Tired_Old_Man

My Google can kick your Yahoo's Butt.:clap2:

Wasn't my answer good enough.:help:

Good Find. I had also found that site, but there was so much other info to look up and post, that I never got around to posting that one. God Bless Google.:clap2:

There are many possible explanations. I will give you two that are totally divergent and maybe someone else will attempt to cover the middle ground. #1: They are all true, and the one and only God, wanting to test the worth of each individual society, told many differing groups, basically the same stories. Only the names were changed to protect the conspiracy. #2. They are all false, and the one and only God never existed, nor did more that one God or even one God. My Brain is tired.:faint:

What has kept away the terrorists from our shores is the slow pace that they use. It was 7 years and 11 months after the WTC was bombed before George W. BuSh moved into the White House. If your argument is valid about the BuSh policies preventing attacks for the 5 years and 4 months since 911, then you must heap even more praise on the Clinton policies for preventing attacks for the 8 years and 7 months after the first WTC bombing. Parallel Arguments.

Neither common knowledge, nor True.

Of course I was kidding. Tina and I; until death do us part, or one of us becomes Gay.:faint:

And 007 has been played by half a dozen actors, but that does not make James Bond real. This is only proof that the people who wrote the later writings that went into the Bible were familiar with the older tales, either by word of mouth or custom and/or they only let newer writing which agreed with older writings in during canonization The Qur'an was also written over hundreds of years and except for the Qur'an's opposition to Jesus being either a deity or son of a deity, it is almost the same set of stories. Prophecies take so much interpretation to be thought of as actually being fulfilled. Nostradamus is also supposed to have had hundreds of prophecies fulfilled, but I have never seen one to be actually accurate.

You can not give her a detailed intelligent answer. You can give her an answer based on your opinion that the Bible was divined by the word of God. But anything past "the Bible is true because God inspired the Bible, and I know that God inspired the Bible because, the Bible says that God inspired it and the Bible is true. That is not an intelligent argument. It is an argument based on your impossible to prove faith. You have a right to your faith, but you can not prove it as fact and as I have said at least a dozen times before, whether I agree that Jesus is God or 2,000,000,000 agree, there is no intelligent way to prove it, just belief and faith. If it could be proved, then we would not need faith. In fact, if it could be proved, we could not have faith, because having faith has to do with things that can not be proved, not with things that can be proved.

I found a site with all these statements and I found another site that rebuts all of them.

Florida would not allow that, so they must live in sin, something that Tina and I could not abide by. Alas, she is gone and I am looking for a new abode.

Claim: Alleged quote from Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Rebuttal: This quote has not been traced back to an original source, and is a questionable quote used by David Barton. Based on other quotes made by Patrick Henry, it is not inconsistent with his general opinions. His claim to fame rests in the founding of the nation of Virginia, his battle with Jefferson and Madison in trying to keep Christianity as the legally established religion of the Nation of Virginia, and his efforts in trying to keep the Constitution from being ratified. He lost both of those battles with Madison. If his claim is true, then it is odd that the primary legal document which defines the government of this nation has no references whatsoever to Jesus Christ or any deity whatsoever, basing its authority instead on "We the people."

Claim: Alleged quote from U.S. Supreme court decision Church of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892): "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind, it is impossible that it should be otherwise.... Our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian..." Rebuttal: This is yet another inaccurate statement from David Barton, and he has admitted that this quote appears nowhere in the Trinity v. United States case. This case was not a church-state separation case but rather on whether an alien labor law passed by Congress in 1887 referred to only manual labor and not professional or skilled labor. In the non-legally binding *obiter dictum*, or "footnote" section, Justice Brewer went off on a tangent and wrote a completely unrelated discourse on religion and this nation: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." This case is frequently cited as by organizations seeking to amend the Constitution to include an endorsement of Christianity. To correct this misinterpretation, Justice Brewer himself wrote a book in 1905 to correct the record, titled "The United States: A Christian Nation". He explains: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all." "...Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions." Whatever his ideas about the United States as a Christian nation may have been, that did not include any official endorsement or special status for religion by government, and this position is reflected in other legal decisions he made

My wife and I are getting a divorce only 5 months short of our 40th wedding anniversary A gay couple moved in on our block just three houses away from our door and as George W. BuSh said it would, it destroyed the sanctity of our marriage.:faint:

You can raise your children by saying "I have faith that Jesus died on the cross for our sins." "I believe that through Jesus is the only path to Heaven" But saying, "It is a fact that Jesus is the son of God" is not the right way even though you or I or 2,000,000,000 other people believe that, because it is our belief and based on our faith. If it could be proved, then we would not need faith. In fact, if it could be proved, we could not have faith, because having faith has to do with things that can not be proved, not with things that can be proved.

Do we also have to send them to [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE]"Jesus Camp"?[/ame] Almost everything that can be said about the Muslim fanatics can be said about the Christians who are fanatics. Almost everything that can be said about Adolph Hitler can be said about George W. BuSh. Many in the USA think that teaching our children our prejudices is ok, because they do not realize that they are prejudices, because they are surrounded by like minded prejudice. They only hope for the USA is the ability of average citizens to speak out, but government along with Big Business and the Christian Right Political Movement is trying to stamp out any independent thinking.

And the USA doesn't teach that killing is ok? Ever wonder why the USA is always at war? Maybe it is because our children have to stand up each day in school and salute an instrument of war. Yes, the reason for flags was so that in battle, the fighters would know which side was theirs. Maybe also, it is because our National Anthem is a war song. Maybe if we were not so preoccupied with pledging our allegiance to an implement of war and singing a war song, we might be less inclined to get into wars. Why can't our school children pledge their allegiance to the US Constitution and why can't we sing "America the Beautiful" before the ballgames?

I agree that we are discussing beliefs held very dear to our makeup. What happens when a student is trying to become a scientist and the result of his experiment comes out opposite of what his belief structure says should have occurred? Does he modify his belief structure or ignore the data? Or does he modify the experiment until it comes out in agreement with his belief structure? My step-father wanted to belief that he could cure diabetes by meditation. He believed he could mentally send antibodies to the damaged area(?) and cure any disease. He would call me up continually and ask me to go to the drugstore for him because he had run out of test strips for his blood sugar meter. He used about 150 strips a week instead of the 3 per day, 21 strips each week. I finally figured out what he was doing when I compared his meter's memory and his spreadsheet's sugar count history log. He was putting his blood on strip after strip, until he could get an artificially low (and false) reading. It is hard to give up one's beliefs, even when science stares you in the face.

If you had neighbors next door to you and the parents that lived there along with their cousins in the house next to them, were holding White Supremacy, Neo-Nazi meetings for young children in their backyard every night, including teaching that Whites should kill Gays, Blacks, Catholics and Jews, do you think it ever comes to a point that society should step in? How about when they start teaching guerrilla warfare, and arms and legs are broken weekly in the practice?

The Constitution does not say anything about a wall of separation between government and medical care. If it did, then there would be no debate about abortion, because abortion would be totally protected.

When I depend on something and it lets me down, yes, I get angry. Things I don't depend on that let me down, hey, what can you do? I get angriest when I let myself down. That I am. But my skin is as thick as my skull AND I was blessed with having the same shoe size as mouth size...

I believe he lost to Obama in the Senate race two years ago.

There was a time when all of the states in the deep South had rules saying that a white boxer could not fight with a Negro boxer. But being Negro was defined differently in many states. One of four grandparents being Negro and the boxer was defined as a Negro in some states. One of 8 great-grandparents being Negro and the boxer was defined as a Negro in other states. One of 16 great-great-grandparents being Negro and the boxer was defined as a Negro in still other states. And then there was the one drop rule in some. I am talking of the 1950's.

I thought that was what we were discussing. Never mind!!

Even though we can butt heads pretty hard, I do not think you are a vindictive person. You can, like I can, push the envelope at times.:confused: