"It takes an exceptionally... creative... reading of Scripture to conclude that Jesus is some good-guy God. Jonathan Edwards had a much more accurate view of theology than many of the posters who have been contributing to this thread."
Mr. Semp. I don't know why you would consider Jonathan Edwards as having a more accurate view of theology than anybody else's view. His sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" is pretty much explanatory and did drive people to revivals. That being said, his idea pretty much says that God has all people hanging on strings over a fire pit just waiting for each person to muck up so that God can cut the string. Rather silly. Rather pitiful, when you look at Jesus' statement of "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Don't you think? Why you think that does not just null and void your statement of requiring creative reading to conclude that Jesus is some "good-guy" God. If you don't find Matt: 5:38-48 a clear repudiation of your comment, then perhaps nothing changes your mind on any issue. The eye for an eye was a requirement as was taking oaths in Jewish law. Jesus clearly stated those things no longer apply, as he said BUT and then followed with "I tell you do not resist an evil person." Prior to that statement, you were to get even. Jonathan Edwards wasn't much of pastor to try and explain that when Jesus told the prostitute to "Go and sin no more," (when in reality, law required her to be stoned), he was pointing out the desired change God wanted and that the judgment being made by the initial accusers needed correction, as they also were not sinless. Meanwhile....thank you Jesus for all that you do again and again.
I was trying to make a point about the US, as the US was the country talked about. Of course, if Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, etc. are willing to take in refugees and then feed and house them in a country with near 30% unemployment already, then that could be discussed. I have no problem if a private family wants to sponsor another family. What I was getting at was that sending them to the most expensive state, Hawaii, as far as cost of living is concerned would be foolish when federal and state dollars would be needed for such a movement. There are states with far far far lower electric rates, housing costs, taxes, and ability to help with a transition than our state here. I was just addressing that IF Syrian refugees will be brought to the US, the last place they should go is the most expensive place within the US in which to live.
..."it clearly states in the bible for Christians to kill non Christians in Deuteronomy 17"
Your statement is wrong, and you should see it as wrong. There were NO Christians when events took place in Deuteronomy. Christians were a label given to a few that were followers of Christ, and being that Jesus had not arrived on his earthly mission at the time of your scripture reference, then you must be just hoping to tie Christians to that scripture. What you were talking about were Jews. To me, Christians are those people who believe in Jesus as being the Messiah and Son of God and believe and try and follow HIS teachings, most of which are found in the beatitudes. These you can read in Matt: 5 in the Sermon on the Mount. So when you say that it "clearly states in the bible for Christians to kill non Christians, you made a false statement. As scripture says...."God reveals himself to those who seek him," and being that you don't seek him, it is clearly he isn't revealed in your statement.
"So you advance the absurdity that the God who instructed the Hebrews not only to put various classes of felons to death but who also on several occasions instructed them to commit genocide (and then punished them when they did not do so) is opposed to Capital punishment. "
Yes, in OT, God most certainly did instruct Hebrews under the law to put to death people for committing various offenses to the law. However, if you read Matt. 5;36, you will see that Jesus gave a bit BUT and a contrary argument reflecting God's present desires. Remember? "You have heard from old an eye for an eye......BUT (and now the new rule). So perhaps rogere might have a point. After all, this is red print, not Paulian philosophy. You can continue to read Matt. 5:44, and you will also see Jesus reflecting on old law and BUT shows up again.
Now..if you believe Jesus to be the Son of God and also to only do the will of the Father which is what he claimed, then perhaps tossing eye for an eye and loving one's enemy pretty much negates vengeance except for God himself. Your bring up Ananias and Saphira are interesting examples. DId you notice that no human "authority" was involved in their death but rather only God himself. It is similar to Jesus showing apparent violence at the money changers when he had a whip and overturned the tables. Did you notice there was no mention of any other human taking part in that? "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord." Though I don't see people bringing it up, perhaps one could argue that Jesus didn't say anything against the death of the thief on the cross that told the other one they deserved what they were getting and it was a death sentence, but Jesus didn't address the issue.
Maybe you can shake off your snowy parka and head down under for a good warm up brother Rails. These temperatures there are being reached in the equivalent of our month of May. lol.
Hard to imagine this article coming out of Fox News. Rails will enjoy it.
Actually, ISIS has several strong points for funding with oil being just one part of it.
Driving oil prices close to 0 is just another way to strengthen ISIS as their propaganda goes out to destroy their enemies...namely Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
ISIS takes much of what oil they control, refine it and send it in trucks to the black market in Turkey. ISIS gets a huge amount of revenue by taxing the inhabitants of the territory they control. Last I read, ISIS was paying nearly $400/mo for soldiers in their cause. They got hundreds of millions in not billions from banks when they took over parts of Iraq. Oil is just one source of funding, not necessarily their main source of funding. They have large donations from wealthy Saudi's who are sympathetic to their cause going into their coffers. Once their territory of control is reduced, their revenues should start drying up. They control much of the most fertile areas of farming in Iraq and Syria and those far products are sold for profit to ISIS after strong arming the farmers or just confiscating those farms. See how this all plays out. Meanwhile, don't wish for oil prices close to zero or you can close the state of Texas, roll up the curtains in much of Canada, and kiss the Dakotas and Wyoming good bye.
It doesn't look like BB and NNLX has produced much other than an occasional update to a website or a news flash that leads nowhere. There is no information on sales, customers or growth prospects. It is sad, but time has passed this one up...too slow, too arrogant, and too stubborn has led this puppy to the verge of collapse.
A lot of American opinion may depend on where they live, or if not their opinion, then certainly, if the US takes in any Syrian refugees, they should be taken in to a place where it would cost the least to provide for them if they require assistance. Our governor here in Hawaii said he would welcome them, but perhaps he should realize that with housing costs the highest in the nation, electrical costs highest in the nation, food costs the highest in the nation, gasoline prices the highest in the nation, why on earth would you send people with nothing to a place like that? We have a large homeless problem here in Hawaii already, because of the cost of living here. Asking taxpayers to pay twice as much for everything for someone who has little to nothing is not right when other options are available. Now....if a private family wanted to sponsor a refugee here and were financially able to do it, then that bridge might be crossed, but I would still rather they be sponsored in a place that is least expensive to have them function if they are on the dole.
"There are a lot of hard facts to support evolution including fossils. There are zero hard facts to support a magic man in the sky[GOD}."
There is no reason that fossils/belief in God should have any conflict from a Judeo Christian perspective. After all, doesn't scripture say that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.?" It doesn't say how much time transpired from that point to the start of present creation. Also, since you say there are zero hard facts to support a magic man in the sky, perhaps you should read what Jesus said and predicted. Did he not say that heaven and earth would pass away, but his words would never pass away? So far, the poor dead carpenter seems to have been correct, as his words are available for reading in more languages than you can name. In fact, recently from a source in China, the new public school 7th grade book has the biblical creation story in it. That should scare you. For me, it is quite easy to understand your atheism Mr. Lake. After all, scripture says that God reveals himself to those who seek him. You don't seek him and don't want to seek him, so I wouldn't expect any revelations to take place from him to you. Enjoy your day.
Not bad. Yesterday was a mere 99F in Sydney, AU and it is only mid November...equivalent of mid May in the US. Sounds like global cooling to me...lol
"Iraq was lost when Obama pulled out the troops."
Please.....Iraq was lost already when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." After all, Mr. Nouri Al-Malaki was a #$%$ and was stroked continually by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. You forget that one of the big reasons that Germany recovered was that Patton and others took competent generals and soldiers (who has been their enemy) and let them again run their country. They used former mayors and city leaders to lead them back up after being destroyed. The US forbid any of Saddam's people from doing anything, turned it over to corrupt folks and almost put in the late Chalabi, another #$%$. Comparing Germany and Iraq is also silly, as Germany wasn't divided as a nation during WWII. Iraq had been divided between Sunni/Shia for centuries. Bush's fault was thinking that Iraq would be peaceful with the Sunni/Shia split that was centuries old and still is what the real problem shows.
Thanks...I found Mr. Lumpton's charity, and although I think they pay him as well as their secretary a bit much considering he is earning income through book sales and other avenues, he isn't the first non profit head that makes good money. I did not find anything dealing with the mentally ill in his non profit, but if you are going to talk about homeless, then you might as well forget one third of them if you want to eliminate the mentally ill from the equation. My quote above regarding the requirement of tax money and republicans' tendency to not want higher taxes for mental institutions, still stands unless you want to list all the private libertarian and republican folks wanting to privatize and open these hospitals to the mentally ill without govt. monies. Have a great day. He has some good suggestions, especially for dealing with govt. programs where "cheating" is going on, but then if you lump that in, please include it with oil companies, doctors, and most privately run businesses.
The article was interesting. I tried to find Mr. Lupton's FCS charities on Charity Navigator to see what he is paid, but I didn't find it?? Some of what he says is quite valid. From reading the article, I didn't see the mentally ill addressed in the article on treating homelessness. As someone who actually tries to work with homeless folks in a non governmental position, I certainly can say that there are many many of them that are mentally ill, talking to voices they are hearing, delusional, etc. If you want to come here and hire some of them, I will let you stay at my home. Ronald Reagan released thousands of these mentally ill people onto the streets of America where they now sleep, beg, fail to take meds, hallucinate, and many times cause negative issues. These type of people used to be institutionalized, but I don't see Mr. Lupton or the government busy building facilities to not only house them but medicate them as they used to be so that their schizophrenia behavior isn't seen on the main sidewalks but rather in safe institutions treated by properly trained doctors and nurses. This of course requires tax money, and so far, I haven't seen a republican willing to pungle a dime up toward such effort. They of course might point to a privately run hospital where the mentally ill can pay $250 to $300/day to be treated by those who themselves could probably not afford to be treated there. Read a good book scs called Breakfast at Sally's. Great reading.
"The government of Venezuela has made it clear it considers the US it's enemy. And, both it's economic and political system are in ruins."
Of course the government of Venezuela considers the US its enemy. The US through the CIA and covert operations has been trying to overthrow that govt. for years. If Venezuela had a CIA and it was actively involved inside US borders trying to overthrow the US and its constitution, do you think it would be considered a "friend?" Get a grip. You seem like one of those folks who thinks it is OK for the US to meddle in every country's governments to try and make them puppet states of the US, but at the same time would be horrified if other countries were busy doing the same at the same rate. It reminds me of all the horror at China hacking our computers. What do you think US govt. computer wizards are doing to China's computers?
It is just capitalism at work. Socialism or communism might make things like that impossible, but capitalism is about making money legally, and so far, it looks like Saudi Arabia and China have figured it out. The rules follow somewhat like this. One...Bring money and go to places where laws are very favorable to you or where you can influence legislation favorite to you. Two...Make money on your projects. Three...When the making of money slow down or ceases, take the money you made and move on to new fertile ground and let others try and fix your mess.
"Tell me if I am wrong, but I think the big deal is that doing anything to lower the price of crude, is against Mr. Obama's personal, ideological, and party agenda. So, it is a big deal, because of the president. "
Mr. BS...I will tell you that you are wrong. Mr. Obama is quite happy that crude prices translating into lower gasoline prices are looking good on his slate. I am sure your friends, the oil industry isn't real happy that prices of crude are where they are, as they, (unlike Obama), would much rather have higher crude prices and fat stock prices and the drillers would be thrilled also. More than likely, Mr. Obama is well aware that we have been through loads of up and downs in the oil sector over the decades and getting independent of much of it is a noble cause and worth pursuing. The XL pipeline looked like a good money maker when prices were much higher, and Canada was probably the big beneficiary, as you could probably have counted the jobs on your two hands that would be permanently created after the construction phase, which by the way is mostly done anyway and will have loops and connections all over the place. Nikko was correct in that it probably would have been a non issue had the oil been cleaned first, but companies like EEP have caused some real nasty damage with pipeline oil spills, and it would be inevitable with this one. Like the rest of the infrastructure in America, buried pipelines are aging, and we will see more blowouts and environmental nasties in the future.