100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Black Dynamite, excellent as always.
"(sarcastically) I'm in charge." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Paul - false apostle
|
|
Paul has been accepted as an Apostle for going on 2000 years. You have to show why accepted theology and biblical scholarship for the past 2000 years is wrong. You haven't done that. A little off topic...but theology and biblical scholarship as it relates to "religion" is about the law. Often, that has little to do with faith and the heart. Not true at all. Both terms describe attempts to understand the scriptures. If someone's view on the Bible revolves around the law, then that will be the results of their studies. If someone is simply trying to understand the Bible better, then their results will be different. Example: Christology (a form of Biblical Scholarship) is the study of the Old Testament to find examples of appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ. This study has nothing to do with the law, it is simply an attempt to better understand Jesus' place in the Old Testament. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Paul - false apostle
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Tue 05/22/12 05:46 PM
|
|
The 11 Apostles picked Mattias to replace Judas, Jesus picked Paul. After Mattias was picked, we don't hear anymore about him. Paul wrote a significant chunk of the NT. Paul also worked closely with growing the church in Ephesus, which in Revelations 2:2 was praised for having "tried them which say they are apostles, and are not". How you came to believe that they tried Paul and found him to be a liar boggles the imagination. If they considered Paul a liar, why did they keep his letter to the church and have copies made to give to other churches? In Galatians 2:9, Paul relates his meeting with three of the Apostles "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." He was accepted as one of them by three of the apostles, it's revisionist history and quite frankly the height of arrogance to question their judgement. Well gosh darn. I guess those who question the "norm" will just have to visit that mythological realm of Hades for an age... Whatever that means. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Paul - false apostle
|
|
Jesus picked Paul according to Paul witnessing about himself. John the baptist and others witnessed, and thus wrote about the works of Jesus. What does the Word say about those who bear witness of themself? Yeah - their testimony is not true. I I I Paul says. That should suffice even the most novice of bible scholars, but stiff necks are very much prevalent today. Paul has been accepted as an Apostle for going on 2000 years. You have to show why accepted theology and biblical scholarship for the past 2000 years is wrong. You haven't done that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Paul - false apostle
|
|
The 11 Apostles picked Mattias to replace Judas, Jesus picked Paul. After Mattias was picked, we don't hear anymore about him. Paul wrote a significant chunk of the NT. Paul also worked closely with growing the church in Ephesus, which in Revelations 2:2 was praised for having "tried them which say they are apostles, and are not". How you came to believe that they tried Paul and found him to be a liar boggles the imagination. If they considered Paul a liar, why did they keep his letter to the church and have copies made to give to other churches?
In Galatians 2:9, Paul relates his meeting with three of the Apostles "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." He was accepted as one of them by three of the apostles, it's revisionist history and quite frankly the height of arrogance to question their judgement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
I need more energy....
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Mon 05/21/12 06:52 PM
|
|
get you vitamin d from the sun 15 min a day full dose Not even close. Then enlighten me. UVB exposure: sunlight and indoor tanning Calculated Ultraviolet Exposure Levels for a Healthy Vitamin D Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dharun Ruvi gets 30 days
|
|
But he didn't legally walk into the room. He secretly turned on a camera and left. The problem is that you don't know the facts and when I post them, you ignore them. So I'm going to ignore you and wait for someone who is reasonable, so that I can have a discussion rather than just repeating myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dharun Ruvi gets 30 days
|
|
He didn't have to "record" it. Merely turning on the camera was the invasion of reasonably expected privacy. A peeping Tom looking into windows does not have to take photos to be invading a persons privacy even if the drapes are open. A peeping Tom? He looked into his own room. He could have just as easily and legally walked into his room. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dharun Ruvi gets 30 days
|
|
The roommate asked for a private "moment" with his friend. Ravi, in recording that "moment" basically was doing the same thing as if he had gone through his drawers. He didn't record or broadcast that "moment". He turned on his camera, saw the two of them kissing and turned it off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dharun Ruvi gets 30 days
|
|
Would that no reason to expect privacy extend to Ravi going through his wallet or drawers? No. Maybe you don't get the idea of privacy. IF YOU LIVE SOMEWHERE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE THERE OR VIEW IT OR AUDIO RECORD IT. That doesn't mean you have the right to go into someone elses stuff. Does Ravi sleep in his roommates drawers or wallet? No? Then obviously, he can't go through those. Also what would Ravi have done if his roomy had brought a nice looking coed into the room and asked him to "disappear for a few hours"? I'm not a mind reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dharun Ruvi gets 30 days
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Mon 05/21/12 05:20 PM
|
|
i guess spying on people is illegal... otherwise, he should not have spent any time in jail... You can't spy in your own home. If you live there, you have a right to know what is going on. They were roommates in a college dorm. A person has a right to expect a reasonable amount of privacy in what was also his home. His roommate had a strange older (30 yo) visitor and asked Ravi to leave the room until 12:00 midnight. Ravi didn't know what was going on or why he couldn't be in his room. Ravi turned on the camera for a moment, saw them kissing, turned it off and never turned it on again. Most of the crap you've read about this case in the media is BS. EDIT: You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to roommates. If they didn't share the room, then an argument could be made. But they slept in the same room, so he had no reason to expect privacy from Ravi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
I need more energy....
|
|
get you vitamin d from the sun 15 min a day full dose Not even close. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dharun Ruvi gets 30 days
|
|
i guess spying on people is illegal... otherwise, he should not have spent any time in jail... You can't spy in your own home. If you live there, you have a right to know what is going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Dharun Ruvi gets 30 days
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I don't know what we are talking about, because I never click on links on posts that point outside of this forums system. The first issue in safety is not cell phones, but for people to try to avoid potentially harmful situations, and one of them is that they should not click on just any old link that his presdented to them. if you don't know the first part of the URL (between // and the next /) and if you don't know if that's a legal and well-established link, which you can trust, then don't click on it. The website that link goes to is YouTube. It's a safe website. You can be sure it goes to YouTube by simply hovering your mouse over the link and verifying that the URL matches. Danger: nil. The virus killers do diiiick all. Not true. Used properly, they are an important part of keeping your computer safe. So on one hand everyone is upset about some safety and security issue, on the other hand everyone clicks away at any old link they are show. A little common sense can tell you all you need to know about the safety of 90% of the links I've seen posted in these forums. If they copy links, then a small portion of the population will not know what the poster is talking about, because this small portion will take safety and security issues sensibly instead of just whining about it. Or instead of dismissing virus scanners, people might actually use them. And use FireFox with some add-ons to prevent the spread of viruses, worms, malicious scripts, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can turn it off.
How to Disable Geotagging on Your Smartphone’s Camera (Android, iPhone, BlackBerry) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FYI. A politician today said oBlowmecare will be devastating to nursing home patients. I would suggest not becoming one in the future. yeah, several politicans also once said there was a death panel to decide if seniors should die I wouldnt hold my breath with concern over the fear tactics of politicians,,, Obama told a woman that under Obamacare, her mother would have been denied a life saving surgery. There won't be "death panels", but there will be panels or bureaucrats who decide that certain people are too old for certain life saving procedures, despite what their doctors say or what the patient can afford. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sun 05/20/12 01:17 PM
|
|
No they didn't know they "should" obey God. Should or shouldn't obey something would be what morals are made of. They didn't know of "good" or "evil" they had no idea what "morals" where. They knew God told them not to eat of the tree, but they didn't know it would be "wrong" to eat of the tree. For again, that lays in morals of listening/disobeying. They did not know they were "disobeying" when they ate of the tree. Just as a child does not know they are doing "wrong" by disobeying. Or even really what "wrong" is. Of course they knew, don't be ridiculous. God couldn't have justly punished them for disobedience, if they hadn't know that they were to obey Him. You paint yourself into this corners, where you have to state that God is wrong. If God punished Adam and Eve for doing something that they didn't know was wrong, then God is cruel and unjust. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
