BJean

The reason you don't know, can't understand, is because you are not open to other knowledge or truth than the one you are convinced is singularly correct.

Backing up a little bit, you argue in some of your earlier posts, above, that the Bible says something but that it doesn't mean what is written - it means something else. That's not just figurative speech - that's ambiguity. And yes, I'd agree that one will find that throughout the Bible. And one doesn't need to justify that by saying the Bible will only be found to be ambiguous by lifting a verse or two out of context. You've studied the Bible, and you know all this. You've chosen to believe and interpret a certain way. Which is perfectly find by me. But I do take issue with your insistence that your interpretations and beliefs are the only real truths and that if one doesn't believe as you do and become "born again" one is going to endure hell for enternity.

I didn't need clarification. I just thought it was big of you to help me make my point by observing that ambiguity exists in the Bible. Particularly since you generally argue against that fact.

Patty: "There is no literal 'fire' in Hell. Flames are a figure of speech. We know this because if you try to take it literally, it makes no sense, for Hell is describe as a place of utter darkness and yet there are flames? Flames would light things up. Whenever the bible speaks of 'flames' it is speaking of 'judgement'. God himself is called a consuming fire. Using the flame imagery is a way of saying that he is a God of judgement. This is why it is important to study the word of God, and not take what religious teachers have taught you to be true as fact. Many children have been taught that they will burn in fire forever if they reject God. This simply isn't true biblically. The truth is that rejecting God in this life will seperate you from him for all eternity, and it will be a torture to your soul forever." Thanks patty, for pointing out at least one ambiguous bit of writing in the Bible.

I heard that rumor. I think it is something some good humored Dems floated out there just to be funny. I'm not sure that the Republicans are THAT dumb. But geez, they did run her for V.P. and actually used him for V.P., so nothing's impossible. You know a photo with those two with shotguns is a true dream ticket for the neocons.

I was still half asleep when I posted my little diatribe this morning. I can't force myself to be quiet when I read some of the stuff that is so exclusionary and extreme and so positively close-minded to other possibilities. And I get so wound up that my rant doesn't make a lot of sense to everyone else. I do think that kartman and Cleo'smom get my drift. At least I believe they try to understand the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for the book tip, kartman. I'll check it out. That is if it is in the library. :-)

Absolute proof isn't the necessary component for everyone to be believers in the idea that God is real and that Jesus is God. Those who aren't absolutely positive need credible proof. They need something that they can relate to. Blind faith is only possible if you have it, unquestioningly, and absolutely. Once you begin to question that the Bible is absolute truth, it cannot stand up under the scrutiny. One can only be SURE if one is able to cast all doubt aside and turn away from the troubling questions and absence of answers. For those who are able to do that, is similar to the pagans who worshipped the sun god and other idols. There was obvious proof that the sun held their fate in its' hands, of course, and that was all the proof some needed to be avid and unquestioning worshippers. That is not to say that people cannot accept certain facets of Christianity or any other religion without proof. But to believe blindly, to know for SURE and for CERTAIN that any one particular belief is undoubtedly the ONLY truth, is single-minded and small and self-centered. It is like saying that there is absolutely no way that there are parallel universes or life in outerspace. We can't state that as an absolute. And acknowledging that there is a possibility of those things existing, is being open minded to other truths. Believing absolutely in those things which are unproven and controversial only shows that one has accepted ones' own thoughts and beliefs and ideas as being superior to all else.

Patty: "Now, I ask you, why would anyone be willing to die for a lie? " Obviously thousands of American soldiers were willing. They gave their lives for the lies of Bush and Cheney.

kartman, sorry but there's a huge difference between someone relating that they've seen Elvis (after his death) and someone saying they've seen God (dead or alive). No one has ever seen God, you see. No one knows exactly what God looks like. They use lots of different terms to express what they believe God looks like to them and how he sounds when he talks to them, but it's in their head. They haven't actually seen a photograph of God nor have they gone to the sumit to hear him speak or see him perform, nor have they seen Jesus. It is all hearsay and a feeling or belief based on what they've been taught and what they've read in the good Book. Or the way they've heard other people describe what HE looks like or sounds like. It's a self-perpetuating story. The more its' told, the more real it becomes. When there was a book created that put some of it down for people to refer to and to commit to memory, for so many people it has now become the ONLY way and ONLY truth and the ultimate guide to acquiring enternal life. And there's comfort in it. And it helps people explain why it is necessary for them to strive to be good. What patty doesn't seem to understand is that mortals have always been good. They've always been bad too. Just as there are good and bad people today. The existence or non-existence of God is not a required component in the establishment of laws. Laws are defined and set forth because of the need for humans to co-exist alongside each other. God didn't invent them. The Ten Commandments are great to go by, but they would have made just as much sense whether God actually used a bolt of lightning to create them or if Moses sat up there and chipped them out on the tablets himself. People know what is bad behavior and what is good behavior. Some people who are especially bad, need the concept of God and punishment, of the devil and hell, to give them a reason to be a better person. Some people don't need that to want to be a better person. Not everyone is impressed with the idea of eternal life. Some people are quite satisfied with making this life the best it can be and they accept that upon their death, they will go the way of the frogs and fish and lions and elephants - back into the earth. The same earth that made their existence possible. And they know that they will become a flower or a blade of grass or part of a squirrel or part of all of those things at once - that is eternal life for them and they are happy in the knowledge of it.

Hey Kartboy (you've lost so much weight, you're probably more like a boy now) - CONGRATULATIONS!) thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

I do not justify it. I recognize it as something that has always been a apart of mankind and always will be. We were speaking to the issues here in the U.S. and if there are people who are forced into prostitution here, legalizing it and being able to control it would be a giant step toward busting up those groups who are guilty of forcing girls and women to do it. If it were legal and women had some protection and society had some protection in this trade, it could be cleaned up to a great extent. There will always be crooks and bad people in every profession. That's why we have laws to keep those things under control in every business. Just keeping prostitution illegal promotes the extremely bad parts of it, keeps it physically unchecked, keeps women and girls being taken advantage of, keeps a war atmosphere between pimps' turf, keeps women exposed to the brutality of man and so much more. There are women who choose prostitution as a profession for miriad reasons. They are the ones I am concerned for. They're the ones who need protection. They and the men who have a need to use the services of a prostitute. Like it is now - illegal - all the other bad folks prey on the women who need to make it their profession and the men who need to visit prostitutes. Christians say that we need to abolish prostitution because it is bad and goes against God's will. Well, it will never be abolished and becoming smart about it and protecting the public is what the government should be all about. Just as with illegal drugs, rounding them up and putting everybody in jail from time to time will never solve the problem.

Plain: "Look, I agree that saying "there are death panels" is inaccurate. But, death panels could be the inadvertant result of the overburdening of medical resources." Emphasis mine. Words, yours.

Wrong answer - you did use that term. Indian giver of words.

If you believe that using the term "death panel" is innacurate, why use it? We all know why and hence, the froth. Glub, glub, glub.

patty: "And I resent that you feel it is okay to enforce laws that give women the right to murder. We don't enforce any other laws in this country that gives anyone the right to take someone elses life, and we shouldn't allow women to be able to do it just because that life is within her." BJean: Wrong. Just because you've decided that the cells growing inside a woman are a complete and full human being with all the rights and privileges of every American, doesn't mean it is so. In fact, that union of a sperm and an egg are NOT a human being. It does not have the right to exist at the expense of the woman whose egg became fertilized against her wishes. Perhaps there are instances where women are irresponsible and have unprotected sex without a care in the world. But that is not the only scenario and the government should never be in the business of having tribunals where they decide when a woman has been taken advantage of or when she was not. This is a personal issue. And it is not YOUR personal issue unless you are the one who is impregnated. To deny poor women the right to have a procedure that is legal under the law, is discrimination and it is wrong for America. You are in the minority on this issue. And you are wrong. And the Democrats are no more capable or likely to sneak in a line on a bill that would permit government paid abortions for poor folks than the Republicans are for sneaking a line in on a bill that would provide for insurance companies to continue to be the primary decision-makers in our medical care. Furthermore, a "marriage" that is required to have government documented papers, that allows for certain rights and privleges in our society under the law, cannot be a legal right that is denied to people because of their sexual orientation. If a church has a tenet that says that homosexuals cannot be married in their church, that is a whole other issue. No one is requiring churches to either marry homosexuals or not marry homosexuals. Churches are immune to the anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately. If churches were not allowed to speak out and endorse breaking the law, encourage their congregation to break the law in fact, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I believe that churches that support demonstrating against abortion, that endorse certain political candidates and further become active politically and rail against the government and its' laws, should not be able to be tax-free organizations. They should be identified as what they are - organizations that are political in nature and in actions. They should be treated like all the other political entities (that do not pose as churches) and transparency should be assured by government oversight. So it's okay with me if your group wants to rail against the government and demonstrate outside an abortion clinic or insist that we kill people who have been convicted of crimes or get involved in demonstrating, as a group, against all kinds of governmental actions and laws, but just don't go be calling it a church and expect to be treated differently than the GOP or its' Democratic counterpart.

Ah but Patty, we were discussing the Iraq war. That was the context in which you asked your question. This kind of attempt to side step the issue and not take responsibility for what you've posted is what keeps you from having the kind of credibility that you obviously seek.

Onikenbai: "That being said, I'm paying 100% for my lap band because I've opted not to go the gastric bypass route that Ontario will pick up the tab for, so I'm out $18K." Here in the good ole' U.S., I paid over $20K out of pocket for my LB because my extremely expensive insurance plan refused to pay a dime of it. So you're out $18K and I'm out $20K and my assinine insurance premiums. plain: "Look, I agree that saying "there are death panels" is inaccurate. But, death panels could be the inadvertant result of the overburdening of medical resources" That kind of statement is making me froth at the mouth. So I gotta run grab a paper towel before it runs down my shirt.

I have no doubt that many Americans wept the night we dropped bombs on Iraq. You're completely wrong to say that most people supported our invasion of Iraq. Most of us were not allowed to voice our opinions. It was another political war - like Vietnam. God did not tell George Bush to invade Iraq, of that I am sure. And you can't truly believe that unless you've decided that Dick Cheney is God - something that I am sure Cheney and Bush would wholeheartedly endorse. And I resent your earlier claim that President Obama believes in abortion. President Obama believes in a woman's right to choose - that is the law of the land. He is our chief enforcer. He doesn't want or plan to make any decisions for women in regard to abortion. But he should always support laws that keep women from being discriminated against. And that is his position with regard to abortion. He believes that it is a decision that a woman should make, not the government. Our government should not be in the business of passing laws based on theology. The laws need to protect all citizens, regardless of race, creed (religion) or national origin, etc. That includes homosexuals. Government should never bar or exclude homosexuals from entering into a legal marriage. They are entitled to be married under the law the same as heretosexual couples. And this legal argument will be resolved soon, I hope. If your church does not believe in homosexual marriages or abortion, since you're a member of that church, I'd expect you to support your church's tenets. Or if you simply believe that the Bible is God's word and it says that women shouldn't have abortions, then you shouldn't have one if that is what you believe. But that has nothing to do with people who believe differently than you. And I do not believe that it is within your rights to try to ban abortion or marriage for other people based on your beliefs. It is not okay for individuals to take the law into their own hands and to try to prevent other people from being able to do something that is legal. Religious wars are steeped in that kind of behavior.

What it sounds like you're saying with regard to this being a "90% Christian" nation, and be careful about our country being anything but a Christian nation because he'll turn away from us, etc., is that if we allow other religions to be practiced here, it will bring us down. That is preposterous and a monstorous proclamation. You think that because Bush said he was told by God to go into Iraq you think that it was the right thing to do? That is hard to grasp. I believe you, but I do find it hard to believe. You've said worse things, I guess. You claim that you do not discriminate and you do not think others are inferior to you but what you don't seem to get is that you contradict that all the time with your posts. when someone calls you on it in a very specific way, you use words to defend yourself. But your words are hollow. You sound no different than the Muslim extremists who have bastardized their religion to mean something that is not at all what their God intended. If God turns against people in the U.S., it will be the ones who think that only they have the answers and who are willing to go to war and kill people and use God as their excuse.

I love you kartman.

Every poll, plain? How many polls compose EVERY SINGLE poll? You have that info at your fingertips I suppose. And you're quite sure that every single poll is showing that "regular" Americans think just what plain at LBT thinks? That goes a real long way in proving that you're right about proposed healthcare system changes. Not. It doesn't prove anything except that perhaps the insurance industry's ability to sway Americans by clouding and issue and distributing misinformation might be having an influence on those people who have been polled. And we all know just exactly how accurate polls always are. Just like the exit polls after the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004.

That was what I was going to say... watch Cleo'sMom's link. But I'm open-minded. I'm still waiting for pattyg to post her link proving that she knows what she's talking about.

And the yellow sprinkles smell funny.

Do you really think the government doesn't have access to your bank records? Just about everybody else does. Why would you worry that the government does? Bush made your telephone tappable. If the government needs that information for anything, trust me, they can get it. kartman you said it so very well. Except for one thing, the naysayers, the "chicken little's" haven't shut up yet. As evidenced right here at LBT. I reckon if the trend continues and every single penny is repaid, people will say that TARP had nothing to do with it. That it would have happened anyway as evidenced by, blah, blah, blah. And the same goes for medical system reform. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. And everyone knows how stupid horses are.

Even Sprinkles?