Religion

[Brianwarnock]

I think you will find parts of Canada far north of Alaska as it extends into the Arctic circle.

Brian

 

[Matt Greatorex]

I think you will find parts of Canada far north of Alaska as it extends into the Arctic circle.

Brian

Then we're both South and North of each other, depending on where you are along the border.

Job done. Any more international crises that need resolving?

 

[jsanders]

Then we're both South and North of each other, depending on where you are along the border.

Job done. Any more international crises that need resolving?

So, I can read a map after all. Cool.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Not really, Canada is more East of Alaska, to say it is south of Alaska is like saying it is south of Scandinavia.

Might as well talk geography since the thread lost its way a while ago.

Brian

 

[jsanders]

Not really, Canada is more East of Alaska, to say it is south of Alaska is like saying it is south of Scandinavia.

Might as well talk geography since the thread lost its way a while ago.

Brian

This is a heck of a lot more pleasant, that's for sure.

I can stop using spell check if you guys need something to talk about.

 

[ShaneMan]

No it's a perfect example of natural love, not enforced by fear and threats, anyway I thought childbirth was God's doing

It may be a perfect example of natural love but the topic was whether you can compare your part in causing a child to be born compared to you creating your children. You did not create your children. You followed the natural created way of causing the fertilization of an egg which leads to a human being born. There is quite a difference.

What point is being made when you say it is "God's doing" when it comes to child birth?

 

[jsanders]

Not really, Canada is more EAST of Alaska, to say it is south of Alaska is like saying it is south of Scandinavia.


Brian

Didn't I say that earlier?

 

[Brianwarnock]

How do you get to use spellcheck on the forum?? Surely you don't write in say Word first? I bet I've just had my leg pulled and fell for it.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Didn't I say that earlier?

Sorry if you did I missed it , which post number?

Brian

 

[Bodisathva]

How do you get to use spellcheck on the forum?? Surely you don't write in say Word first? I bet I've just had my leg pulled and fell for it.

Brian

there's actually an add on for Explorer...if you have sufficient rights to install it

 

[Brianwarnock]

there's actually an add on for Explorer...if you have sufficient rights to install it

Thanks , I'll look into it.

Brian

 

[jsanders]

How do you get to use spellcheck on the forum?? Surely you don't write in say Word first? I bet I've just had my leg pulled and fell for it.

Brian

Nearly every "word" I write is pasted from Word.

 

[jsanders]

Sorry if you did I missed it , which post number?

Brian

...........120

 

[jsanders]

It may be a perfect example of natural love but the topic was whether you can compare your part in causing a child to be born compared to you creating your children. You did not create your children. You followed the natural created way of causing the fertilization of an egg which leads to a human being born. There is quite a difference.

What point is being made when you say it is "God's doing" when it comes to child birth?

You'll be blue in the face before long.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

...........120

It was just muggins here who got on the wrong track.

 

[ShaneMan]

Well first off, I wasn't wanting to suggest that Christians are dumb. If I came across that way, then I apologise. Anyway, the roman empire lasted for several hundred years. Conclusion: They knew how to suppress their opponents. I'm just saying that this kind of rhetoric would not have been beyond them.

No need to apologize. It did have a sound to it that if I was more intelligent then I wouldn't be buying it to all of this stuff, but I was not offended by that.

The new testament was the new covenant. The replacement of Moses's law with the preachings of Jesus. The old covenant described rebellion. The release of the tribes of Israel from Egypt and Moses's defiance of authority. All this has been replaced with submission and acceptance of poverty.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. Just toying with the idea that the turn the other cheek instead of the eye for the eye could have been designed by an authority wanting a submissive populace.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)

Do not resist an evil-doer could actually mean let the romans have their fun, perhaps?

Perhaps! Then again maybe a teaching of grace (meaning unmerited favor) was introduced as a new covenant and just like the Old Covenant had an ending so the New Covenant may have one too. If you read the end of the story, and read the prophecies, which include the details of Jesus return, it is very obvious that grace has come to an end and a time for judgement has begun. A submissive populace is not prophecied about.

 

[jsanders]

It was just muggins here who got on the wrong track.

I don't get that. You have to speak real slow when you try to insult me.

 

[jsanders]

Perhaps! If you read the end of the story, and read the prophecies, which include the details of Jesus return, it is very obvious that grace has come to an end and a time for judgement has begun. A submissive populace is not prophecied about.

It sure is looking that way.

 

[Bodisathva]

Thanks , I'll look into it.

Brian

upper right-hand corner of the utilities box when posting a reply


Does anyone actually use this?

 

[Matt Greatorex]

I don't get that. You have to speak real slow when you try to insult me.

Sorry, it was aimed at me, not you.
'Muggins here' is a British term one uses to used to describe oneself, often after saying or doing something stupid.

(I still think of myself as being South of Alaska, though )