WillingToDie

So they get how many virgins? They are in for a rude awakening!!! How many virgins can you get on a pitch fork, anyway? You'd be surprised. Not that I know, or anything...

Since when has Russia claimed to be "Utopian"? You are aware that communism was supposed to be the perfect "Utopian" society, aren't you? You are also aware that Russia is a communist state? Yes, I'm aware that communism is supposed to be a utopian state. I'm also aware that Russia hasn't been a communist state for almost 20 years. That aside, the USSR never reached Marx's ideal level of Communism. And I think it's pretty clear that the USSR was never in any way Utopian.

Since when has Russia claimed to be "Utopian"?

I'm not surprised. People are tired of war and fighting.

I enjoyed it more than I did the first film.

You know what's even sadder than that? It doesn't have to be that way.....we could do something about that.....but we won't. We could make a difference if we wanted too.....but we don't. That's what's really sad. We can, but we won't. I concur. As Bad Religion says: "Ten million dollars on a losing campaign Twenty million starving and writhing in pain Big strong people unwilling to give Small in vision and perspective"

None of this really bothers me. You can pray in school, just do it on your own time. Nobody can stop you from saying a personal prayer. I'm not convinced Bibles are against the rules, there have been a few stories here and there about a student getting in trouble, but I think that's more the exception than the rule. I see no problem with learning about what Muslims believe, it's good to understand those different from us. Gay marriage doesn't bother me as much as it does many of you, however the high divorce rate does indeed sadden me. But I will tell you what does break my heart: the untold numbers of people dying from disease and starvation in Africa and other parts of the world. The fact that there are still totalitarian governments throughout the world who abuse their people rather than serve the people's best interest. The fact that so many governments seek to keep their populace in a constant state of fear. It breaks my heart that we live in one of (if not the) richest countries in the worl, yet 1 in 5 (a whopping 20%) of our children are living below the poverty line. I could go on.

so we should just not try? Surely, we, as followers of the Prince of Peace should work towards peace. And surely peace (even if it is an "imitation") is preferable to war and hatred.

Chances are she won't leave no matter what happens. Every election year you get people saying they'll leave if so-and-so gets elected. They never do.

I would like to know that too. Peace? How about the name of Jesus being exalted? Salvation? Well, it's very hard to save someone's soul if they've been blown up. Additionally, would it not be a better witness for Christ to work towards peace?

I would like to know that too. Peace?

I don't understand why, even though gas prices are on the rise, people continue to buy Hummers and other huge cars. It makes no sense to me. Sorry, I know that was off-topic.

I don't oppose nuclear Energy. As I understand it, we've come a long way since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I say go for it.

Yes, "wacko environmentalism", never mind the fact that this would be a short term solution to a long term problem that would likely cause long-term damage to a wild-life refuge. Also, never mind the fact that the likelihood that this drilling would significantly lower gas prices is not terribly high. And, as I understand it, the money from gas taxes go towards maintaining our roads and highways. Hence why the tax-free gas day would be horrible idea.

I apologize for my absence, I...needed a break. Who admittedly told you that Paul's writings were written before the gospels? Now there is no proof of this claim, but I am assuming that you are refering to the book of Galations. It is so simple that we can't grasp it. Righteous comes by faith and faith alone and that faith rest in the cross in which Jesus died for the sins of man and because righteous is imputed unto us then it's only in the cross we can glory for what Christ did on our behalf and there is no work that can make us more righteous before God only the blood. The OT could never make one righteous through works because there was not a law given to make one righteous if there were then they would have followed and obeyed that law and made righteous but the law couldn't do this. It came only in the cross and the blood that was shed there of our Saviour Jesus Christ who washed us clean within sprinkling our conscious from dead works to serve the living God. OC It's actually rather simple: the Gospels were likely written between 70 CE and 90 CE. Paul was dead by this point. It follows that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels were written. Perhaps a better example is when Jesus says that it is better to say, cut off your hand than to burn in hell. Of course there is the surface implication that it is because of our sins that we are punished. However, there also seems to be the implication that one is able to avoid sinning and therefore Hell. -edit- Johnny, thank you for the links. I will take a look at the when I get a chance.

I really didn't think i'd have to be specific, as it seems to be [prevalent throughout Jesus' moral teachings, but the one that prompted this question is Mathew 6:1-Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. this seems to imply that our rewards (or lack thereof) are based upon our actions.

I'm not RC, so this is from an outsider's perspective, but it's my understanding that it's no so much the Priest forgiving sins, but rather it's an assurance of sins forgiven. Kind of like how some Protestant Churches do the Prayer of Confession and Assurance of Forgiveness.

When reading through the Gospels, it seems clear that there is some sort of Works-Righteousness going on there. It's not until Paul (which was admittedly written before the Gospels) that we see Sola Fide language. How do you explain this tension?

I have seen a few secular reviews that state that it is eye opening, and they do give it higher accolates than others, but yes, of course, most will state things like the above. That is exactly what I would expect. But what specifically did you hear? What factual errors, or lies or half truths? The one that comes to mind (and this is off the top of my head, I'm sure if I were to do a google search I could find more, and in more detail) is the story of the editor who ostensibly lost his job because he published an article that supported ID. The movie fails to mention that he was working on a limited engagement contract, and he would have left that particular journal regardless of whether or not he published that particular article.

Of course they are biased. I totally expect that the media will bring us horrible reviews from a film that points to a belief in God. The same reviewers are probably the ones who will give Michael Moore's films or that ridiculous Jesus Tomb two thumbs up. The fact is, a documentary that contains blatant factual errors, half-truths, and outright lies is a bad documentary, regardless of what the doc sets out to do. This is why I dislike Michael Moore's films, and why I have no desire to see this one.

Are you a Christian? Why would you trust the biased liberal anti-Christian media? Pay attention to the review sources; were any of them reviewers that would be friendly to godliness in general? Why don't you read this review - http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/...pelled2008.html Wow, they give the movie bad reviews, so they must be biased, right? Never mind the fact that these reviews simply point out blatant factual errors or convenient omissions of fact.

I have yet to see it, however I have read numerous bad reviews, criticizing its approach as a whole, such as misrepresenting facts, making warped arguments etc. I have no interest in seeing it.

But the rich doing these things should be voluntary, not mandatory. Agreed. My point was that if the rich would do this, there would be no need for higher taxes. Hence one of the original (or at least one of the most useful, IMO) purpose of tax deductions.

No, the problem is that it is just plain wrong. Period. The so-called right probably don't even use public transit. If the transit system in NYC needs work, they need to charge the patrons more to use it. Duh... Right, because it's wrong to try to help out others. And it's ok to charge teh working poor (who are more likely to use mass transit) more money. Good thinking. I'm all for helping others. I am against "coerced compassion." If you are so inclined, though, you ante up and buy transit passes for a few of the "working poor." Better yet, why not buy their groceries and pay their heating bills for the winter months. Why stop at just mass transit? Darn straight it's good thinking. You missed my point, yet this is exactly the response I expected from you. Paying for their groceries and helping fund a mass transit center are two seperate things. What I'm suggesting (that the the rich at least help pay) would certainly help the working poor, whereas your suggestion (make them pay for it themselves) puts the burden on those who are already having a hard time surviving. Have you seen Batman Begins, by any chance? In that movie, Thomas Wayne (Bruce's father) single-handedly payed for the building of a mass transit system because he thought it was the right thing to do, to help the poor people of Gotham City. That is what I think rich people should do with their money-help those who are less fortunate. Perhaps if the rich were more willing to give to the cause of affordable Mass Transit, which would indeed help the working poor, then there would be no need for such taxes. Fair enough, I don't see why those who use the system should not help to pay for it, but to try to make them pay for all of it is ludicrous, particularly in a City which has (I believe) the highest cost of living in the country, if not the world.

No, the problem is that it is just plain wrong. Period. The so-called right probably don't even use public transit. If the transit system in NYC needs work, they need to charge the patrons more to use it. Duh... Right, because it's wrong to try to help out others. And it's ok to charge teh working poor (who are more likely to use mass transit) more money. Good thinking.