Teamsters to endorse Obama... GO OBAMA!

[Carlos_E]

Well... I will admit that I used the wrong choice of words, Obama's relationship with God is between him and God.

Indeed it is and that's what I was calling you on.

[SMCengineer]

Here is the thread, with the source inside.

Taxes - Clinton vs Bush years

Single making 30K - back in 1999 under Clinton paid $8,400 in Taxes.

Single making 30K in 2008 after Bush tax cuts pays $4,500 in taxes.

so a person making 30k saves $4000 a year tnx to Republican tax cuts.

---

Like I mentioned before.. the Democrats always try to associate the middle class with the poor, with people who have no jobs, are on welfare and other wack ass stuff...

I've been a middle class citizen since I left High School in 1999...
Thats 8 years of employment.. and as far as welfare goes.. I've been on unemployment maybe 1 month..

and the vast majority of middle class American's can relate to that..

the fact is we do not have much in common at all with the poor of this nation.. So the democrats trying to group us with the drug dealer, and heroin addicts is a faulty argument.

on the other hand, I believe we can relate a lot more closely with the wealthy and the well off in this nation..

and with Bush tax cuts, and more tax cuts in the future if Republicans stay in office, we can use that money to help launch our own businesses, and really get America going again, like back in 03-07 years.

Which will create more opportunities and more jobs for even those that are on hard times.. and than if responsible they can also start their own businesses.

Bush's tax cuts were nice, but let's not kid ourselves and think that this has any real value when government spending continues to grow. Being fiscally conservative means more than just tax cuts.

[kfrost06]

Bush's tax cuts were nice, but let's not kid ourselves and think that this has any real value when government spending continues to grow. Being fiscally conservative means more than just tax cuts.

Very well said and thats one major reason why many conservatives dislike Bush.

[kfrost06]

Well, not just conservatives others too dislike that.

[Carlos_E]

Well, not just conservatives others too dislike that.

..and others dislike Bush for several other reasons.

[alphaman]

** Disclaimer ** I am not mad at Tock at didn't intened for any of these posts to seem inflammatory. Tock and I have been through this type of thing many times. I apologize in advance if anyone is offended.

It's not so much against child sacrifice as it is against giving their children to Molech. One might make a case that while it's not ok to give children to Molech, it might be ok to give them to a different god. Less-lech, perhaps.

That's preposterous and you know it. I was just pointing out that child sacrifice was shown to be a greater sin than homosexuality in the passage YOU CITED. I can cite a ton of verses that condemn child sacrifice in the Bible.

I shouldn't have even pandered to your "skipping record" of an agenda... and of course.... that's what you always want to talk about. You have more of a hang-up on homosexuality than anyone I have ever come across. You perpetuate what you try to alieviate by doing this.

Also . . . there is the story (admittedly fictitious -- don't you agree?) about Jepththah and the daughter he sacrificed. Here is Wikipedia's take on things:

------------------------------------------------
Another instance of human sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11. Jephthah is victorious in battle against the children of Ammon and vows to sacrifice to God whatsoever comes to greet him at the door when he returns home. The vow is stated in Judges 11:31 as
"Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering." When he returns from battle, his virgin daughter runs out to greet him. That he actually does sacrifice her is shown in verse 11:39 "And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed". This example seems to be the exception rather than the rule, however, as the verse continues "And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.".
-------------------------------

Well, as unfortunate as that tragedy was, Jehovah, who evidently was in regular communication with his favorite guy (Jepththa), didn't object to this bit of child sacrifice.

Let's assume a few things:
1) Jehovah is all-powerful, all-knowing
2) Jehovah knew that Jepthah was about to sacrifice his daughter
3) Jehovah could have intervened to save an innocent life, but chose not to.

So, we can safely conclude from that story that Jehovah doesn't object too strongly to child sacrifice, if at all. Contrary to the prohibitions against such things of Leviticus 20 (see above), Jepthah was not punished for what he did, even though he did what he did in full view of Jehovah. Thus, child sacrifice is not, as you allege, "at the top of God's list in things that are punishable by death."

You are hilarious Tock. As easily as you can pull this highly controversial, and widely misunderstood passage from your arsenal, you must know that she wasn't sacrificed.

Under the Law, his firstborn already belonged to God.. so sacrifice was pointless... out of the question... not possible... and detested by God. Jephthah was upset because he had to force his daughter to serve God solely in her life, and not to marry (notice that she knew this too, and wasn't worried about a short life, but rather the fact that she would remain a virgin).

Jephthah tore his clothes because he knew his line was coming to an end, which was a horrible thing to an Israelite in this time. It was his punishment for making a vow to God because he wanted something for his offer, before he gave it up to God (kinda like when people say, "God, do this one thing and I'll be good... I promise).

He intended to offer God an animal as was customary in this time, and was stricken when he first saw his daughter, realizing what he had done.

If anyone is interested, this link does a good job explaining in more detail...

http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org...hsDaughter.htm

[alphaman]

So say some theologians. Others say different. Who's gonna settle this theological difference of opinion? IMHO, it shouldn't be the US court system. Or you.

Hah... got me there.

So say you. Which views are "True" or "Correct" or "line up with the scripture" is something that only I can decide (or maybe only certain theologians can decide, or only American politicians can decide, or only the Pope can decide; or only the GodHatesFags.com people can decide).

Get my point?

I see the point you're trying to make, but it's incorrect and skewed by listening to people rather than actually examining the scripture. Some things line up, and some don't. Proof-texting has run amuck, but that doesn't mean that one can't derive truth from scripture.

Theologically speaking, I'll agree.

However, the minute someone tries to live by the old Law and forgets Grace, then they are mistakenly thinking that their "filthy rags" of self-righteousness (as the Bible puts it) are sufficient to earn God's approval & entry into Heaven.

So, the minute someone says that people are obliged to live according to the Old Testament Law condemning homosexuality, as the www.godhatesfags.com people do (and, as I suspect you do), then they themselves are under the Old Law, and not the New Covenant.

Jesus didn't come to wipe the Law away, but to fufill it. The New Covenant doesn't mean the Law was wrong, but rather, that it's not a matter of salvation. The minute you thnk your "righteousness" will get you into heaven is the moment it becomes as filthy rags. The point of that verse is to show that your righteousness will never get you into heaven... that you need the grace of God by accepting that you can't do it on your own... but that you need his GRACE.

Yep. And these are religious issues that can be (and are) interpreted either way. So, why should everyone be required by law to comply with either Bible interpretion? IMHO, it would be best for the secular government to allow people to indulge their own religious views any way they wish, and not pass laws that mandate either interpretation.

While some things are hard to interpret in the Bible, ending a life that God created for selfish purposes is not. It is forbidden.

Exodus 20:13

13 "You shall not murder.

How about the event reported in Exodus (again, fictitious) where

1) Jehovah told Moses to tell Pharaoh to "Let My people go!"
2) then Jehovah "hardened" Pharaoh's heart so that he would refuse the request
3) then Jehovah murdered the first born son of every Egyptian family, to punish Pharaoh for refusing the request

What's up with that? Jehovah definitely comes across as a sadistic dude; a SOB, and not something to be worshipped and revered.
Of course, that's just my opinion. Other folks might think that sort of thing is ok.

Exodus 1:22
22 Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born [a] you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

War is ugly. The same assault was committed on God's people regardless of the Pharaoh receiving warnings. Unfortunately, the innocent have paid for the sins of others throughout history, as is the case with the aborted.

[Carlos_E]

Can you take this to PM?

[alphaman]

Indeed it is and that's what I was calling you on.

Thanks for keeping me honest.

I should have used a different choice of words.

[Tock]

Oh, brother . . . All this theology is making my head swim.

(that's enough for this post)

[alphaman]

Can you take this to PM?

COnsidering the last comment from Tock... no. But I'm glad you said something... I'm going to bed.

[kfrost06]

Can you take this to PM?

why? I enjoyed reading it. Good job Alphaman and don't worry about Carlos he can't stand when someone has an opinion different then his so he'll come on here with one line comments to try to belittle you. He does it to me and you and Logan13(well until he got Logan banned). He never has anything productive to add either just pathetic demeaning one line comments like the one above.

[alphaman]

why? I enjoyed reading it. Good job Alphaman and don't worry about Carlos he can't stand when someone has an opinion different then his so he'll come on here with one line comments to try to belittle you. He does it to me and you and Logan13(well until he got Logan banned). He never has anything productive to add either just pathetic demeaning one line comments like the one above.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I'm afraid it becomes too much for some at times. I actually came back here after a long break with the intention of not getting into Biblical arguments.

[Carlos_E]

why? I enjoyed reading it. Good job Alphaman and don't worry about Carlos he can't stand when someone has an opinion different then his so he'll come on here with one line comments to try to belittle you. He does it to me and you and Logan13(well until he got Logan banned). He never has anything productive to add either just pathetic demeaning one line comments like the one above.

Don't be an ass. The discussion of religion is off topic. This is a thread about the Teamsters and Obama. If you want to have a religious discussion start a new thread or keep it to PM.

[RA]

Your going too far tock. What does this have to do with the discussion?

Oh, brother . . . All this theology is making my head swim.

Alphaman, let's go back to just having sex . . . we don't have to talk about anything. Just sex. I'll even let you be on top.

Whaddaya say?

[Tock]

Alphaman,

I owe you an apology. And here it is.

That invitation I made a few posts ago was way out of line. If I had made a similar comment to anyone in most businesses, I'd be fired. If I wasn't fired, the business owner could have been sued for running a workplace with a hostile environment.

So, I apologize. I acknowledge and take 100% responsibilty for my rude, crude, and socially unacceptable remark, and promise never to repeat this mistake ever agaiin. (Where's the animated doober for "remorse?")

Not that it mitigates my responsibility in the slightest, I will mention that while I was not intoxicated when I posted the comment, I had somewhat tired of the theological nature the conversation had evolved into, and I was also somewhat weary from a day of hard labor and dealing with difficult employees. So, my usual sense of restraint was compromised, which resulted in the tactless and unwarranted remark that, I am sure, alarmed and offended yourself and others.

I hope you will accept this apology in the spirit it is intended. Also, I hope that anyone else who had the misfortune to witness my lapse into coarse prose, will likewise accept my profuse apologies.

--Tock

[Tock]

Your going too far tock. What does this have to do with the discussion?

You are correct.

See my post, above.

[alphaman]

Tock-

It grossed me out a bit, but I wasn't horribly offended. I've been on the giving end of that type of comment before, so I guess I got what I deserved, huh? lol

I found the theological stuff a bit tiring as well. I don't have it like I used to. And I learned a long time ago that I can't convince you of any of it.

Just do what I've asked you for the past month and all will be well. lol

alpha

PS- Thanks for the sincerity.

[Carlos_E]

Awwww... Group Hug!!!