Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Challenge: The Word

Brian953 Wrote: Jan 22, 2015 5:02 PM
This woman routinely calls talk shows, locally, to represent Catholicism, She is VERY dedicated to the proposition that the biggest problem in the world is too little influence by the RCC. She pointed her finger at me and said "That's not our place! That's the priest's place!" You can believe what you want about me, and whether I have been mislead. But I did not misunderstand.
In response to:

Challenge: The Word

Brian953 Wrote: Jan 22, 2015 2:35 PM
Unfortunately, for the most part, those who call themselves Christians don't read the Bible. It is also true that this is more the case with Catholics. I had one dedicated Catholic tell me that we should NOT read the Bible, that that is for the priests to do.
In response to:

Challenge: The Word

Brian953 Wrote: Jan 22, 2015 2:01 PM
Christians need to STUDY the Bible. It is ruefully common for people to read a verse, a passage or a book of the Bible, then contemplate what it 'means' in their life. It is wholly inappropriate to contemplate the application, until you have really & truly discovered what the text actually says. This requires finding out things like these (many of which can be found in the Bible book being studied): Who wrote it? To whom was he writing? Is there a point in the book where the writer’s purpose is stated? 1 John contains "These things are written that ..." Jude says "I WANTED to write about ..., but ..." Luke says that he aimed to make an accurate account of the things that have taken place. What is the historical situation of the author? Of the recipients? For instance, Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians suffering strong persecution. Once you have discovered these things, it is easier to ascertain what the book — and/or a passage within it — means, as written. THAT then is the meaning that one can ponder the application of in one's life, or their walk with our God.
The wording does NOT say that "it's there to facilitate 'a well regulated militia'." That can be INFERRED from what is there, but the lack of a definitive statement is why there can be disputes. However, as you say, Mike, the amendment RECOGNIZES the existence of the right, and asserts that it shall not be infringed.
And the cost to use the DoJ as a megaphone to promote an agenda?
Citation, please/
In response to:

'Diversity' in Action

Brian953 Wrote: Jan 22, 2015 9:13 AM
John Bolton would be a better candidate, by far! But that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Thomas Sowell in a heartbeat, because I would!
No, the Supreme Court does NOT have the authority to establish this. The powers granted to them in the Constitution does not extend to such things. It is not the impetuousness of a three year old to insist that the Supreme Court limit themselves to that authority the Constitution gives them, and not more.
In response to:

Erring on the Side of Life

Brian953 Wrote: Jan 21, 2015 9:11 AM
It's not your call, McCarthy, how people want to treat themselves, or their body. One foundational point is that we own ourselves. If I want to be fat or unhealthily thin as rail, no one can find fault with me for that. Some would say that having an extended life, while denying oneself so as to attain that, is a bad bargain. What matters, is when we start deciding for others what is "best" for them, on the one hand deciding to allow others to die, and on the other hand, deciding people are not living their lives as they ought.
Capitalism is an ideology in a topic area that does not address healthcare. Capitalism doesn't provide back rubs or puppies for Christmas, either. But that says exactly nothing about capitalism, either.
_I_ didn't vote for this! Criminy, Obama barely won, both times. Stop blaming people!
Previous 11 - 20 Next