The real focus here is the antics of "your" imperial senator. Since he's on "your" side, do ya think he doesn't have to answer questions or be accountable? You'd think he'd be better prepared to defend himself since he's a big mouth crap talker.

Sure, you can attack the journalist and suggest Reverend Moon is whispering in his ear, even though the man's identified himself as an independent social journalist at (an) event sponsored by (the) City Club of Chicago and open to media and the public.

As for the other thing, what else can the left do but flip the script and blame Republicans for the debt crisis? Saint Obama is infallible as long as you ignore the effects of his runaway spending. While the Right isn't innocent, this debt crisis is the baby of this clueless administration. Or did the Tea Party cause Greece, Portugal and Ireland's economic meltdowns?


>> ^shuac:

Anyone who works for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (publisher of the Washington Times who proclaimed himself the second coming of Jesus Christ) is immediately suspect.
I mean, you can see this reporter's not unstable at all. <- sarcasm.
Another stellar clip, Roomie. Thumbs up, buddy.

Anyone who works for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (publisher of the Washington Times who proclaimed himself the second coming of Jesus Christ) is immediately suspect.

I mean, you can see this reporter's not unstable at all. <- sarcasm.
Another stellar clip, Roomie. Thumbs up, buddy.

No worries, I get lazy sometimes and just ascribe my comments to upvotes and downvotes.

To go along with your desire to ban 'craaazy' thoughts, that's where the downvote function comes in handy. To play "anti-devil's advocate" (if you see what I did there), despite what you may think, shiny made a valid point, grounded in some pretty logical teaching in a dualistic sort of systme (not really usign the right terms, but let's move on) -> if you do believe in the supernatural (and many do), if you're not embracing spiritual power from God / the "positive" source, then everything else is coming from the negative source (e.g. Satan or the evil equivalent you suscribe to).

Now, drawing a link between a TV scam and the Prince of Darkness is a bit of a stretch, but if you see "scams" as evil, and Satan as "the boss of evil", then this isn't as crazy as it sounds. And certainly not ban-worthy.

Fun discussion though.

Incidentally, in the thread, which isn't really 'mine' but belnoging to the video, I was more shocked taht I hadn't put this into the eia channel as ant did for me. For surely, if you see someone of your favorite gender wearing one, it'll make you reconsider things.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@EvilDeathBee - Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
"Nothing he's said has been extremely offensive or outrageous." I agree.
"Also, who knows? Maybe us challenging him all the time may lead him to start questioning all the nonsense that has been shoveled upon him." I disagree--any comments which don't agree with his previous mindset will only be seen as an "attack" on his "faith" (read delusions). This will actually only harden his resolve to chastise the sinners.
"...banning him simply for speaking his beliefs would simply be hypocritical on this site." I agree--that's why I stated above, "If sb just stated his/her beliefs that would be a different story, but this insistence on continually attacking over--and over--and over gets real old, real fast." For example take qm, I completely disagree with almost everything he says (and I think he might be an unstable person), but I would fight to keep him from being banned just for that. When qm has something to say--he says it--then moves on; he doesn't take over the whole thread and trash someones posting spouting trite crap.
About the ignore button--I'm not really sure how it works. Does it wipe out all the replies? Some of the replies are gold and I wouldn't want to miss them. If I ignore someone does that mean I wouldn't see their comments on a video I posted? I wouldn't want that because I want to see all activity on my posts.
Now, banning may not be the only solution available to the site admin here. If his comments could be limited to one per video that might be a viable solution--with out invoking the dreaded ban. As @Payback has said before if everyone simply ignored him the whole problem would go away--but that's (almost) against human nature.
Thanks again for the discussion, and Sorry @Krupo for taking up so much of your thread.

@EvilDeathBee - Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

"Nothing he's said has been extremely offensive or outrageous." I agree.

"Also, who knows? Maybe us challenging him all the time may lead him to start questioning all the nonsense that has been shoveled upon him." I disagree--any comments which don't agree with his previous mindset will only be seen as an "attack" on his "faith" (read delusions). This will actually only harden his resolve to chastise the sinners.

"...banning him simply for speaking his beliefs would simply be hypocritical on this site." I agree--that's why I stated above, "If sb just stated his/her beliefs that would be a different story, but this insistence on continually attacking over--and over--and over gets real old, real fast." For example take qm, I completely disagree with almost everything he says (and I think he might be an unstable person), but I would fight to keep him from being banned just for that. When qm has something to say--he says it--then moves on; he doesn't take over the whole thread and trash someones posting spouting trite crap.

About the ignore button--I'm not really sure how it works. Does it wipe out all the replies? Some of the replies are gold and I wouldn't want to miss them. If I ignore someone does that mean I wouldn't see their comments on a video I posted? I wouldn't want that because I want to see all activity on my posts.

Now, banning may not be the only solution available to the site admin here. If his comments could be limited to one per video that might be a viable solution--with out invoking the dreaded ban. As @Payback has said before if everyone simply ignored him the whole problem would go away--but that's (almost) against human nature.

Thanks again for the discussion, and Sorry @Krupo for taking up so much of your thread.

I'm not defending S&P. I'm saying the market needs the service that S&P provides, no matter how crappy S&P is performing when providing that service.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^heropsycho:
Because there's nothing that has replaced them that's credible.
And the answer can't be nothing credible. That makes the entire market unstable.
>> ^Stormsinger:
I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.
I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.


Really? The argument is that there's nothing proven out there, so let's continue trusting the people who -have- proven to be untrustworthy?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather bet on pink unicorns or invisible teapots.

>> ^heropsycho:

Because there's nothing that has replaced them that's credible.
And the answer can't be nothing credible. That makes the entire market unstable.
>> ^Stormsinger:
I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.
I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.



Really? The argument is that there's nothing proven out there, so let's continue trusting the people who -have- proven to be untrustworthy?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather bet on pink unicorns or invisible teapots.

Because there's nothing that has replaced them that's credible.

And the answer can't be nothing credible. That makes the entire market unstable.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I'm still a bit confused as to exactly why S&P has the slightest credibility on anything. These are the guys that were rating those toxic mortgages as AAA investments, after all. And gave Enron the same rating right up to a few days before the collapse.
I think they've sufficiently proven just how incompetent they are.

Far too long....

>> ^quantumushroom:
QM:I'm happy to see that you accept the label 'right wing nutjob', that saves us time.
If it makes you happy to believe that, go right ahead. And there is no time being saved here at the sift.


Make me happy? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It saved me time to waste on other stupidness.


I wonder where you get your 90% figure (or your implication that 100% of teachers unions are democrat)...if true, why don't right wingers believe in education and journalism? No one is stopping them from being teachers or journalists.
"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms."


So, in your small sampling, it's 87%. I somehow think the sampling may have been intentionally skewed, but OK. Note I didn't disagree with your stat, just questioned it's origin, if it was Faux, I would discount it offhand.


You're part right about McCain, I did respect him for the most part (but didn't always agree with him) until he sold his soul and lost his mind in/after 2000 when the 'straight talk express' took a 90 deg right turn into a sewage filled ditch of lies, direction changes, blatant pandering, and BS. It makes me shudder to think what might have been if he had been president during his 'right wing wind sock' days, turning whichever way the right wing wind blew that day.
Yeah, because things are going SO great with the clueless community organizer at the helm. Did you see the Dow drop 500 points today? No confidence in the Obamateur, from Americans or the world.


You seem to assume that because I think McCain is worthless now that Obama must be my preferance, and that I support his policies and actions and think he's leading us strongly. That is an incorrect, and all to often made assumption. Why must you continue to make an ass out of umption, do what you like to yourself.


You have no idea when or how I was raised, so you should refrain from commenting on that subject. Let's just say your statement is wrong, as I'm sure are most of your assumptions about me.
Well, you're not overtly libertarian or conservative. So what's LEFT?


I'm what used to be republican. I'm a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. There is no sane party I can call home today.


The idea that the left is 'running roughshod' over the right is more complete insanity, the left is incapable of being cohesive enough to do much of anything intentionally. The right is cohesive, but their ideas are insane and proven repeatedly to be wrong for the most part. I do give them credit for knowing how to get their agenda furthered, I just disagree with their agenda as enacted.

Obama is on track to spend more than bush, but he has not yet. The reasons for the respective spending sprees and amount of each is another discussion in itself.
Sorry, this is untrue. Obama so far has spent 3 trillion in 3 years, whereas Bush spent close to 5 trillion in eight years, much of it opposed by the Right.


This is why people call you nuts...you are insisting that 3 trillion is more than 5 trillion, and that spending sprees and tax (revenue) cuts under total republican control were against republican (the right's) wishes.


All taxpayers tired of being 'over' taxed are not right wing nutjobs, or even right wingers. That's an utter falicy and insulting BS. It's seemingly easy for you to point at the failings of one underfunded, over administrated program (public schools) and make the leap to the theory that all governmental programs are failures, but that is a gross simplification of a multifaceted problem.
Goverment schools are "underfunded"? On what planet? BTW, there is no direct correlation between school performance and how much money is spent per student. I believe DC spends the most per student and you can see how well that turned out.


Underfunded because of insane administration costs, better? More money doesn't automatically make better schools, but it helps, but not if it's all spent on non-school related administration expenses.


Even so, that theory doesn't hold water. The 'free market' for higher education shows that many, if not all completely 'private' schools provide sub par education (if any at all) while many schools using 'public' funds are among the highest ranked in the nation.
And yet how many liberal politicians send THEIR kids to private schools, even as they need teacher union votes? Competition weeds out crappy private schools while failing government schools keep churning out dummies. Government schooling is a racket, as well as unconstitutional at the federal level.


I'm not sure your arguement here...I'm not a liberal politician, or a true supporter of them, so how does what they do relate to me? I've been to good and bad private and public schools, the ones with money always had a leg up. I really believe if you have children, you should be taxed the cost of a decent education and allowed to spend it at the school you prefer (excluding religious school, that's another issue). Since this doesn't happen, I prefer decent public education be purchased with my tax dollar rather than prison cells and barbed wire. I do see it as an either or situation.


I'm sure you did call the feds attempt at stoping the failed CEO's from looting the failing companies we had just bailed out "obamatrons trying to loot corporations in the name of "social justice" ", so why isn't it 'the far right trying to loot the pensions and paychecks of the teachers' in the name of social justice? What's good for the goose...right? A legal contract is a legal contract, right?
I was never a fan of any bailout. Bush was barely conservative as it was. The left was too busy hating Bush to notice him rubber-stamping most of their spending requests. Stupid Hillary is on record claiming she'd like to seize all of the oil companies' profits. To the best of my knowledge, some states are making some teachers pay a tiny fraction more for their own health insurance and/or pension. Hardly the a$$rape by unnamed "far right" specters you're insinuating.


I'll never understand the arguement that, when confronted with their own abhorrent behavior people answer with 'look, that other guy I always call an a$$hole is doing bad stuff too'.
As I understand it, many states are cutting back on pension payments, or not paying them at all. At the same time they are regulating teachers, denying them union status, and forcing renegotiation of in place pay and work hours/load contracts. Not total a$$ rape, but close, and certainly not fair or acceptable treatment.

I'm not sure if you are ignoring my last statement there or if that's some kind of 1/2 assed, racist response. Either way, TOTAL FAIL.
Knowing me, I probably just didn't give a sh1t. Nothing personal. Youse guys have such thin skins when it comes to these faux-racial matters. What part of 'Kenyanesque Hawaiian' is racist? Odumbo's fadda was Kenyan and he (the son) was purportedly born in Hawaii. Where's the racism? Only in your mind.

I said:Letting right wing nutjobs re-write contracts and negate our obligations was one of our biggest mistakes.

You replied: Fail. The Kenyanesque Hawaiian never met a spending cut he liked. He's overclocked this economy because he wants to cripple it. Here comes the broom to sweep the moonbats out of the belfry.

The ridiculous infactuation with his ancestory (race) is where the racism is. Kenyanesque only applies if he acts Kenyan, and he does not. It is intended to be racially insulting, you know it, we know it. Either give it up or own it.
It's sad that you just don't give a sh!t about your people being so unstable that you can't trust any agreement made with them. That's my issue, not so much their political party, but their actions and trustworthyness. I'm hardpressed to find a politician of either party I wouldn't call fectless and feculant. I call out the right more often because they went bat sh!t crazy and deserted me, leaving me partyless.

Individuality falls down once we want a society to work. We sacrifice something to make it work, some people want to be part of it without sacrificing - this is naive. You can check out of society and move somewhere else, or try to change it through politics to be more individually-centered. Taxes are not theft, it's a mutually consented agreement, but it was made by our forefathers, to make society work.

Now that sacrifice is not complete and total - we do have quite a lot of freedoms (liberty) within our societies, but these were agreed upon by our forefathers too. The constitution is just a piece of paper with some good ideas in it and some bad ones. This is what I mean, when I say natural rights don't exist. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. They are agreed upon. We may be comforted to say that our lives are our own, and within our society they are, because the society has agreed that this is a right.

Personally, I don't think guns are an important freedom. I even think there ought to be checks and balances to keep as many mentally unstable, criminals and other bad citizens from getting them. I'm not even comfortable with regular people having them - I don't want one myself, for certain. Just because it happened to be written down in the 1700s, doesn't mean it applies today. This is a right I think we should do away with, because it causes more grief than it solves.

Now mind you, if the american people were actually oppressed, then I would be all for them having something to defend themselves with - but like gun proponents like to say, then they would be able to get them anyway. I'm not talking about stopping guns 100%, I just want to stop 90 % of the nut balls, which a mandatory license would totally do. The other 10 % is another deal.
>> ^marbles:

>> ^gwiz665:
I must say that this seems naive to me.
Natural rights don't exist.

Naive like... individuals should'nt be allowed to have guns--that is unless they are paid by the state to have them.
Natural rights don't exist? 10 out of 10 tyrants agree. So where do rights come from?

It just looks so unstable!

Not that I know anything about engines.

Yeah......something like that. Use chains to pull the supports out from a distance or push it over with something that can reach at least halfway up it's height. Better yet is a combination of both, pull the structure's supports out while pushing it in the direction the supports are gone. And throw some chains up high on it to help topple it.

They topple trees near houses by cutting a big wedge out to make it fall away from the house, cut the rest of the tree off and maintain pressure on the tree so it can't fall the other way if a big gust comes along or the tree is rotten or just some sort of freak thing where the tree tries to go wrong way. If possible they will usually cut the top off the tree off so it's easier to handle, but sometimes you can't do that when trees are unstable...like hit by lightning or broken due to storms.

And getting out of the machinery. Those things have roll cages on them that are supposed to support the weight of the vehicle if they roll over onto their side and then some. Not sure how it'd handle being punctured by rebar or narrow shafts of concrete, but it'd at least stand up to crushing better than your body.

I don't know what the man's race has to do with the policy; but as long as his opposition keeps tendering characters that are many times more trigger-happy, unstable, and mendacious, he and any other rational, cool-headed person of color will have a decent shot at the job.

>> ^ForgedReality:
First and last black president ever.

>> ^peggedbea:

like i said, the cop-hate isn't personal. and it's not even really about this particular event. i know some cops personally, i don't hate them at all.
it's a societal paradigm that makes these things possible.
sure, that dude's unstable and a jackass. he handled it totally wrong. but cop lights = punishment in the modern pysche. living in a punishment/coercion paradigm make us all a little sick in the head. do you NOT get a sick feeling in your stomache whenever you see a cop flash his lights at you?
edit: the "quote" function broke so... @MarineGunrock


What do you suggest? Giving people cookies for _NOT_ speeding?

like i said, the cop-hate isn't personal. and it's not even really about this particular event. i know some cops personally, i don't hate them at all.
it's a societal paradigm that makes these things possible.
sure, that dude's unstable and a jackass. he handled it totally wrong. but cop lights = punishment in the modern pysche. living in a punishment/coercion paradigm make us all a little sick in the head. do you NOT get a sick feeling in your stomache whenever you see a cop flash his lights at you?

edit: the "quote" function broke so... @MarineGunrock

@geesusfreek

Love and justice are indeed pitted at each other. Are you saying a parent could toss their child into a pit of flame, out of love? I really fail to see any parallel with this to parenting. A large segment of parenting is about avoiding the temporary pains of this life. The final judgment is anything but that. It isn't like parenting, at all. It is about the end of your life, be it for heaven or hell. Nothing could be more final. There are no parenting situations that come to mind, stay, a parent being on the jury for their child. If you are saying that a parent could say they love their child while also sending them to hell, I don't think that is very loving. And then, surely, "Love never fails" is false. If it is false, then there isn't much power in love, and not much use in God claiming it conquers all, as it doesn't...because people are going to hell.

To me, talking about society isn't taking it up a notch from parenting, it is taking it down a notch. I care much less about random people than my friends and family. I could kill strangers much more easily than my family members...because I love my family. I most likely wouldn't be able to kill my mother if she turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, because I love her. However, God seems to be able to throw people into a lake of fire by the millions, perhaps billions, or if the earth goes on long enough, trillions. This is an unfathomable amount of suffering. If a loving being could do this, I wouldn't want to be loved by it.

Lets say you have a child who is a murderous psychopath and another child who is perfectly obedient. Lets say that whenever you get these two children together, the murderer tries to harm the other child and that child lives in continual terror and fear. What is more loving in this circumstance? To tolerate the unrepentant murderer and ruin the other childs life, or to cast the murderer out? You can give the murderer all the hugs in the world, it wouldn't necessarily change his behavior. Love is an act of will, it is not something you can force or program into someone. Unless the murderer wants to change, there isn't going to be any relationship with so ever, let alone trust, and you couldn't trust this murderer no matter how much you loved him.

It is more loving to protect the other child and cast the murderer out than to ruin everyone elses lives for someone who refuses to change. God could love that murderer, and does..it is precisely because people don't want Gods love that they choose spiritual seperation from Him. You limit God and act like He doesn't give people an honest choice..but you don't seem to understand how wicked people actually are. It's because they prefer their sins and choose to be seperated from God that they end up in hell. There isn't going to be anyone there going "you got the wrong guy!"

If peoples choices are binding God, he isn't a very powerful God, nor is he the God I read about in the bible. As I said, I was a 5 point Calvinist. Is God overriding Pharaoh suddenly blank from the bible now? I really disagree with the whole idea of libertarian free will. I don't think it exists, and moreover, the idea that humans who's condition is COMPLETELY based on need would have even the slightest measure of libertarian free will is preposterousness.

I completely disagree that love is a 2 way street. One of my favorite lines from Babylon 5 is, as this love sick fool lay dying, he murmured "All love is unrequited love!" Stating the dubious nature of love. That we seldom choose those who we love, but it doesn't matter how great the pain of them not returning it is, you still love them. Like I said, I don't care if my mother turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, I would love her still even though she is incapable of it. If God isn't as capable as I am to love zombies, then I don't want his love.

Then I also don't understand how all the sudden my sins are my responsibility, when the whole idea of Jesus is completely irresponsibility. As soon as you accept Jesus, the logical implications are irresponsibility. Only the damned are responsible and somehow that is supposed to be fair. Jesus died for everyone sins supposedly. He then must turn around and deny people access to salvation because they denied him. That is the same as me burring the pick axe in my mothers head as she comes for my brains. She didn't say she loved me, time to embed this in her cerebral cortex.

Again, love is an act of will. When someone tells you that they don't love you anymore it is because they choose not to. It's not because the feelings dried up, it is because their will is against it. God didn't create robots, otherwise He wouldn't care what people did. If they did anything wrong He would only have Himself to blame. In your example of the Pharoh, God knew the Pharohs heart. What God caused him to do was already in his heart.

The way you're seeing justice has to do with the law. Justice is only obtained through Christ. People are responsible for their sins only because they refuse to come to Christ to be forgiven. He offers them the choice and if they refuse then they have to face Gods judgement on their own merits. It's what they're choosing, not what God is denying.

The entire metaphysical aspect of the bibles justice is very illogical to me. How does one inherit imperfection? Why is it so that perfect can't come from imperfect. You are making a fallacy of quantificational logic, mainly, the Existential Fallacy, or, putting the cart before the horse. I have no reason to accept these arbitrary positions. They aren't logical, therefore, I am not required to accept them.

Then the other main problem. You can't call something that wasn't a sacrifice a sacrifice. If he can't be judged, then no amount of justice was done. If I bestowed all my crimes on someone with diplomatic immunity, I hardly would say justice is done, more like avoided. He was never going to hell, he was never dying for our sins, if the payment of sins is blood and there is no blood, where is the justice?

Original sin? Once again, holding people to account for things they had no part in is of the highest level of injustice. To say everyone has sinned because one person has sinned isn't logical, it isn't something that I have to agree to. I would have to be compelled to believe so, and there is no sufficient reason to do so, not from what I read anyway.

It's not suprising you don't understand because these truths are spiritually discerned. God is the source of perfection. He is the perfect one and always has been. The only way something could be perfect is if it always was perfect. If it was imperfect at any time, it could not meet the definition of perfect. So something which is imperfect could only ever create imperfection. When man sinned, He created imperfection and became spiritually seperated from God. From that time until judgement day, all of Creation is in an imperfect state until it is completely reconciled and entirely remade. That is what the judgement is all about. Sin will be plucked out like it never existed. Man will be remade in Gods perfection and be restored.

Jesus could have been judged, if He had sinned. Remember He was tempted of the devil to abandon his ministry. If He had failed, Gods plan would have failed and would have incurred Gods judgement and earned condemnation.

People are held accountable for their own sins. Adams sin is why creation is in the state its in. Our personal sin is what determines where we are going. It doesn't really matter what state creation is in when you are born. You have the same chance of spending eternity with God as Adam did. There is no injustice there at all.

Once again, how is what Jesus did in anyway logically connected to Adam. They were both men, ok, they both liked bacon, sure...but Jesus isn't Adam. Jesus was a God man, how is he even remotely similar in nature to be able to transfer sins onto. If that be the case, my computer...err actually, lets not use the computer. My Soda can has lead a sinless live, so to my cats...never mind they are the devil too, so to my dogs. I wish to transfer my sins on to them.

Ahh wait. I guess you said they needed to be perfect to fulfill the law . But wait, why? If you sin, are you sinning or me? If I am held to account for only my actions, how are the actions of Adam being grandfathered on to me, but not your's? Why do sins transfer sometimes and not others? Why does being perfect mean you get to abolish the law for everyone, then turn around and apply it back to them? If the law is "fulfilled in Jesus" how it is then being reapplied? Actually, the HOW isn't needed, the WHY is? Why would Jesus condemn people if he just did away with the law? Spite? Is Jesus unable to love those who don't submit to him? I love all sorts of strangers that never loved me back, am I greater than Jesus?

I also don't agree with the idea that "He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down". For instance; "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy" ... "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God". Did God love the Israelites as he defines love for us? It doesn't seem so. There are countless examples of him destroying Israel because they worshiped a goat or something to that effect. God's actions nearly always conflict with the nearly perfect wording of love in 1st corth. Only Jesus comes close to living up to this letter of love via some of his actions, but others, like storming the money changers, reeks men acting like men, not Gods acting out of love.

Adam enjoyed a perfection of relationship with God in the garden. So before the fall, their natures were similar. Jesus was also a man and was capable of sin.

Hebrew 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

He also imputed His divinity into man to restore us to perfection.

Again, you're held accountable to your own sins..you have as much opportunity as Adam did. Jesus didn't abolish the law, He fulfilled it. It isn't being reapplied, it is still in place. Apart from Christ you are judged, but through Him we are declared not guilty. That is the fulcrum of justice in this world.

God never failed to love the israelites; indeed He corrects those that He loves. To say God wasn't patient or kind with the israelites would be a huge stretch of the imagination. Also, in regards to Jesus, He had every right to be angry at how His Fathers temple had been defiled. Do you consider anger in God as disqualifying Him from being loving? You can be angry at someone and still love them, can't you?

You are also arguing points of the bible to me that I don't hold to have actually existed. The book of Job being one of them. The story of Adam and Eve seems equally unlikely. Noah seems so hard to believe that I always just pretended those parts of the bible never existed when I was a Christian. They always haunted me, though. I can't honestly believe that a Guy got a large boat and packed up a billion animals without them all eating each other and shitting themselves into sickness for 40 days. Then I am supposed to believe, yet again, that the earth was repopulated by a genetically unstable amount of people.

To me, God was never real. I always wanted him to be real. Seeing so much injustice in the world made me want some person whom "makes it all right" appealing. But there is so much wrong done in the bible, under God's command no less, that I seems unlikely as a source of hope for me any longer. How many people did God ordered slaughtered in the old testament? I have seen the number placed, if you include things Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn Egyptian children, and such, it is around 25 million. I haven't double check that, but it sounds like a good number to start with.

This all entirely your lack of faith. Again, these are your stumbling blocks. The reason you don't know God as being perfect, or are unable to see Gods character in the bible as being without flaw, is because your understanding of Him is imperfect. You said it yourself, to you He never even existed. You failed to follow the first order of having a relationship with God, which is faith. Without that, He will remain entirely outside of your understanding.

Written off God, no. Like I said, I hope not to be correct. Worthiness isn't even a question. I don't thing much of me, if you knew anything about me instead of calling me arrogant by implication. The truth is, you sound like a very young Christian. I don't mean that in a bad way, mind you. But the way you speak to me is like that of dogmatic conversation and less than thought provoking. There isn't a single word you have said that I haven't heard from a sermon somewhere, or even, one that I gave myself to others. Did I mention that I have pastored people? Did I mention that I once had a small group ministry that was very successful.

In closing, I think you are conversing AT me rather than WITH me. Or so it seems, from the rather dogmatic reply form this took. While I know as a Christian your answers must be based on some amount of bible, the bible hold very little authority over the way I think now. As such, trying to appeal to me with justifications that ONLY come from the bible, like original sin take a leap of faith, one that I have denounced. You expect me to use circular logic, which I will refuse to do anymore with myself. I did that for years already, I am not going to spend any more time on it.

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this. I am resolved to drop the subject, unless you want to have the final word...but I most likely wont reply. I only expect us to chase our tails. With you quoting bible philosophy to me, and me saying that isn't the way it MUST be, I need convencing...and round and round we go. I don't want to say I have heard it all, because I surely haven't, but all the logic you just hit me with is stuff I have thought about, extensively, and yet still am where I am today. I don't make a lot of money, I don't have lots of possessions, but what I DO have is literally thought years of considering my religions positions. I don't take them lightly, and I didn't care for the slight, though understandable, tone change at the end of your statements; like I was just foolishly doing this with no consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not young, not getting younger, and have and will always be thinking on this subject.

Over and out...must get more beer!

You mzy have felt inclined to return my dismissal of your claims as being in any sense original, but my understanding of Gods truth is not dogmatic. Mostly, what I know about God is from special revelation..scriputre is the expansion and explanation of the revelation of the truth I have already received. Which is not to dismiss its importance..it is primary. It is just that I already understood Gods love before I came to scripture..and that is how I came to know it is the truth...because I see that same love poured out on every page. I am not troubled by a single part of it..though I will admit that some of it is hard to explain to an unbeliever.

Again, I will say that if you understood the bible then you would know faith is primary and wouldn't have dropped it because you hit a brick wall in your own understanding. We have Gods direct guidence through the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth, and not one thing we need to know will be held back from us. If you had perservered, the apparent inconsistances would be resolved for you. Since you gave up, you are stuck in the same place and always will be until you repent of your unbelief and lay down your understanding before the Lord. "Not my will, but yours".