Celtic Warrior

Oh really? I made a judgment against him? Where? I made a comment about selectively chosing 'facts' to support a position while ignoring facts that oppose that position. I never made ANY comment about your hero. In point of fact, the writer is making a point against Darwin by picking and chosing what facts he wants to present, while hiding facts that present a different side the to issue. He is also limiting his objectivity by selecting 3 unrelated people and NOT picking relevant people. If the point is people who have been killed over ideology built on beliefs started by a person, Jesus and God would have a much worse record than Darwin. And Lincoln barely would fit. Perhaps I have this Christian thing figured out all wrong, maybe I'm being the wrong kind of Christian.... BUT, to my way of thinking Christians have an extra duty to make sure they present a TRUTHFUL picture at all times, even if the facts aren't complimentary to what they want to believe. That means The Truth, The WHOLE Truth and NOTHING BUT the Truth!!! Picking and chosing what facts you use and how you present them is called SPIN (manipulating data to get people to see the result you want) and SPIN is just a fancy word for Twisting the Truth, which means Being Deceitful, which is the same as lying. SO, is it ok for Christians to be liars? IF NOT, then isn't it about time that Christians quit presenting half truths, spin, rhetoric and other methods of deceitful intent? Even if it means they lose a few arguments!!!

BTW, CW - If your judgment is against the writer of this article, you should check into how many people have "turned from death unto life" because of him and his ministry. You would be right, never heard of him, but I will also remind you that Jesus Himself says there will be many who THINK they are serving God who He will say to them "I never knew you". And I'm reminded of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Of those who thought they were doing 'all the right things' only to have Jesus evict them from His presence, all the while He was calling into His banquet those who couldn't figure out when they had done the good things. In point of fact, the OP is being selective about his "facts" as most are wont to do. He choses facts that support his position and while conveniently ignoring facts that oppose his conclusions. Worldviews notwithstanding, more people have been killed in the name of Christ than for any other single cause in history, so the OP's point is irrelevant (Yes I am a Christian and NO I am not putting down Jesus, by any means). People kill because they are tainted self centered souls. They don't need reasons or justifications, though they find them all to often, and more often than not, in the name of RELIGION. It would be very safe bet to say that the number of people killed over Religion FAR exceeds those killed by 'naturalist views', and the next largest reason for killing is PATRIOTISM, Not NATURALISM. The point and evidence is nothing more than a "let's feel good about ourselves by putting down others' viewpoint while ignoring the evil that hides under the guise of Christian. We would all be better off if Christians would concentrate on living as Christ lived (which does NOT include pointing fingers, putting down others, getting all judgmental, condemning, creating fear and hate, misdirection, misinformation, etc). Jesus calls us to FOLLOW HIM and you don't see Him pointing fingers or getting mad at anybody EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE of His day. Maybe you should start reading there and figure out why, THEN come back and comment about Naturalism and such. evil is evil and hides in many disguises, including wearing the guise of Christian. But you can tell by their fruits, the Bible says clearly, and selectively picking your facts is just another form of deceit (called Spin), which means LIE. And Liars are clearly not included in the list of good fruits of the Spirit, but instead are in the other list, the deeds of the Flesh. And hypocrisy includes doing what you attack others for doing. It's a double standard, where you condemn others and put them down for their actions/attitudes and yet puff yourself up when you do the very same evils.

And of course no one has ever been killed because the words of Jesus were misused, so by the application of logic of the person posting this, that would mean that every death done "in the name of Jesus" must be laid at the feet of Jesus Himself. And last reckoning I've seen the number of people who have been murdered in the name of Jesus far surpasses any other cause of people finding reasons to kill each other. Oh, hypocrisy how ugly and jaded thy view is. Perhaps if Christians would practice Christ's teachings instead of hate, fear, intolerance, gossip, slander, murder, bigotry, prejudice and all the other foul things that are done in the name of the Prince of Peace, perhaps, just perhaps, the paradise God originally designed might just be a bit closer for all of us

Thank you, Nathele. So they were not enslaved for their heritage? The servants seemed to have been treated well. I am only in Genesis 23. Someone commented on the Moabites and Ammonites. In your reply, sounds like something not good. Can you explain? Thank you all who answered my questions with great thought. Much appreciated. Hi Rachel I think in the earlier part of human history, the mosaic law was not yet given as Moses was not come on the scene. The human genes were new & pristine and still not subjected to many genetic disorders that we see today, speaking form a medical point of view as I am a medical doctor. So Adam's children theoretically interbred amongst brothers and sisters. Abraham for instance married his half sister Sarai. He was telling a half truth when he told Pharaoh that Sarai was his sister. Later when the human genome has collected more aberrations, Sleeping with sibling or even close relatives were prohibited by the Mosaic law! Slaves are bonded labour, they are to be released every Jubilee year( 7th. year). they are not slaves for life like the Muslim who enslave Christians in Sudan and mistreatment that are proscribed by the quran are prohibited my Mosaic law! New creature Actually the year of Jubilee is every 50th year, not 7th Leviticus 25:8 - 17 (ESV) 8

I don't know anything about the book you mentioned, but the title is intriquiging. If I get a chance, I will look into it. If you want to know why the religious right has a hard time with the "moderate brethren," it basically comes down to a handful of issues where we are not willing to compromise. The first is abortion, because we see it as the murder of innocent unborn children. The second is homosexuality, because the Bible takes a strong stand against it. If there is a compromise to be found here, it would be that if people in general would stop making an issue of their sexual preferences and lifestyle, and simply live their lives, the whole thing for the most part would go away. What causes the problems is having homosexuals marching in gay pride parades and pushing silly things like homosexual marriage, and laws that would prohibit an individual business owner from descriminating against homosexuals. The compromise would be something like a don't ask, don't tell policy. Again I would say read that book. As I've already told you I'm against abortion and "gay rights" too, and actually agree with most of your statements, on those two issues, the difference would probably be more in the method(s) to achieve the ends. I think Jim Wallis makes a workable solution in Chpt One about how to handle getting rid of abortion and eventually making it illegal again. However, I think chpt one of his book would speak better at this point than I can about general ideology and morality issues. I'm rereading it myself, since it's been sometime since I first read it and forget a lot of his specifics. Happy Thanksgiving weekend to all.

Or to ignore them and not respond. I get that done that to me, too. You too? WOW!!! and I thought it was only me that got ignored when I presented facts that the other side doesn't care to hear or admit to. In fact I listen to all that you present, whether I agree or not has nothing to do with whether I respond. However you are quite right, I often don't respond to things that are blatantly in error and/or seem intended to mislead, inflate ill will, foment animosity or create ill emotional responses or that are intended to win discussions by misdirection or causing the other person to give up out of frustation, nor do I always respond to things that there is no point trying to argue after it gets apparent that the other side refuses to see, or discuss in good faith. There does come a time when you can see the other side isn't interested in finding common ground or in listening with an ear open towards the fact that they might just be wrong. Sadly one of the biggest problems facing this nation is the polarization of the Right and Left and the ignoring of those in the middle. The Left and Right will not talk, and both accuse those in the middle of taking the other side, instead of listening and trying to understand that No Human has all the facts, all the right answers, all the correct information, etc. And when you close off dialogue, and think you are the only one with truth, you close doors to solutions. Actually I'd recommend all Christians read "God's Politics -Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get it" by Jim Wallis. Though I'm sure someone will dismiss him for being "Too Liberal". While I don't agree with everything he says, he does hit a lot of it squarely on the head and the Religious Right could learn alot about how they're alienating their moderate Brethern in Christ and completely missing the mark. And you might even get some insight into people like me, and if I read Forest correctly, him too.

Are you kidding, China primarily uses Russian Missile Technology, not American. The only American technology they are using is satellite missile technology, and that started with Bush in 1992, when he moved the authority for licensing China satellite deals from the State Department to the Commerce Department. He is the one that got the ball rolling on the Hughs deal, and it was later supported by both parties. That is absolute nonsense. Bill Clinton approved the sale of computer technology to China that has enabled them to hit the American mainland with nuclear miscles. It is part of the true legacy of Bill Clinton, and is likely a big reason why the Chinese continue to funnel illegal campaign contributions to the Clintons. I never saw stories about them sending money to Bush, and had he gotten the ball rolling, it would only make sense they would have backed him. It is computer technology that was sold to the Chinese by Clinton that has made our nation less safe. I didn't even mention how he is responsible for a nuclear North Korea. Actually, when George SR was questioned about the advances the Chinese were making in rocketry, the possibility of them going to the moon and about his plans to perhaps renevate our space program and return to the moon ourselves; he said "If they can get there cheaper than us we will just hitch a ride". I don't recall the exact quote, but his intent was well made. That was during his campaign, before he was president. And it was Nixon who opened the door to normalized relations with Communist China and R. Reagan who sold the Republic of China out in the UN and opened up the doors for trade relations (without which they wouldn't be the threat they have become). It would be so nice if people would get their facts straight before they start lobbing manure bombs at people who see things differently.

True I was indeed only replying about the tax increase posting. However I will comment on the original topic. First I don't believe that Bill can constitutionally be Vice President since he would be in line to be president if something happened to Hillary. and the Amendment specifies a maximum time in office of 10 years including any time spent as successor to the President. As neither he, nor Hillary (or any other human) can guarantee that Hillary would survive the needed two years to make him a Constitutionally acceptable successor, I don't see how they can get around that limit. However we both know that honoring the real intent of the Constitution is not the primary goal of either party or we would have Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons in the hands of our own Citizens, Implied Consent for Driver's Licenses would not be possible, the People would understand that a Judges primary duty is defending the Constitution and protecting people from abuses of said document, not administering justice (and that performing that function is not "legislating from the Bench" as some are fond of accusing), and a host of other unConstitutional "legalities" that could easily be pointed out. I doubt Hillary would be that brazen though. And, for the record, I am against Hillary becoming President too, I fear her presidency as much as any of the candidates on the GOP's side (and most of those on the Dem side as well), and I think I would have a hard time voting for her even to keep another George out of office. However, I keep hope alive by remembering that God has a plan and will use any evil for His good purpose somewhere along the line. His plan will not fail no matter who gets elected or how evilly they run this nation or ruin the world. In the meantime though I try to consider the suffering people will have to endure depending on who gets elected. I stand corrected. after I posted this I decided to go back and reread the amendment. It only refers to being elected twice and has no specified term in office limit of 10 years, excepting that any vice president that serves more than two years of a presidents term can then only be elected once. So it is possible for her to do that. I believe the intent of the Amendment was to limit a person to no more than 10 years, but that isn't specifically stated and further research would be needed to support that intention

Get real. She's a liberal Democrat. That's always the first thing they do. Has there been one that hasn't? Of course she's not going to say it. But where do you think she's going to get the money for all the programs she says she has in mind, so many we can't afford them? Where do you think she'll get the money for her hellish health care albatross? Even if it was (is) true that Democrats always raise taxes (which it isn't) and that Republicans always yield lower taxes (true for the rich, not necessarily for the working class, i.e. my tax burden went up under Reagan's cuts and I'm middle working class), with the Democrats I always have a job; with the Republicans , I spend as much (or more) time looking for non existant jobs than I do working. I can look at my income history and tell you if it was a Republican year or a Democrat year. People with Money (Incomes) can afford to fight govt to keep it working for them. If you're living on pauper's wages or less, you can't afford to stand up to them or for your rights, you're too busy trying to figure out where your next meal comes from! BUT, let's just look at the record. These figures are approximate since I'm reading them off of a graph, but I'm sure more accurate records are readily available if you care to question my approximations 1969 Richard Nixon-Rep takes office with a budget surplus from Lyndon Johnson-Dem. Finishes year with $2 Billion surplus, 3.3% unemployment, there will be no surpluses again until 1998 (28 years and 6 presidents later) the same for unemployment. The unemployment rate won't be anywhere near this low again until 1999/2000 Richard Nixon/Ford-Rep 1969 $2 Billion surplus, 3.6% unemployment 1970 $2 Billion deficit, 4.6% unemployment 1971 $21 Billion deficit, 5.9% unemployment 1972 $22 Billion deficit, 5.6% unemployment 1973 $12 Billion deficit, 5% unemployment 1974 $5 Billion deficit, 5.7% unemployment Gerald Ford/Rockefeller-Rep 1975 $50 Billion deficit, 8.5% unemployment 1976 $85 Billion deficit, 7.8% unemployment Jimmy Carter/Mondale-Dem 1977 $52 Billion deficit, 7.2% unemployment 1978 $55 Billion deficit, 5.9% unemployment 1979 $39 Billion deficit, 5.8% unemployment 1980 $70 Billion deficit, 7.2% unemployment Ronald Reagan/Bush sr-Rep 1981 $75 Billion deficit, 7.6% unemployment 1982 $125 Billion deficit, 9.7% unemployment 1983 $205 Billion deficit, 9.7% unemployment 1984 $180 Billion deficit, 7.5% unemployment 1985 $210 Billion deficit, 7.2% unemployment 1986 $220 Billion deficit, 7% unemployment 1987 $145 Billion deficit, 6.3% unemployment 1988 $150 Billion deficit, 5.6% unemployment - (lowest figure of his administration and it took 8 years of "Reagonomics" (a new term for Trickle Down economics) to get back down to here) George Bush sr/Quayle-Rep 1989 $145 Billion deficit, 5.4% unemployment 1990 $220 Billion deficit, 5.7% unemployment 1991 $265 Billion deficit, 7.2% unemployment 1992 $290 Billion deficit, 7.5% unemployment Bill Clinton/Gore-Dem 1993 $250 Billion deficit, 7.2% unemployment 1994 $200 Billion deficit, 6% unemployment 1995 $160 Billion deficit, 5.6% unemployment 1996 $106 Billion deficit, 5.4% unemployment 1997 $20 Billion deficit, 5% unemployment 1998 $70 Billion surplus, 4.3% unemployment 1999 $120 Billion surplus, 4% unemployment 2000 $236 Billion surplus, 3.8% unemployment George Bush jr/Cheney-Rep 2001 $125 Billion surplus, 4.5% unemployment 2002 $140 Billion deficit, 5.7% unemployment 2003 no figures on deficit, but unemployment was up to 6.4% by June and continued climbing passing 7.3% for the next couple of years. We still have record deficits and had record unemployment until 2005/6 deficit projection for 2003 is $450 Billion not including War spending and nearly $500 Billion for 2004 also not including war spending. So, in 8 years, Clinton turned a record deficit of $290 Billion into a record surplus of $236 Billion (exact numbers & a $526 Billion turnaround) and in two years George jr turned that surplus into ever increasing deficits that rival, nay exceed, the Reagan administrations spending policies. So much for fiscal responsibility, and how do you think it's going to get paid off???? By a tax increase from some administration, be it Democrat or Republican. Of course we can continue the Reagan/Bush trend and just leave the deficit for someone else to clean up (and take the tax increase "hit" on) If this is a record of a fiscally responsible and sound party then I'll take the fiscally irresponsible "tax n spend" Democrat fiscal policy any day. So, effectively, 5 republican presidents (administrations) over 20 years, being "fiscally responsible" and "economically conservative" couldn't get our nation back into the black that was handed to them at the outset. but 8 years of Democrat 'reckless fiscal policy", "tax n spend" economics not only fixed record deficits, but gave us record surpluses (including in Social Security, which George has also squandered). And now, after nearly 7 years of George jr, you are afraid of "tax n spend" Democrats I wonder how you think our deficits will finally be paid???

And yet, in the 70's/early 80's they were telling people a new ice age was coming. I said it before, and I'll say it again, it's kinda hard to trust scientists who still can't figure out if an egg is good or bad for you. and you are misrepresenting what was said and who said it. Some scientists were looking into a cooling trend that had been happening since the 40's and the media got ahold of it and sensationalized it (as a Global Cooling scare) before checking out the facts. In fact, Global Warming was the concern (even then) of environmental scientists (I have a video from NOVA made in 1974 about the concerns about Global Warming). The Ice Age stuff came from misrepresenting the incomplete findings (And from studies about potential effects of the hole in the Ozone Layer). Global Cooling was never a serious concern of anyone, especially after the early 70's when the cooling trend was shown to be reversed. Now I'm seeing an increasing trend amongst Global Warming naysayers and detracters to attempt to make it look like Global Cooling was the big concern in the 70's (which it never was) and they love to use that to attempt to discredit the modern findings that do point to a serious problem. Whether man made, natural or a combination of both, it is a valid problem. I would take this moment to post a scripture concerning an earlier scripture about God promising to never destroy the world again too.

The Preacher and the Quarter Several years ago, a preacher from out-of-state accepted a call to a church in Houston, Texas. Some weeks after he arrived, he had an occasion to ride the bus from his home to the downtown area. When he sat down, he discovered that the driver had accidentally given him a quarter too much change. As he considered what to do, he thought to himself, 'You'd better give the quarter back. It would be wrong to keep it.' Then he thought, 'Oh, forget it, it's only a quarter. Who would worry about this little amount? Anyway, the bus company gets too much fare; they will never miss it. Accept it as a 'gift from God' and keep quiet.' When his stop came, he paused momentarily at the door, and then he handed the quarter to the driver and said, 'Here, you gave me too much change.' The driver, with a smile, replied, 'Aren't you the new preacher in town? I have been thinking a lot lately about going somewhere to worship. I just wanted to see what you would do if I gave you too much change. I'll see you at church on Sunday.' When the preacher stepped off of the bus, he literally grabbed the nearest light pole, held on, and said, 'Oh God, I almost sold your Son for a quarter.' Our lives are the only Bible some people will ever read. This is a really scary example of how much people watch us as Christians and will put us to the test! Always be on guard -- and remember -- You carry the name of Christ on your shoulders when you call yourself Christian.' Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. I'm glad a friend forwarded this to me as a reminder. God bless you; I hope you are having a wonderful day! If you don't pass this on to anybody, nothing bad will happen; if you do, you will have ministered to someone. The Will of God will never take you to where the Grace of God will not PROTECT you... Stay FAITHFUL and Be GRATEFUL!

mistaken post. apologies

It's because, as I've repeatedly said, that Sabbath is NOT commanded of Christians OR BEFORE the Sinai Covenant (and 3 months does NOT apply, it was still the Exodus and the Sinai Covenant. IF you disagree then ask a Jew who does understand that truth) Sabbath is a Sinai (Law of Moses, Ten Commandments) Covenant issue. It was not commanded to Noah, Enoch, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, any of the 12 sons of Israel, and can only be 'proven' by inference (ASSUMPTION) not Scripture. The Creation statement does NOT prove it either, especially since (unlike the other 6 days) no end was ever proclaimed for the 7th day. We could well be still in the 7th day of Creation. And further God did not cease work, He ceased work in CREATING only. It's plainly there

1 Corinthians 13:4 - 7 (NASB) 4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

It would be easy to produce the posts, but it is unimportant. You made several posts to smalcald(sp?) that were taken by him to be condescending and reproachful. That was his impression of your wordings (and I saw his point as well). In your thoughts you saw your words as being loving and Christian, he saw your words in a different light. That is what is also happening with the way you are looking at my words. You are reading meanings, emotions and intents that I haven't put there. You see evil intentions and unChristian wordings that were never put there by me (so they are your interpretation of my meaning), making it you who is putting the ill intentions behind the wordings. And I have already agreed with you on the Sabbath points you make. The Sabbath was not changed. I agreed and still agree, and will continue to agree. However I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of the Creation 7th day and with your interpretation of the Sabbaths relevance to Christians. So, from your own words, it is fine to disagree. We will probably never reach consensus, and the same is true between me and Dennis (and any other Sabbatarian). That is fine, but accusations of impoliteness are not appropriate because we disagree. My words (and wording style) may offend your sensibilities, and I'm sorry for that and apologize to you, but because you misunderstand them by no means supports that I mean them the way you think I do. I agree, they did not call sunday the Sabbath, they called it the Lord's Day, as to the rest, the Bible does not support that they set aside Sabbath as Sabbath (or observed the 7th day in the way you're inferring), only that they went to synagogue or temple on that day because it was traditional for the Jews among them (at first), the Jews were there and the reading of the Scriptures were there. Then they went elsewhere to consider and discuss them and how they applied to themselves. Yes Paul preached in the synagogue, on Sabbath, but also preached in public places and in private houses and in jail and anywhere else he could preach Christ Crucified. And on any day of the week that he could. The Acts Church met daily. So? What proof is that of Sabbath Keeping? Peter also preached in houses (even of Gentiles) and on days not the Sabbath. I guess it's time to agree that we disagree. Peace to you and your household