in the bible adam had flesh before any other human and also didn't pop out of a womb like all the other humans including Jesus ...in science humans are mammals and mammals have flesh....which means those on the evolutionary scale that didn't have flesh wasn't at that point in time considered to be human ...

if you have a question about the jewish religion i'm sure there is a rabbi who can answer that for you.

ok...according to both science and the bible during the times of the old testament and before the times of the new testament humans had flesh ...do you disagree with this?

what I'm saying is that your post didn't require a scientific explanation ....well of course unless you believe that those that lived during the times of the old testament had no flesh until Jesus popped out of the womb with enough flesh for everyone....

Jeez why do the religious run to science when they get in trouble...but anyway science is not needed ...perhaps you should check the biblical timeline...

according to the biblical timeline those in The Old Testament already had flesh before Jesus popped out of the womb as Flesh ...so you may want to re-think your theory

what in the bible displays why it's either a book of fables, fact, fakery,forklore or fantasy

when presenting a passage or whatever to present your point of view as being "fact"..please include an explanation that doesn't sound delusional along with proof that it is fact...if not then that places it into the category of fantasy

sure..if none of the other members of the human race has flesh

which is why when The Word turn to flesh..it is describing the human race

Cowboy...the thread ask for proof not your fantasy synopsis...so go to Genesis "In The Beginning" and see if you can find anything about the word...if not..then The Word is not "always was"

How do you change your log in name?

that I like you.
I just won't ever have the balls to tell you.
it wouldn't ever work out anyways.
but I just thought I should let you know;
you're amazing.
and I'm not saying who you are.
cuz you'd ignore me.
still.
(:
but it's alrighttt.

If y' think back to an earlier 'moment in time', you'll recall ads that said four out of five doctors chose Camels or Chesterfields or Lucky Strike or Pall Malls - said they were a 'healthy smoke' ... Weed's just more 'smoke', and they're lying by making a false extended analogy. I don't think I ever heard or read an ad with any of those 'actor doctors' trying to sell the message that cigarettes 'get people well' - even actors knew they couldn't lie their way around that one any more than they could sell the fiction that cigarettes 'freshen your breath'.

That's right. Read it. You switch from civilian law to military justice when you go into the military.

No freedom of speech unless they allow it.
No trial by a jury of your peers.
No civilian court action under most all circumstances.

The death penalty applies to releasing top secret documents. The Rosenbergs got the death penalty under civilian law for giving atomic bomb secrets to the Russians because they felt the secret should not be kept from the communist party (they were secretly members). If they were exercising their "freedom of speech", they died for it.

The release of "top secret" documents is a crime punishable by death.

Anyone remember the Iran-Contra hearings?

Ollie North ( who i used to like) was being basically tried on TV for suppying arms to Iran.

He did not report to any commander he never revealed who he really worked for but our military and congress and the white house tried to make him an enemy.

It was so cool how he turned it around on them and made them look like fools on National Tv but u know what he did his job still..

To protect the president at any cost which he did because thats the only one who really could give his approval to supply Iran arms..


Why did we do that? They were fighting Iraq whgo at the time had the strongest military in the middle east.. Well we know the rest of the story.

Then what did we do... we supplied Bin Laden the training and Arms to fight soviet helecopters in Aphganistan.

Wow when we want we give our enemies anything they need.. In the background of cource and then its.. DENY DENY DENY..

Remember Bush in the early 2000'w after 911.

I saw a post about Clinton did nothing.... You shouold read up on what Clinton did and how congress stopped him.

But a big denial was the Dr. Rice he turned over to them intel and a plan that was already in motion to kill Bin Laden and where to do it.

What did they do ..they scrapped oit said it was failed intel.. would not even look at it.

It had in it that thier intel said he was getting ready for a major attack against the US on our soil and it was imminent to kill him and wipe out his Al Queda.

No good we will make our own plan and details.

Remember how pissed Clinton got when ABC asked him about Dr Rice saying she got nothiong from his administration?

That was no put on he was totally pissed because he knew they could of possibly prevented 911 and they lied about what was given to them.

Anyone who does have our nations highest secrets have been screened so deep for months if not years before they were given that clearance..

I almost wonder if this young man they knew had problems and used him as a scapegoat being so young and nieve.

It would not be hard to do as a stunt to get us away from something in the background that was going on under our own knows but all we heard was about this.

I wonder what it was anyone have any idea?

I think he should go to prison for several years but i really have never seen anything thats deserves a young mans life ruined forever it is now anywazes.

but u know our people blowing away people who clearly were not shooting at us is murder and that was being covered up.

So his name is Mudd now huh..

The rules of military justice are what counts.

904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

end quote

The soldier does not get to decide what top secret documents his "freedom of speech" can release. The method of release does not have to be to the enemy directly, it can be made public and becomes an indirect release of information to aid the enemy.

If it is proven that an informant was killed because of information that was leaked in this matter the court of military justice can give him the death penalty. He could get it anyway.

It's the law and "freedom of speech" has nothing to do with it.

Hmmmmmm. So it is OK for a soldier to yell "Hey enemy! We are over here. Come shoot my hidden buddies!... because he has the freedom of speech?

Duh.

and blur....it's a song lol

Are you serious?!?!?!?

I canoed it!

420!

well, I built me a raft and she's ready for floatin' ol' mississippi, she's callin' my name....

Ah, the over-reactionary pseudo-patriotic zealots are at it again! Maybe if they actually read about wikileaks, they'll find that the media spin on this is just that-spin. The documents on wikileaks didn't reveal any "new" information or reveal sources. They just confirm what everyone already knew-that the "war" is going badly. It's not the Pentagon Papers or anything even remotely as secret.

As propublica writes,
"What's crucially different from the Pentagon Papers

In terms of important disclosures, it's not even close, with the historical importance of today's documents likely to be relatively minor, and that of the Pentagon Papers enormous. The most significant revelations today include the Taliban's limited use of heat-seeking missiles (which had been previously reported, though little-noticed), and the Pakistani intelligence service's constant double-dealing and occasional cooperation with the Taliban (long the subject of news stories, and even of some official complaints).

In 1971, in contrast, the Pentagon Papers revealed a host of important discrepancies between the public posture of the U.S. government with respect to Vietnam and the truth -- from the Truman administration, through the times of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.

These included Johnson's dissembling during the 1964 presidential campaign and in the run-up to the key decision in 1965 to send large numbers of combat troops, as well as confirmation of U.S. involvement in the 1963 coup against South Vietnamese premier Ngo Dinh Diem. And perhaps most famously, was the evidence that the administration had decided to escalate the war before the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave it the authority to do so.

There are many reasons for the differences between these two troves of documents, but perhaps the most important is that today's documents provide a "ground-level" view of the war, while the Pentagon Papers offered a classic "top-down" perspective. Wars are fought on the ground, and the perspective such a view provides can be invaluable. But many of a war's key secrets, especially in political terms, are generated at the top."

P.S. in case you didn't know, wikileaks also has another bundle of secret documents-which it has threatened to release if anything happens to Assange. Hooray for Assange! End the Military-Industrial complex!