Tubal-Cain

LOL. I guess it is now "arrogant" to try an implement a policy which saves lives.

You are not alone. Paul's Letters are very complex and even scholars debate his theology. If you are like me, you find Paul's views on soteriology and the Law to be the most confusing aspects of his theology. Some (long) books that I have found helpful are: Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion by E. P. Sanders Paul the Law and the Jewish People by E. P. Sander The Theology of Paul the Apostle by James D. G. Dunn

According to the Blue Letter Bible the words would be as follows: ruwach = רוח Yĕhovah = יהוה

Myco, you will want to look here for Gee's response to the Discovery Institute (where HE gets many of his quotes and ideas from what I can tell): http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/..._10_15_2001.asp Gee believes in evolution and common descent. His words, when understood properly, do no harm to the theory of evolution. Essentially all Gee would be saying is that you cannot be sure that horse fossil A is a direct ancestor/descendant of horse fossil B merely by looking at the fossils. However, he does not deny that there are transitional fossils and that they appear in the proper chronological order predicted by common descent.

If you ask the following questions before reading a book/passage of the Bible you will be in a good position to understand things correctly: 1 - Who wrote the book/passage and why did they write it? 2 - Who was the original audience? 3 - In what socio-historical context was the book/passage written and read? 4 - What is the genre of the book/passage? 5 - What meaning did the author intend to convey? How would the original audience have understood the writing? #5 is what truly matters. If you can answer that correctly then you can say you understand that book/passage. #1-4 merely help you answer #5. Since different passages/books will have different answers to those questions it is perfectly reasonable to expect different parts of the Bible to be interpreted differently.

Regarding the historicity of the resurrection I recommend NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. His argument can be summarized as follows: 1) Second-Temple Jews were familiar with the concept of resurrection. But "the striking and consistent Christian mutations within Jewish resurrection belief rule out any possibility that the belief could have generated spontaneously from within its Jewish context" (p. 686). So we have to ask where Christians got their ideas from. The early Christians say that they found the tomb empty and met the resurrected Jesus. 2) The resurrection belief would not have developed unless the tomb was empty and Jesus appeared to them. If the tomb was empty but there were no appearances the disciples would be puzzled. If Jesus appeared to them but the tomb still had his body then those appearances would be called visions but not a resurrection which involves a physical body. 3) However, an empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances would have presented a powerful reason to believe in the resurrection. 4) "The meaning of resurrection within second-Temple Judaism makes it impossible to conceive of this reshaped resurrection belief emerging without it being known that a body had disappeared, and that the person had been discovered to be thoroughly alive again" (p. 686). 5) "The other explanations sometimes offered for the emergence of the belief do not possess the same explanatory power" (p. 686). 6) "It is therefore historically highly probable that Jesus' tomb was indeed empty on the third day after his execution, and that the disciples did indeed encounter him giving every appearance of being well and truly alive" (p. 687).

Here's a link to Bush on the issues. Here are his views on immigration over time (almost all of which are dated to before Nov 2004 and many of them dated to before Nov 2000): * Take pressure off border with guest worker program. (Jan 2007) * Our economy could not function without the immigrants. (Jan 2006) * Support a humane guest-worker program that rejects amnesty. (Jan 2006) * It's time to permit temporary guest workers. (Feb 2005) * Temporary workers ok, but no amnesty. (Oct 2004) * A time-limited worker card for the illegal immigrants. (Oct 2004) * Don't believe we ought to have amnesty. (Oct 2004) * Support temporary worker program but oppose amnesty. (Jan 2004) * New temporary worker program includes illegal aliens. (Jan 2004) * Mexico: immigration reform in exchange for oil development. (Jun 2003) * Respect other languages, but teach all children English. (Nov 2000) * $500M to cut INS application time to 6 months. (Jul 2000) * Welcome Latinos; immigration is not a problem to be solved. (Jun 2000) * Make INS more

Or perhaps you were just ignorant of the signs given in his first term

My reading of the article says that he made the bombs to stop the protests of Phelps and company ("The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.").

I used to post regularly at a Muslim board. Usually threads where a Muslim did some act of terror would include many Muslims who support the terrorist. The comparison is not apt since everyone here condemns such behavior.

Looks like that student really understand the gospel

Obviously Republicans are to blame for blocking Democratic agendas. I'm not surprised, I'm just saying that Democrats do not have the power to change things (as you said) if the president vetoes their ideas.

According to Wikipedia (take it or leave it), the following documents are ex cathedra: * "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon; * Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople; * Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment; * Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical; * Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical; * Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and * Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary. If you're going to criticize papal infallibility it would apparently have to be with those documents and nothing else.

That thread title is confusing. The 2nd paragraph claims that 48% of Americans support Roe v Wade even after they learn of its wide reach and 43% oppose it. Thus they want abortion to be legal at some level (keep in mind that not all 43% who oppose Roe oppose all abortions). What the poll suggests is that Americans oppose abortions for the sake of convenience. It goes on to say, on the basis of a different study, that 86% of abortions are done for this reason. Hence the other conclusion to draw is that most Americans think such women who have abortions (86% of them) make bad decisions (decisions they think should be illegal).

The Democrats alone cannot override a veto.