Previous 11 - 20 Next
Yup, that would be the point. You apparently can't find such statements in your Bible because you never read it. You just make up what you would like to believe and then claim that is in the Bible. How about, for starters, Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Or Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." 1 Timothy 6:20, "Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge." The Bible -- the Christian Bible, that is, not the one you read -- clearly says over and over that there is truth and there is error and there are lies, and Christians should seek the truth and reject the lies.
Not long ago we saw a rash of studies by liberals "proving" that conservatives were close-minded. The gist of all these studies was: Show a conservative a news story or quote from some self-proclaimed expert claiming to prove that a conservative idea was wrong. The ask the conservative if he has now converted to liberalism. If he says no, this proves that conservatives are close-minded, because you just SHOWED him the proof that he was wrong. Right here we have an editorial from the New York Times saying that Obama's economic policies will reduce unemployment! And here we have an article from a Planned Parenthood publication that plainly explains how abortion is a positive good! If you don't instantly abandon ideas that you have come to over a lifetime after being shown one unverifiable statement from a partisan source, the only possible explanation is that you are a close-minded, irrational, unthinking bigot.
The position of feminists today is that women are entitled to just as much respect as men ... as long as they act just like men. If someone celebrates femininity, they are called "anti-woman". If someone tells women that to have value as human beings they must imitate men, this is called "pro-woman".
Well that makes sense. Presumably then when you buy a gun the bracelet would have to come packed in the box. And then someone who intends to commit a crime would be completely stymied, because when he buys the gun, he'd never think to also take the bracelet out of the same box and put it on before going on his shooting rampage.
In response to:

Dissent on a One-Way Street

mjohansen Wrote: Apr 04, 2014 6:20 PM
Umm, maybe because the right to voice an opinion, whether you personally agree with it or like it or not, is the DEFINITION of free speech. Calling for someone who disagrees with you to be silenced by force is the DEFINITION of censorship. We don't need freedom of speech to protect opinions that are popular. The most tyrannical government will surely allow people to express opinions that agree with official government policy. "Free speech" only means anything if it includes the right to express UNPOPULAR opinions, especially opinions that are unpopular with the government and the elites and politically powerful groups. If, in this case, homosexuals and said that they totally disagreed with the fellow and explained why they disagreed, or even if they had just shouted slogans expressing disagreement, and left it at that, no one would be accusing them of being intolerant. It is when they demand that he be punished for disagreeing with them that they are -- rightly -- called intolerant.
Now I'm disappointed that I'm not using Firefox to view this page.
In response to:

Gambling and Government

mjohansen Wrote: Apr 02, 2014 5:28 PM
I saw a story in the news years ago about some group that was running an illegal gambling ring using the winning numbers from the Ohio State Lottery as their winning numbers. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper saying that, as a good citizen, I felt that I should come forward and reveal that I knew of another gambling operation that was using the numbers from the Ohio State Lottery, and that I had reason to believe that many high-ranking officials in state government were involved in this corrupt gambling ring. The group called itself, "the Ohio State Lottery".
In response to:

Gambling and Government

mjohansen Wrote: Apr 02, 2014 5:23 PM
One of my math teachers said, "Gamblers don't believe in probability. They believe in luck."
If someone says, "I can't imagine why this stupid rule was ever made" or "why this stupid institution was established", I'd be very reluctant to let him dismantle it. If he can say, "I have done careful research and found that it was put in place for this and this reasons, and those reasons are now obsolete because of these new developments", or "those reasons were poorly thought out and have this logical flaw", then the person may be qualified to remake the law or institution.
In response to:

Probable Cause

mjohansen Wrote: Mar 27, 2014 5:49 PM
I wonder if this same legal reasoning would work or me. "Judge, I didn't pay my taxes because it was just too hard to fill out the forms." I'm sure the judge would say, "Oh, okay then." Or Obamas routine explanation for why he is ignoring laws he doesn't like: "It was the right thing to do." So could I tell a judge, "I didn't get an Obamacare-compliant policy because I just thought it was the right thing to do."
In response to:

Intellectual Dishonesty

mjohansen Wrote: Mar 27, 2014 5:38 PM
It's okay to believe in a religion, as long as it's something that you just talk about in church on Sundays, and it doesn't affect the rest of your life. That is, it's okay to be a Christian, as long as you're a hypocrite.
Previous 11 - 20 Next