User Profile: Dave

Dave

Member Since: October 12, 2010

Comments

123
  • [12] December 8, 2014 at 11:39pm

    @WarMunger_Al:
    it is a level of “cowardice” for a lot of people. you have to remember that the Jews by then were probably malnourished, worn out, etc. and the Germans would do everything they could to give the appearance that any attempt at revolt would be useless. so chances are they wouldn’t be up to the task physically and even if they were they probably didn’t think it was possible. so many of the more courageous people instead made attempts to get themselves and as many others as they could out of the camps.

  • [7] December 6, 2014 at 12:15am

    @independent_az
    actually that would be incorrect. the purpose of “freedom of religion” is to avoid what happened in great britian where the government was in charge of the church. this is what was meant by the phrase “separation of church and state” until a few decades ago. it was never meant the other way around.
    this is evident by the fact that 3 days after Jefferson wrote his “separation of church and state” letter he attended church in the government building (which would be contrary to the modern view of “separation of church and state”)

  • [3] October 21, 2014 at 1:43pm

    “God also “intends” for women to wear hats in church or suffer having their head shaved. He also wants them to be completely silent in church.”
    funny if i remember correctly the bible says a woman’s hair is her ‘covering’.

    “Also, God commands women to dress modestly, and she’s looking a little bare there. No braided hair, no pearls, no “costly array.””
    she doesn’t look like she is trying to ‘flaunt’ her wealth. and she did dress fairly modestly for what she was doing (you don’t want to wear something that restricts your movements when you are attempting to do something that requires a lot of movement.

  • [3] October 21, 2014 at 1:38pm

    ” Dancing was a way of provoking sexual feelings, and stirring those chemicals that make sex, next! ”
    tell that to king David who danced (almost naked i might add) praising God when the ark was returned.

  • [4] October 13, 2014 at 7:47pm

    that is a very good question. however i have heard stories of “femanazies” that get offended when guys do things like holding the door for them.

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 5:22pm

    @booger71: actually there are no US flags on the moon. Every flag that was placed on there has long since been bleached completely white

  • [3] August 29, 2014 at 9:29pm

    actually non-denominational = don’t want to limit ourselves to one denomination. some non-denom churches are not godly, but there are also many that are.

  • [3] August 29, 2014 at 1:51pm

    i don’t know, if you ask me not enough churches are willing to talk about what the bible says about sex. if they did maybe then we wouldn’t have so many people who say they are christians but then go sleeping around.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 22, 2014 at 4:11pm

    except they are not a public business… they are privately owned so they are by definition a private business.

  • [5] August 21, 2014 at 2:33pm

    “FFRF does not hate god. FFRF thinks god does not exist. You can’t hate something if you don’t think its real.”
    well then they and other anti-theists sure do show a lot of hate for something they don’t hate…

  • [5] June 24, 2014 at 8:53pm

    so then by your logic you must be a Christian too.

    making baseless generalizations is fun.

  • June 20, 2014 at 6:05pm

    “if you adhere to it strictly, one could only conclude that there is no god”
    that is if you only adhere to science, but then again if you just believe what can be proved by the scientific method then you are a fool and fall prey to the same circular logic Christians are said to have.

  • June 20, 2014 at 5:56pm

    you mention that they take a “community” with them and that is true, however as there is no equvalent state side why should there be one while deployed? after all “atheism isn’t a religion” and so would not have a form of “religious adviser/teacher” the closest thing they would have is psychiatrist which the military gives access to.

  • June 20, 2014 at 12:52pm

    creationism shouldn’t be taught in science class as it isn’t science.
    now before people start misunderstanding let me say that i personally do believe in creationism. however i also understand that creationism by its very nature cannot be science. science is the study of naturally reoccurring events while creationism claims a supernatural one time event happened. so we can see that the box science is in doesn’t cover what creationism claims.
    if our society stopped falling prey to scientism (not to be confused with scientology) i believe that a lot of headache with the creationism vs evolution debate would be solved.

  • [1] June 20, 2014 at 12:32pm

    the problem with this creationism vs scientism debate is both sides are falling prey to what is known as “scientism” (not to be confused with Scientology).

  • May 19, 2014 at 5:01pm

    @Harry: i’ve seen many excuses including, “it is only saying that its a sin for heterosexuals to engage in homosexual sex” which doesn’t make any logical sense, “Jesus was gay” ignoring cultural context, “we don’t follow the old testament” this ignores the fact that for the first hundred years of Christianity the OT was the scriptures (yes we don’t “need” to follow the laws of the OT, however how can a person say “i love God” but then ignore what he commands?)

    you mistake “concurring the sin of homosexuality” means that you become heterosexual, but that isn’t the case (though i think can end up happening in some cases). the sin isn’t being attracted to someone of the same sex, it is lusting after them (and acting on said lust) which is a choice.
    if you ask me a bunch of the problems our culture faces would be fixed if it no longer viewed celibacy as a bad thing.

  • May 19, 2014 at 3:32pm

    @ Harry:
    you say that im twisting scripture because i’m explaining the historical context of the verse, but taking others only at face value. so i ask that you then explain the historical context of the verse and how it doesn’t apply to us. after all i am open to being shown to be wrong.

    and i think you are misunderstanding me. the sin(s) someone struggle with develop (for lack of a better word) and change over time. they don’t choose what sin(s) they end up struggling with it, nor are they born with it. and that sin is different for everyone, for example lets take the sin of lust… there are many who stuggle with it daily (i will admit i am one of those), it doesn’t mean we were born that way nor did we choose it, however we do choose to either defeat or be defeated by that sin.

  • May 19, 2014 at 3:06pm

    you like to pass around “sodomy” a lot, however i just did some research and no where does the bible actually mention sodomy. instead what generally is translated into “sodomite” is the word meaning “temple prostitute”.

  • May 19, 2014 at 2:41pm

    @ HarryPotter: there is no one born a homosexual just like no one is born a murderer, pedophile, adulterer, liar, thief, etc. however everyone has a sin that is their ‘struggle’. for some it may be lying, and for others it may be homosexuality.

  • May 19, 2014 at 2:30pm

    @HarryPotter: just because you are a pastor doesn’t mean you are a christian. if you are living in unrepentant sin you cannot be a Christian as “one cannot serve two masters”.
    ~divorce isn’t a sin if done for certain resons (i.e. sexual immorality)
    ~it isn’t a sin for there to be “powerful women” after all one of the judges (leaders of Israel before it had a king) was Deborah a woman. so why would God have a woman be the leader of his nation if it was a sin?
    ~to understand the verse talking about women shouldn’t speak in church you have to take it in context (not just the context of the chapter, but in the context of who it was written to). the verse was part of a letter to a specific church and in that time they followed the tradition of having women and men sit on different sides of the room during “service” this part was added to the letter in order to correct a problem that was going on where women were interrupting what was going on to ask questions to their husband (that may or may not have anything to do with what was being said) so this was to help bring order to the church service.
    ~people may have cited the bible to go against interracial relationships, but then again they also used it to commit murder, doesn’t mean they were correct. the part that was used told the Jewish people not to marry certain groups of people (which God also told them to wipe out from the face of the earth). however he did say that they could marry other groups (specifically c

123