Anti-Semitism In France!

[green 6]

There's someone who doesn't believe in global warming, after living in today's world? Global warming makes all the seasons more extreme. Look at the killer storms in the midwest, the snow in Los Angeles. Last summer, it was 120 degrees in the SHADE at my house, and I live up in the hills, which had always been temperate/cool in the summers. Every year, the weather's getting harsher.

Polar bears are drowning, Egypt is being threatened by rising sea levels, ice caps are melting at an astounding rate.

As far as science goes, it's an admitted fact that the Bush administration has altered scientific reports to further their own agendas and deny global warming.

When the coastal cities are underwater, will you believe in global warming then?

Canada is a polar nation as are Russia, Greenland, Iceland, and Antartica. The polar nations are the first to be affected by global warming and this is because the chain of life in these rude environments is both ungenerous and short; there are few animals, insects, and plants which make up the chain of life in polar regions and thus any changes in the environment are more quickly and easily registered than they are in the lush and fertile tropics.

Word has it that the polar zones are changing. As to whether earth-loving environmentalists can successfully engage in this global climatic shift or not is a separate issue.

[BJean 16]

When we went to Alaska last summer we were shown areas that used to hold massive glaciers for all of recorded history until recently. The people who live there told us that they had never seen the glaciers melting as much as they are today. That's just one girl's experience, obviously isn't scientific or perhaps even true. But it sure made me think a lot about whether we should believe the scientists and environmentalists or whether we should believe the politicians and people who say they just don't buy it, because this is just a cyclical change we're experiencing.

Besides, would you rather believe your president or your lying eyes?

[BJean 16]

gadgetlady maybe you didn't ask that question of me, but I answered it. Fully.

You definitely are a little late today. I think that everyone is sick and tired of that dead horse you're beating. You may not get the responses you're looking for right now.

[gadgetlady 4]

Can you direct me to the post number?

[lisah25 3]

Can you direct me to the post number?

Can I ask what you are looking for at this point? I know I answered, I know other people did, and it doesn't seem to have changed anything.

I guess I'm wondering why you are asking.

[wavydaby 1]

#2438, and another one that I explained on it before.

[BJean 16]

gadgetlady: No I can't. I'm not interested. If you are, I promise it's there.

I'm feeling like Lisa about now, what exactly is your point at this point?

[wavydaby 1]

I find it rather odd that Ron choose to answer my post only to the part about Catholism. I was really hoping he would have touched on the Noah part. As seeing as the Noah story was literal a few posts ago and I gave a "context" answer to it.

[gadgetlady 4]

I am asking because I truly, truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day UNLESS they acquire this knowledge from the Bible. And if they DO acquire this knowledge from the Bible, why do they not believe the other claims of the Bible?

No one comes to faith in Jesus through anything other than the Bible. It's not something you dream about or make up. You cannot know about Jesus unless you are told about or read about Him, and the text from which you read or from which the person telling you read is the Bible. The claim that someone is the Son of God and that He was resurrected after death is a rather fantastic one and does require faith to believe. I acknowledge that. My question is by what logical, consistent grounds does one accept this particular fantastic belief but not the rest of the text from which it came?

I'm sure I'll get accused of attacking, beating a dead horse, telling people they have to believe my way or they're going to hell, and a host of other things. Please note I have said none of these things. I am HONESTLY asking the question because I DON'T GET IT. So please, please, would someone explain it to me? I WANT to understand.

[lisah25 3]

I am asking because I truly, truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day UNLESS they acquire this knowledge from the Bible. And if they DO acquire this knowledge from the Bible, why do they not believe the other claims of the Bible?

No one comes to faith in Jesus through anything other than the Bible. It's not something you dream about or make up. You cannot know about Jesus unless you are told about or read about Him, and the text from which you read or from which the person telling you read is the Bible. The claim that someone is the Son of God and that He was resurrected after death is a rather fantastic one and does require faith to believe. I acknowledge that. My question is by what logical, consistent grounds does one accept this particular fantastic belief but not the rest of the text from which it came?

I'm sure I'll get accused of attacking, beating a dead horse, telling people they have to believe my way or they're going to hell, and a host of other things. Please note I have said none of these things. I am HONESTLY asking the question because I DON'T GET IT. So please, please, would someone explain it to me? I WANT to understand.

I did answer your question in post 626.

You seem to be confusing belief that every word in the translations we have available now is to be taken literally with an overall belief in the Bible. I can believe the main things in the Bible, what I think is central to my faith, and realize some of it isn't meant to be taken as I read it in my NIV. Ron uses the example of Jesus being the bread of life. When I take communion, I don't believe the bread becomes Jesus's body, nor the wine His blood. I do believe He came to earth and died for our sins to rise 3 days later.

[Ron Cusano 0]

If you had a clue about the Old Testament Mosiac Law and how Jesus came to fulfill it, and the message of the whole of scripture, you would not even ask such a question.

Ron...

When was the last time you had bacon and eggs?

Leviticus, Chapter 11

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,

2

"Speak to the Israelites and tell them: Of all land animals these are the ones

you may eat:

3

any animal that has hoofs you may eat, provided it is cloven-footed and chews

the cud.

4

But you shall not eat any of the following that only chew the cud or only have

hoofs: the camel, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is

therefore unclean for you;

5

2 the rock badger, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is

therefore unclean for you;

6

the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore

unclean for you; and the pig,

7

which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud

and is therefore unclean for you.

8

Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they

are unclean for you.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I have been asking that same question for 2-weeks but no one has an answer!

I am asking because I truly, truly don't understand how someone can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was resurrected on the third day UNLESS they acquire this knowledge from the Bible. And if they DO acquire this knowledge from the Bible, why do they not believe the other claims of the Bible?

No one comes to faith in Jesus through anything other than the Bible. It's not something you dream about or make up. You cannot know about Jesus unless you are told about or read about Him, and the text from which you read or from which the person telling you read is the Bible. The claim that someone is the Son of God and that He was resurrected after death is a rather fantastic one and does require faith to believe. I acknowledge that. My question is by what logical, consistent grounds does one accept this particular fantastic belief but not the rest of the text from which it came?

I'm sure I'll get accused of attacking, beating a dead horse, telling people they have to believe my way or they're going to hell, and a host of other things. Please note I have said none of these things. I am HONESTLY asking the question because I DON'T GET IT. So please, please, would someone explain it to me? I WANT to understand.

[lisah25 3]

I have been asking that same question for 2-weeks but no one has an answer!

I beg to differ. You have gotten answers, you just haven't accepted them.

[Ron Cusano 0]

What was the Noah question! I don't recall it but I will take a crack at it!

I find it rather odd that Ron choose to answer my post only to the part about Catholism. I was really hoping he would have touched on the Noah part. As seeing as the Noah story was literal a few posts ago and I gave a "context" answer to it.

[wavydaby 1]

I have been asking that same question for 2-weeks but no one has an answer!

Again, you hear what you want to hear.

I answered you already.

What more do you want me to say?