User Profile: Alex


Member Since: May 11, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • July 25, 2014 at 11:32am

    The Muslims have been screaming and crying about us imposing our western views on them anyway. Fine, have your wish. I say, let them have their nonwestern genital mutilations and Sharia law. Yes, let us see how they like it when their oh so virtuous Muslim values get rammed down their own esophagi. Might as well allow them to be made to eat and swallow what they want. After all, ISIS IS the Islamic State and WE are the infidel, right? The only ones I worry and pray for are those who aren’t Muslims who are forced to be defiled by these Muslim swine. With ISIS in control, maybe now they will learn that our western views aren’t so bad.

    One silver lining in all of this is that with a new state forming in the center of the Middle East, perhaps the surrounding countries will have their attention turned to the caliphate forming. If they are the least bit protective of their own power, perhaps a war will start and they’ll be diverted to killing themselves and not us and the Israelis. Better them than us.

  • July 23, 2014 at 5:13pm

    Wasn’t that the thinking that was used when the country finally decided to put the Native Americans on reservations? I understand your intent, but I think we should have learnt by now that the reservation concept just doesn’t work well. Should we tread lightly? Of course. Minimize contact? Yes. Prevent them from ever making contact with the outside world? Absolutely not. You can’t make it impossible for a remote community to have some contact with the outside world. It is unrealistic. I think they would be better served if they begin the preparations that will help them to figure out how to maintain the most important parts of their civilization intact without hiding away and pretending the world doesn’t exist.

  • July 23, 2014 at 5:02pm



  • [5] July 23, 2014 at 4:43pm

    And yet here you are commenting on it all…

  • July 23, 2014 at 4:36pm

    What is there to learn here? Scientists were exploring the forest. Natives found the scientists, met them, and contracted the disease. What should they learn really? Not to exist?

  • July 23, 2014 at 4:32pm

    The Native Americans by in large were decimated by disease, not guns and swords. Since you seem intent on suggesting that a culture committed genocide, tell me this. Would the European viruses have magically become benign if when they came to America they had instead lived in an atheistic commune and believed in gay marriage?

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] July 23, 2014 at 3:28pm

    The natives found the scientists, not the reverse. The concept that having a greater immunity to some diseases makes us arrogant or evil is irrational.

  • [1] July 23, 2014 at 3:21pm

    Bravo. Well said.

  • [-1] July 23, 2014 at 3:16pm

    “It is the arogance of man to do something just becaus you can without thinking of the consequences.”

    Would YOU have thought about this consequence? I seriously doubt it. I guess that just means that you are arrogant and should just end it now, right?

    Cut out this collective guilt crap.

    There is no such thing as we here

    Responses (1) +
  • July 23, 2014 at 3:07pm

    Corrupt with viruses? Oh please, spare me the guilt trip. The fact is, we get exposed to a whole lot more stuff than they do, and we build antibodies to fight it. For heaven’s sake, we travel around the globe and are bound to develop immunity to a wider variety of diseases. I would say that our culture enables us to become more robust immunologically speaking. So yes, civilization has everything to do with this side effect.

    That said, I’m sure there are diseases native to the jungles that the natives have a better resistance to than we do.

  • [1] July 16, 2014 at 1:05pm

    The devil doesn’t need you to believe he exists for his ultimate aims are achieved. As long as he can gently nudge you in the general direction of misery, sin, and rebellion, he’s good. In that sense, he’s not particularly ostentatious or vain. He doesn’t need the publicity. The slow and steady damnation works just as well.

    The cartoonish caricature of the devil with the horns and tail who insanely laughs as he roasts people on an open fire serves the devil’s purposes quite well too. After all, if people can swallow the lie that the devil is a freak of nature with a ridiculous red suit, they won’t be looking for the real McCoy who comes looking much more tame and reasonable.

    The Book of Mormon gives us insight into some of Satan’s tactics:

    2 Nephi 28: 20-22
    20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

    21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

    22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

  • [1] July 15, 2014 at 7:20pm


    “Do you believe that God worked through the people who compiled the Books of the Bible?”

    Yes and no. I believe God worked through people to preserve what the people at that time were willing to receive from God, but I don’t believe what was preserved was all that was ever taught. Furthermore, I do not believe that God authorized the closing of the canon, but rather that it was man who decided he didn’t want any more.

  • [2] July 15, 2014 at 7:01pm


    You make a valid point. The Bible can be viewed as a living document that allows for adjustment, but then that begs the question: Why isn’t it still living? Why did historical Christianity close the canon? Isn’t it reasonable that God could add greater light and knowledge to what he already have?

  • July 15, 2014 at 6:48pm

    …creates the scriptures. (My sentence was cut off. :) )

  • July 15, 2014 at 6:42pm


    1. “Do you believe God worked through the people who wrote the various books in the Bible?”

    2. “Do you believe God made a mistake by choosing those people to write the various books?”

    3. “Do you believe God didn’t know how confused some people would be even after reading the Bible?”
    No. He knew people would be confused, but He wasn’t on the committee to decide what would go in it. The list of canonical books were chosen by a committee hundreds of years after the fact, and were included because they were the only ones we could confirm were considered authoritative by the earliest Jews and Christians. The committee did a great job with what they had to work with, but there was no way for them to compile a canon that could prevent 40000 different interpretations.

    4. “Finally, do you believe God made a mistake in having the Bible written by fallible people?”
    No. I just don’t believe the Bible contains all of God’s word. Look, I don’t have a problem in the world with fallible people writing down God’s word, but we have to be honest about that fact. It is my conviction that God DOES communicate with man. However, I don’t believe that it was ever possible or expected that a text could tell mankind everything they needed to know about God. It can get us started, but we must continue on with what we have received through diligence, obedience, and faith. In the end, the scriptures don’t create the Church. The Church cr

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] July 15, 2014 at 5:42pm


    With all due respect, even you don’t believe the whole Bible. That doesn’t mean that I believe it is fundamentally wrong. I believe what God tells me from the Bible, but I don’t worship the text. I worship the God who gave it, and who can enlighten me to understand and embrace the message He would have me receive.

    It is the Holy Ghost that enlightens the heart and mind to understand the truth of the Bible and to discern truth from error anyway. That is how we know.

  • July 15, 2014 at 3:41pm


    That is correct. The scriptures are an ongoing unfolding of God’s word. Jesus Christ spoke scripture, quoted previous scripture, but did not preclude further scripture from being added by those in authority who came after Him, like Peter, James, John, Paul, etc. And so it is with us. My point is that what constitutes “the scriptures” expands and should not have ended with what was compiled in our current Bible in the fourth century.

  • [3] July 15, 2014 at 3:10pm

    You won’t find me arguing against being convicted by God’s Word, but I honestly don’t think that is the issue here. The issue is how God’s Word is presented to us. We quote individual authors because while the message of the Bible is generally true and faithful, the books were written by many different authors in different languages, and with different ways of speaking. Though authoritative and binding, God did not write it. That is why we quote individual authors.

    The Word of God is what comes out of God’s mouth and is revealed to His servants the prophets and apostles, who write with man’s language that which will, when enlightened by the Spirit of Truth, convey to the soul the Word of God . The text of the Bible is merely a physical representation that suggests and teaches truth, but is not the truth itself. Without the Holy Ghost enlightening our understanding, the Bible text is inadequate.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-1] July 15, 2014 at 2:45pm

    Food for thought: When the Lord said, “thus saith the scriptures”, did He ever quote Peter, Paul, or James?

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] July 15, 2014 at 2:20pm

    I think what this pastor is proposing is a subtle, but perhaps a more accurate way of presenting citations from the Bible. After all, the Bible means books…not book. For example, we wouldn’t say, “The books (or collection of books) say, inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”, because clearly the books of the Bible actually DON’T say that. It is in Matthew’s account of the Savior’s words that we find that. No, instead, we would say, “In Matthew 25:40, the Savior said… ”

    Don’t get me wrong. I understand the hesitancy in not wanting to open the Bible up to pit one author against another, but you aren’t doing anyone a service by pretending the Bible is one book and not many.

    My conviction is that the Bible is authoritative, but that it was written using man’s corrupted language. Without a living revelation from God, however, it is liable to be misunderstood, misrepresented, distorted, and meaning taken away. For that reason, I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. Authoritative and inspired? Yes. Inerrant? No. Sufficient? No.

    Responses (4) +
123 To page: Go