the answer to why....

I'm saying that if he is not against people having guns, Obama would not have picked him.

But the NRA said this... The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. 

As you noted, I have shown this to be false.  And it ignores that one of the most conservative judges in the land also voted for the en banc.  

I am not saying he is not anti-gun, I am saying nobody has given a shred of real evidence that he is.  The guy has been a judge a long time, you would think he would have lots of evidence if he were truly anti-gun.  Yet the NRA has to resort to lying to make him look like he is.  Ask yourself, why is that?

Just now, MorningGlory said:

I don't think anyone else here is going to look up YOUR sources.  Just post them.

 I have posted them, but why is that even necessary.  Why is it that people cannot do such things for themselves?  Why do people blindly believe organizations?

7 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

I did. And like usual you came up wrong. You continually twist the facts to suit your agenda, though for the life of me I haven't figured out what that is yet. The NRA is the largest legal entity in the US and its dedicated to protecting gun rights-they are rarely, if ever, wrong on gun related matters. If they say someone is anti gun, they are anti gun. And if one honestly took a look at the evidence one will see that once again, the NRA is right.

I am wrong?  are you kidding me?  I have given you an example of what en banc is for, and I am not wrong.   Please provide your source that shows that the only reasons for an en banc review is to overturn the ruling.   Failure to do so will be enough for me to know you are just making things up like the NRA did.

11 minutes ago, algots said:

Are you really attempting to compare fellow church members with being your enemies?

You misunderstand the Middle Eastern concept of love. It is not the Americanized version of cotton candy, warm fuzzies, and puppy dog eyes. Love, there, is an action. Read the next few verses. DO this. DO that...an action.

I am attempting to show that you can love someone and not really like them at the same time.  

Let me give you a real life example.  I have a cousin that is 1 year older than me (so early 30s),  we were friends growing up as much as seeing each other 3 times a year allowed.  Since we both became adults he has become a womanizing drunk.  He is on his 3rd marriage and brags about cheating on his current wife after an afternoon of him drinking beer like water.  I do not like him, he is rude, foul mouthed sexist pig. But he is my family and I do love him and I try to help him when we are together and have even pulled out butt out of the frying pan when he was about to go to jail for writing bad checks (though I wont do it again if he did not learn his lesson). This is a case of loving someone I do not like.

Do you need to like someone in order to love them?

3 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

See here's the thing. I trust the NRA before I trust you. You won't be changing my mind anytime soon. God bless.

I am not asking you to trust me, I am asking you to not blindly trust the NRA.  A simple 5 minute search of "en banc" will show you what it means and how it is used.  Then I would ask you to take 5 minutes and look up Judge A. Raymond Randoplh and see if he is "anti-gun" or a liberal judge.  

The information is out there for anyone willing to step outside their comfort zone and look for it.  

5 minutes ago, algots said:

 

You cannot love them if you don't like them. So, to, you cannot claim to love God if you don't love the God in them.

I cannot agree with this, you can surly love someone that you do not like.  Jesus told us to love our enemy, and one does not like their enemy.  

10 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

You were wrong, huh?

No, I was not wrong.  You might not have noticed, but I rarely am. 

8 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I was waiting for you to drag Trump's name into it.  I think your agenda is pretty much along the lines of the President's.  The NRA is the voice to listen to.

I did not drag Trump's name in to anything.  The leadership of the GOP has many factors they must weigh and plan for.  The first being is how sure they are of winning the White House, next how sure are they of keeping control of the Senate and third, if they win the White House, who will Trump pick.  You might have noticed that the GOP leadership does not really care much for Trump, thus they will take that into consideration. I realize that anything that is even perceived as a negative against your man Trump sets you into attack and defend mode, but my comment was not about Trump as much as it was about the game of politics and the GOP