In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2489
Online now 2516 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Hey man, I'm just trying to help you avoid looking worse. If you use the word "tenants" instead of "tenets", it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on your part - if you can't even be bothered to get the name of the concept you're talking about right, then why should I listen to your analysis?
Thank you for acknowledging that the Bible is open for interpretation. Now, are you still saying that your status as a Christian (and your lifetime of Christianity) make your interpretation more valid than mine?
This post was edited by CMXI 15 months ago
Thank you, it always feels good when a post really hits home with someone. And especially when they seem so greatly impressed.
I believe you can follow me on here if you want to see more of what I have to offer.
If someone is Christian they either are because they've interpreted the text in a way that appeals to them or they've interpret the text favorably because they're Christian.
There isn't a finite meeting, it's written in a way that people can choose to interpret it how they choose. It's a metaphor for how one should live their live, not a step-by-step how-to guide.
Time and change will surely (truly) show
How firm thy friendship ... OHIO!
One of my big questions is always this: Say we COULD get healthcare, education, etc. for free in this country and it didn't mean taxing the hell out of the population; I realize it's a very abstract concept that's not very plausible, but bear with me; would people still be against it?
Basically, is the problem financial or philosophical?
Does your years in law school make your interpretation of the law more valid than mine?
I think I can say, with a fair amount of confidence, that you are wildly misinterpreting the tone of BetterOff's post.
Unless you're being completely sarcastic here too, but somehow I doubt that.
Philosophical. Haven't you listened to republican politicians? "This isn't just a debt crisis, this is a MORAL crisis."
You hear that all the time.
Have you been on TBB your entire life? If not, you can't interpret the meaning of his post.
More valid in the sense of being inherently correct? Of course not.
More valid in the sense of being in line with precedent and current legal scholarship? Absolutely.
You still didn't answer my question.
It's not because they are rich, it's because many of the rich tend to be so full of themselves. Because of what they have accomplished or have accumulated they think themselves greater or above God or that they don't need him. The Bible is also full of rich people who were very much in God's favor. Particularly Kings etc. Being rich doesn't damn you to hell. lol. That's not what he was saying.
Your second sentence is just flat stupid.
God, if I had been on tBB my entire life, I'd be like Talia from Dark Knight Rises - a child born and raised in a dark hellhole surrounded by criminals and the insane.
The verse in question: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
As I said, republican christians tend to ignore this one.
EDIT: More context, just so people know I'm not cherry picking:
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
This post was edited by ramssuperbowl99 15 months ago
No I wouldn't. I am not opposed to free healthcare at all, but I am opposed to federally run healthcare system. It would be a financial nightmare and not but a disaster. If the State of Alabama were to implement a healthcare program that was fiscally responsible yet still produced good results and encouraged innovation in healthcare I would be all for it.
Sorry to interject, but of course it does.
Do you have an advanced degree from an accredited divinity school? If not, then your opinions on the bible, or Christianity, hold no more weight than anyone else that has any familiarity with it. Your years of study could be completely one-sided or subjectively biased.
Sooo...what if the federally-run healthcare system were completely free? Would you still be opposed?
If I may, what makes a federally run system any worse (or better) than a state run one? At the end of the day, both are government run, no?
I am not going to continue to debate you on my religion since your only purpose here is to mock it and make asinine points.
I will however get back to you on Monday with an explanation from my Pastor on what he thinks those scriptures mean and send that to your inbox. Deal?
You're missing the point. Group think isn't inherently terrible. It's when it forms the foundation for ideas of importance, like your political views for instance that it becomes a problem. If I were to say Macs are cooler than PC's there'd be no harm in that right, it's group think, but it's completely harmless. If I were to say that, "Liberals by their very nature need to have someone that will take care of them and do things for them. They need to be led. Self reliance isn't exactly their thing." That's quite a different animal isn't it. You run the risk of effecting those around you in a decidedly negative way, and furthermore you've no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. It's foolish, and that's what puts you on the fringe of your party.
This post was edited by Banksy27 15 months ago
The federal government can't efficiently and responsively run a healthcare system for 300 million people.
Free to the taxpayer? No I wouldn't be opposed.
You are right, I was being totally serious. You are such a prick. lol.
True, but let's not forget that a state like Alabama couldn't run a healthcare system efficiently for its population the same way that a state like Maryland could. They are way better off that we are. I mean, we're both Alabama boys, let's not kid ourselves: Our state is poor as sh!t. And I just hate the idea that some states could pull off something like free healthcare while others can't. For some things I have no problem with that being different across the board. The well being of the population isn't one of them.
Right because I was ever taught anything about the Bible by someone who went to seminary.
I think we could do it just fine.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports