I Can See Trouble Ahead For The Tories.
Politics0 min ago
A New Thread For Scaredy Cats And Other Guests.
51 Answers
So, to save popping from one thread to the other, by special request from Mibs, let's continue on this one, where blurring is not only allowed but encouraged.
And no stars are given.
And no stars are given.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
(continued)The aforementioned conditions are, to me, not isolated pieces of evidence, but it rather like looking down on to a large jigsaw puzzle, and all around I can see pieces forming that have the right shape to eventually come together perectly. They are not together yet, but they are forming and moving, and the eventual outcome is only a matter of time.
Take for example, the moves twards a one world government, and a one world religion?
The evidence of this happening is here, and now, but not yet.
Now, I said earlier that time is of the essence, and it is, so forgive me for leaving this post as it is, until I get your further responses.
By the way, Monk, thanks for the assurance that you don't actually believe I am a thicko.
My nerves are shattered waiting for Waldo to spring his trap!
Take for example, the moves twards a one world government, and a one world religion?
The evidence of this happening is here, and now, but not yet.
Now, I said earlier that time is of the essence, and it is, so forgive me for leaving this post as it is, until I get your further responses.
By the way, Monk, thanks for the assurance that you don't actually believe I am a thicko.
My nerves are shattered waiting for Waldo to spring his trap!
chakka35 - Regarding eyewitness accounts, I seem to recall that Hans Kung, R.C. priest and author of, "On Being A Christian," and lecturer at Tubingen University in Germany, dealt with this very subject.
Although I disagree wit him on some subjects, I respect his scholarship regarding the overall reliability of the gospel accounts, whether or not they were written by a guy named Mark or not.
However, I respectfully bow to any additional information that you have that negate Kungs claims, and would consider it carefully.
Got to go and find a sandal or a gourd for Occy!
Although I disagree wit him on some subjects, I respect his scholarship regarding the overall reliability of the gospel accounts, whether or not they were written by a guy named Mark or not.
However, I respectfully bow to any additional information that you have that negate Kungs claims, and would consider it carefully.
Got to go and find a sandal or a gourd for Occy!
Waldo - Jesus said let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.
That's OK if you know somebody personally who would to the best of your knowledge, never tell a lie. But how to prove such in court, to complete strangers? Therefore Occys suggestion of a statement, along with the holy book covers all of the bases - don't you think?
That's OK if you know somebody personally who would to the best of your knowledge, never tell a lie. But how to prove such in court, to complete strangers? Therefore Occys suggestion of a statement, along with the holy book covers all of the bases - don't you think?
I have absolutely no objection to Octavius' plan whatsoever (and, as far as I know, there's no suggestion that Christians should no longer swear on the Bible (if only there were a God I could be sent to hell for eternity for my impudent lying and entrapment, eh?)).
However, I seem to recall someone telling me that they didn't pick and choose, and yet Jeebus quite clearly forbids it. Even Christian commentaries regarding this prohibition are quite clear that it means, as it says, 'don't swear oaths'.
Matt:
5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
However, I seem to recall someone telling me that they didn't pick and choose, and yet Jeebus quite clearly forbids it. Even Christian commentaries regarding this prohibition are quite clear that it means, as it says, 'don't swear oaths'.
Matt:
5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Waldo - I take your point but it is a bit hair splitting isn't it?
How often in the vernacular do people take a quite unnecessary oath to add strength to their argument?
"May I drop dpwn dead if ......."
"On my mothers grave ........."
"On my little girls life ........."
"As true as I'm riding this bike ......."
"Cross my heart and hope to die ....."
There is, I suspect a big difference in taking such names in vain, (apart from the bike), and emphasising the seriousness of a testimony in a court of law.
I've not checked, but I'm sure the Christian sages will have an answer to this one.
My answer is for the moment, that if I knowingly and willingly err regarding this matter, than I have crossed a line and sinned. But whilst the jury is out on this matter, I can, with a clear conscience, swear an oath in a court of law without incurring the wrath of God.
If later on, somebody posts me link to sway me one way or the other, then in possession of that knowledge, I would in future be in he wrong, quite clearly for takng such an oath, or, alternatively, do so with a clear conscience.
How often in the vernacular do people take a quite unnecessary oath to add strength to their argument?
"May I drop dpwn dead if ......."
"On my mothers grave ........."
"On my little girls life ........."
"As true as I'm riding this bike ......."
"Cross my heart and hope to die ....."
There is, I suspect a big difference in taking such names in vain, (apart from the bike), and emphasising the seriousness of a testimony in a court of law.
I've not checked, but I'm sure the Christian sages will have an answer to this one.
My answer is for the moment, that if I knowingly and willingly err regarding this matter, than I have crossed a line and sinned. But whilst the jury is out on this matter, I can, with a clear conscience, swear an oath in a court of law without incurring the wrath of God.
If later on, somebody posts me link to sway me one way or the other, then in possession of that knowledge, I would in future be in he wrong, quite clearly for takng such an oath, or, alternatively, do so with a clear conscience.
Naomi - look back on this thread and see what a busy day I've had, so forgive me for being a little brain dead, as I try to return serve from Ace players, and I'm stood on my own on the baseline.
I thought Clanad would have come and played doubles, but I think he's still fretting about the Obamas and clearing away the Kentucky fried chicken wrappers from their room.
And all you've had to do all day is serve cheese pie and mash to gangs of schoolkids. I admire you for holding the job down though.
I thought Clanad would have come and played doubles, but I think he's still fretting about the Obamas and clearing away the Kentucky fried chicken wrappers from their room.
And all you've had to do all day is serve cheese pie and mash to gangs of schoolkids. I admire you for holding the job down though.
