Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

[MG1968]

I'd avoid #5 certainly.

driving a truck wouldn't be so dangerous if all you fools driving cars would pay more attention to what's going on around you (outside your car).

 

[ridethelightening]

The Bible also says it is wrong to wear clothing composed of differing fibers. Got any cotton/polyester mix clothes on you today? Sinner.

I am a sinner. Never condemned a homosexual in this thread, either iirc. Doesn't mean we shouldn't work to overcome that sin. I'm also not bound to old testament law

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Even on the "safest and most secure" FOBs in Iraq, they are in harms way, every day. Balad and BIAP are easily the two most built-up and "secure" FOBs I have been on; both are subject to routine mortar and rocket attacks for six years.

At Al-Siniyah, we had to replace all local contractors twice in nine months due to plots uncovered by our ODA that there were some who were planning attacks on the FOB.

Simply because many of these mortars and rocket attacks end up landing in unoccupied areas of the FOB or that these attacks are foiled before they are carried out, does not downgrade the high-risk that our military is in every day.

Have you ever been in a C-130 or C-5 while it is doing a combat land in Iraq. Bet your sphincter would close up pretty quickly.

I didn't get to go active duty, so I'll differ to you by saying it's something that the average American would probably crap on their face if they were there and went through it.

 

[fl0at]

Like who?? Which job classifications would be changed to put them in harms way?? It would take almost a full scale World War to do that anyway.

In Iraq, several artillery units were converted directly to Infantry units. Infantry NCOs were recalled to fill squad and team leader positions for those units.

It does not take full scale World War. In Vietnam, cooks often had to strap on the rifle and defend the FOB.

In the Marine Corps, every man and woman is a Rifleman first, and everything else second. This does not require full scale World War, it is doctrine.

 

[fl0at]

I am a sinner. Never condemned a homosexual in this thread, either iirc. Doesn't mean we shouldn't work to overcome that sin. I'm also not bound to old testament law

Maybe confine your answer to "The New Testament says ... " as opposed to "The Bible says ...," then. Consequently, as I have never read either New or Old Testament completely, what verse in the New Testament speaks to homosexuality?

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about. Mechanics, cooks, finance guys, ordnance, signal, etc., etc. ad infinitum were on CLPs once or twice a week on some of the most nefarious stretches of highway in the world. Do you think the four to six hours between route clearance and the CLPs is insufficient time to emplace IEDs, EFPs, and AAIEDs?

So, like I said, according to your definition, the majority of our military is in harm's way, on a daily basis?? This includes everyone state side, and in countries where nothing really ever happens. I asking about the majority, and if I am wrong, then I learn something. I'm not trying to be a pretentious prick about this.

 

[therealUT]

Maybe confine your answer to "The New Testament says ... " as opposed to "The Bible says ...," then. Consequently, as I have never read either New or Old Testament completely, what verse in the New Testament speaks to homosexuality?

Paul's first epistle, to the Romans...first chapter, as well (have to take care of the important things first, Bottom Line Up Front).

 

[therealUT]

So, like I said, according to your definition, the majority of our military is in harm's way, on a daily basis?? This includes everyone state side, and in countries where nothing really ever happens. I asking about the majority, and if I am wrong, then I learn something. I'm not trying to be a pretentious prick about this.

The majority of our active duty military will be deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan within the span of their four-year commitment; the majority of our National Guard and/or Reserves will be deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan within the span of their eight-year commitment.

 

[fl0at]

Paul's first epistle, to the Romans...first chapter, as well (have to take care of the important things first, Bottom Line Up Front).

Solid copy. Will read.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

The majority of our active duty military will be deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan within the span of their four-year commitment; the majority of our National Guard and/or Reserves will be deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan within the span of their eight-year commitment.

So, our military is that small now?? That really sucks, and our government considered not even paying them a few weeks ago. Terrible.

 

[fl0at]

Read the portion. Methinks Paul drew from Old Testament law, more so than actual sayings of Jesus. Still though, it is in the New Testament, no escaping that. May need to read this thing one day.

 

[therealUT]

So, our military is that small now?? That really sucks, and our government considered not even paying them a few weeks ago. Terrible.

Aside from those in TRADOC and those stationed in Korea, every Army brigade rotates through the patch chart.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[vader]

Paul's first epistle, to the Romans...first chapter, as well (have to take care of the important things first, Bottom Line Up Front).

Paul had some interesting ideas:

From 1st Timothy, Chapter 2

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

 

[MG1968]

Paul had some interesting ideas:

From 1st Timothy, Chapter 2

I guess misogyny is endemic to all religions

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Paul had some interesting ideas:

From 1st Timothy, Chapter 2

I think all Paul is describing here is trying to keep an order to things. He's not discriminating against women, he's just trying to convey that in those times men were more apt to handle the rigors that were before the early Christians. I don't think, personally, that a woman should be appointed over a man in a church setting, mainly because of how Paul put it, but I believe it is fine for them to speak in church and ask questions.

 

[utvolpj]

I don't think, personally, that a woman should be appointed over a man in a church setting, mainly because of how Paul put it, but I believe it is fine for them to speak in church and ask questions.

wow

 

[fl0at]

wow

I was wrestling with how to best describe that statement. I think yours is pretty good.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

wow

I don't believe in women in authoritative roles in the church over men. I'm not sexist, it's just what I believe. Should a wife be over a husband, as far as the authority goes?? That's how I look at it.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Personally, I think Paley's argument is ridiculous.

I think Paley’s argument is more interesting that the ontological argument of cosmological argument for God’s existence, but that is just me.

My problem is not with Kierkegaard saying that he believes based on revelation and not reason; it is that he states that reason has no place and should not be used in trying to prove the existence of a god.

But is Kierkegaard not right? I agree with you that nobody ought to have their beliefs based solely on revelation/passion and not reason. But is that not reality? Even Saint Thomas Aquinas whose mission it was to use logic and reason to prove the existence of God to the naysayers was a Christian due his faith, not reason. I’ve failed to meet one person who has believes in God 100% based solely on logic or reason. That’s why it’s called faith.

Personally, I subscribe to Descarte's (and John Locke's) argument for the existence of a suprarational being, that they call god, and Aquinas's first mover argument. I think those display the very depths and logical extremes of reason.

Descartes on ontological argument is pure silliness. Humans can imagine just about anything. The mere thought of a supernatural force being omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscience is not unconscionable and is certainly not reliable proof for the existence of God. It’s interesting that you bring up Locke. Although I dismiss Locke’s version of the Cosmological Argument, he raised in my opinion one of the most thought provoking questions about the existence of God; the dilemma of mathematical and Euclidean geometry. What’s your take Locke’s philosophical dilemma? I think it’s utterly fascinating.

Kierkegaard is ultimately responsible, in my opinion, for the tendency of many Christian sects to reject scientific advances, instead opting to advance ignorance.

I would not blame Kierkegaard for that. I would blame organized religion for that. I guess we agree to disagree on that though.

Btw, were did this raging homosexual debate come from? In my opinion, the homosexuality debate can be simplified to a single question: Do you believe that homosexuality is genetic; ergo the person is born with it or do you believe homosexuality is a choice? Those who side with the former tend to be in support for homosexuality legally and tend to be far from homophobic. Those who side with the latter can be split into two groups. Either they believe homosexuality is horrible sin which should not be perpetuated by the state (against gay marriage) or they believe homosexuals should have legal rights but their actions still freak them out and so they have are level of homophobic. I haven’t met many people who believe it’s a choice, want them to have full rights, and are completely non-homophobic. Maybe there are some on here who fit into my last group, but I haven’t met many in person.

 

[utvolpj]

I was wrestling with how to best describe that statement. I think yours is pretty good.

I went thru several versions

Should a wife be over a husband, as far as the authority goes??

IMO one shouldn't be over another in that scenario.

As for church I think it shows great progress that they are allowed to speak and ask questions

 

[vader]

I don't believe in women in authoritative roles in the church over men. I'm not sexist, it's just what I believe. Should a wife be over a husband, as far as the authority goes?? That's how I look at it.

Dude, that is akin to saying "I'm not racist, I just think black people are inferior and should know their place"

 

[droski]

I don't believe in women in authoritative roles in the church over men. I'm not sexist, it's just what I believe. Should a wife be over a husband, as far as the authority goes?? That's how I look at it.

so you believe a man should always have authority over his wife and you aren't a sexist?

 

[fl0at]

I don't believe in women in authoritative roles in the church over men. I'm not sexist, it's just what I believe. Should a wife be over a husband, as far as the authority goes?? That's how I look at it.

Why should either have authority over the other? Isn't marriage an equal relationship?

 

[MG1968]

Why should either have authority over the other? Isn't marriage an equal relationship?

what if the wife is the primary breadwinner of the family?

btw, it's easy to claim that men are the leaders in the household, but as Jeff Foxworthy so aptly put it, "if Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I went thru several versions



IMO one shouldn't be over another in that scenario.

As for church I think it shows great progress that they are allowed to speak and ask questions

Dude, that is akin to saying "I'm not racist, I just think black people are inferior and should know their place"

so you believe a man should always have authority over his wife and you aren't a sexist?

Why should either have authority over the other? Isn't marriage an equal relationship?

So, the man isn't a man anymore, he's just an equal opportunity in the marriage?? Interesting. Sorry, I believe in the man being the head of the household, and what he says goes, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get some input from the family.