Thank God for the brave man who was willing to take the bullets for all those poor kids.
A true Christian Martyr.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864
Quote
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - An unemployed man accused of opening fire with a shotgun and killing two people at a Unitarian church apparently targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal social policies, police said Monday.
Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV said a letter had been been recovered from the SUV of Jim D. Adkisson, 58, by investigators seeking clues about the motive behind the attack. Authorities said he was an apparent stranger to the Tennessee church where gunfire punctuated a children's performance based on the musical "Annie." Two people were killed and seven wounded Sunday.
"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that and his stated hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said at a news conference.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
No children were hurt, but five people remained in serious or critical condition Monday. A burly usher who died is being hailed as a hero for shielding others from gunfire Sunday at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. Witnesses said some of the men present tackled a man who pulled a shotgun from a guitar case before at least three blasts rang out.
Adkisson, who is charged with first-degree murder, remained jailed Monday under "close observation" on $1 million bail, authorities said.
The Unitarian-Universalist church promotes progressive social work, including advocacy of women and gay rights. The Knoxville congregation also has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site.
'Had 76 rounds with him'
Owen said the letter indicated Adkisson, who neighbors said had previously worked as a truck driver, did not expect to leave the church alive. He added the man also reported having no family or next-of-kin.
"He certainly intended to take a lot of casualties," Owen said. "He had 76 rounds with him."
Police said Adkisson carried a 12-guage semiautomatic shotgun into the church in a guitar case, but it appeared no specific person was targeted in the church. A search of his house also turned up a .38 caliber handgun, Owen added.
Investigators were reviewing several home video recordings of the children's performance for any evidence. Owen said police don't plan to release those videos and they did not make public a copy of Adkisson's letter.
Unitarians have roots in a movement that rejected Puritan orthodoxy in New England. Although the outlook and beliefs of individual Unitarian churches can vary dramatically, most congregations retain a deep commitment to social justice, which has led them to embrace liberal positions over the years. Unitarians were among the first to ordain women, support the civil rights movement and back gay rights.
The shooting started as about 200 people watched a show put on by 25 children.
Church member Mark Harmon said he was in the first row when he heard "an incredibly loud bang." He thought the noise was part of the play, then he heard another bang and saw a woman bleeding as he dove for cover.
"It seems so unreal," Harmon said.
Victim 'took the blast'
Church members praised Greg McKendry, 60, who died as he attempted to block the gunfire. Barbara Kemper said that McKendry "stood in the front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest of us."
Kemper said the gunman shouted before he opened fire.
"It was hateful words. He was saying hateful things," she said, refusing to elaborate.
"Greg McKendry was a very large gentleman, one of those people you might describe as a refrigerator with a head," said church member Schera Chadwick. "He looked like a football player. He did obviously stand up and put himself in between the shooter and the congregation."
A second victim was identified as Linda Kraeger, 61. She died at a hospital hours later, Kenner said.
Officials said Adkisson was arraigned Sunday night and faces his next court appearance Aug. 5.
Other Unitarian congregations held tearful services afterward. At a packed Westside Unitarian Universalist Church in suburban Farragut, congregants prayed, sang and consoled each other.
The shooting follows a December 2007 spree in which a man shot four staff members at a missionary training center near Denver, Colo., killing two, after being told he couldn't spend the night. About 12 hours later and 65 miles away in Colorado Springs, police say the 24-year-old man fatally shot a parishioner at a megachurch and wounded four others before killing himself.
btw, i'm sure most know this, but Unitarian Universalist is not "Christian". therefore, this was not a Christian congregation. a terrible tragedy nonetheless.
QuoteUnitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal religion characterized by its support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.
Both Unitarianism and Universalism trace their origins to Christian Protestantism and thus Unitarian Universalism has its historical roots in the Christian faith. But by the time they decided to combine their efforts at the continental level, the theological significance of these terms had expanded beyond the traditional Christian understanding. Today’s UUs appreciate and value aspects of other religions ranging from Judaism to Jainism. Although Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions, such as Sunday worship with a sermon and the singing of hymns, they do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians nor do they necessarily subscribe to Christian beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
consider...
Quote1. Source of Authority. The UUs deny the divine inspiration and absolute authority of the Scriptures. They claim the Bible was merely the creation of men, and therefore, the Bible contains many "inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and errors." They substitute human reason for revelation as their source of authority, and believe there are no absolute or infallible guides, including reason. [HJB] In fact, UUs desire a world religion that "draws from and honors the teachings of all of the great religious traditions."
2. Trinity. The UUs deny that one God exists in three Persons. Instead, they claim that Trinitarian doctrine was added by the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. [HJB]
3. God. The UUs hold a variety of liberal views about God: Some do not believe that He is a Person, but instead claim He is an impersonal spirit, a natural force, or a principle. Some even claim that He is a created being, not supernatural. Others even deny His existence completely.
4. Jesus Christ. The UUs deny the deity of Christ -- that He is not God and Savior, but only a good man and teacher. They claim that the apostles and other Christian writers added to the Scriptures the teachings concerning Christ's atonement for sin.
5. Salvation. The UUs teach that the essence of salvation is character development ("deeds not creeds"), rather than faith in Jesus Christ alone -- the "social gospel" reigns supreme in UU. This belief allows every person to do whatever is right in his own eyes as long as he is sincere about it (including homosexual behavior -- UU became the first denomination to call for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages [Associated Press:6/25/96]; as early as 1970, UUs called for an end to discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals, and in 1980, UUs resolved that homosexuals should be ordained.).
6. Hell. The UUs hold the "universalist" belief that no one will be eternally condemned. They, therefore, deny the existence of hell, claiming it is unreasonable for a loving God to send people to a place of eternal torment. They believe that we suffer the consequences of sin in this life only. [HJB]
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/unitari.htm
also, consider...
Quote...only 9.5% of Unitarian-Universalists describe themselves as some kind of Christian. Members of UUA churches describe their theological perspectives in various ways. A recent internal UUA survey of over 8,000 members showed that roughly 46% considered their own theological perspective to be humanism and 19% were earth-centered. Mere theism describes 13% of them and 6% of them prefer mysticism.
http://www.ontruth.com/uua.html
btw, in the most respectful way possible, i could care less if John Adams or any other President was or was not a UU.
# 4 above is the real kicker. compare that to the places Jesus claimed he was God...
The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:57-59)
"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)
also, in response to #6... according to Jesus, hell is a real place of eternal condemnation...
"Hell (the greek word "gehenna") occurs in the NT twelve times - eleven on the lips of Jesus." (John Piper, "Desiring God", page 58) (my note: UU's have good reason to not believe Jesus as they don't see him as God in flesh while on earth - see # 3 above).
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones into the eternal fire..."
Matt 25:41
so - the point is UUs are UUs, not Christians. sure, they had Christian roots as an opposing movement to the Great Awakening of the 1700s, but calling them Christians now would be like calling Christians "Jews" - since our Christian faith had its origination in the Judaism of 2000 years ago. ...or calling Muslims "Christians" - Islam derived from Christianity 1400 years ago.
I don't disparage anyone for their beliefs unless it results in harm to others but with the information that I have read I believe there are serious grounds whether to consider this belief system "Christian".
QuoteUnitarians
A Liberal Protestant sect which holds as it distinctive tenet the belief in a uni-personal instead of a tri-personal God.
Name and doctrine
In its general sense the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian; in its present specific use it is applied to that organized form of Christianity which lays emphasis on the unity of the personality of God. The term seems to have originated about 1570, was used in a decree of the Diet held in 1600 at Lecsfalva in Transylvania, and received official ecclesiastic sanction in 1638. It supplanted the various designations of anti-Trinitarians, Arians, Racovians, and Socinians. In England the name first appears in 1682. It became frequent in the United States from 1815, although it was received unfavourably by some anti-Trinitarians, and omitted in their official titles by some congregations whose religious position it defined. The explanation of this opposition is to be found in the reluctance of the parties concerned to lay stress on any doctrinal affirmation. Historical associations account for the name Presbyerians, frequently applied to Unitarians in the British Isles, and Unitarian Congregationalists, used in the United States. No definite standard of belief is recognized in the denomination and no doctrinal tests are laid down as a condition of fellowship. The co-operation of all persons desirous of advancing the interests of "pure" (i.e. undogmatic, practical) Christianity is welcomed in the Unitarian body.
In granting this co-operation each member enjoys complete freedom in his individual religious opinions, and no set of doctrinal propositions could be framed on which all Unitarians would agree. The bond of union between them consists more in their anti-dogmatic tendency than in uniformity of belief. The authority of the Bible is in some degree retained; but its contents are either admitted or repudiated according as they find favor before the supreme, and in this case, exacting tribunal of individual reason. Jesus Christ is considered subordinate to the Father and, although the epithet Divine is in a loose sense not infrequently applied to Him, He is in the estimation of many an extraordinarily endowed and powerful but still a human religious leader. He is a teacher to be followed, not a God to be worshipped. His Passion and Death are an inspiration and an example to His disciples, not an effective and vicarious atonement for the sins of men. He is the great exemplar which we ought to copy in order to perfect our union with God gradually. This teaching concerning the mission of Jesus Christ is but the logical complement of the Unitarian denial of the Fall of Man and with similar consistency leads to the suppression of the sacraments. Two of these (baptism and Eucharist) are indeed retained, but their grace-conferring power is denied and their reception declared unnecessary. Baptism is administered to children (rarely to adults) more for sentimental reasons and purposes for edification than from the persuasion of the spiritual results produced in the soul of the recipient. The Eucharist, far from being considered as sacrificial, is looked upon as a merely memorial service. The fond hope of universal salvation is entertained by the majority of the denomination.
In short, present-day Unitarianism is hardly more than natural religion, and exhibits in some of its members a pronounced tendency towards Pantheistic speculation. The Church polity in England and America is strictly congregational; each individual congregation manages, without superior control, all its affairs, calls and discharges its minister, and is the final judge of the religious views expressed in its pulpit. In Transylvania the Church government is exercised by a bishop who resides at Kolozsvár (Klausenburg) and is assisted by a consistory. The episcopal title which he bears does not imply special consecration but mearly designates the office of an ecclesiatical supervisor.
www.newadvent.com
"a lamentable, dreadful, or fatal event or affair"
QuoteFor example we do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation either, so on the basis of this idea, most baptists could not be considered christian either.
I fully inderstand this doctrinal difference. But can a faith still be considered Christian when Christ is not considered divine? I know there is a lot of room here for semantics but just studying and even following many of the teachings of Christ can make one Christian-like and/or inspired. Baptists and Catholics may have their doctrinal differences but the divinity of Christ is not one of them. The Unitarians seem to have more in common with the Islamic and Jewish faiths when it come to the radical oneness of God. Of course, the differences in the perception of God are tolerated to a great degree by the Unitarians.
I know this isn't a religious thread so I will refrain from further comments.
he did not refer to the UU's rejection of the trinity doctrine. he referred to their rejection of Christ's claim as God.
and Stephen, you cite the examples of JW, Christian Scientists, New Age and Mormons...you are correct about the first 3 rejecting the trinity. that is why they are viewed as cults outside of Christianity. Mormons actually distort the trinity. and, along with a lot of other reasons, this is why they are viewed as a cult outside of Christianity as well.
but jaxnative, the logic behind your argument is strong and correct...
QuoteBut can a faith still be considered Christian when Christ is not considered divine?
the obvious answer to your rhetorical question is "no".
QuoteBut can a faith still be considered Christian when Christ is not considered divine?
i wanted to explore jaxnative's question a little further...
"Let's explore Christ's claim of deity in the New Testament. Jesus claimed to be God. This point is crucial to the overall argument. The logic behind this begins with the statement that truth about reality is knowable. There are some things of which we can be absolutely sure (i.e., 2+2=4). It is also true that the opposite of truth is false. The Law of Non-contradiction says opposite ideas cannot be both true at the same time and in the same place. That means all religions cannot be true if they teach opposites. Opposites cannot both be true at the same time or in the same place."
So - IF Christ claims he is God - and IF Christianity (the following,belief,receipt of and turning to Christ) is true - then any religion that reject's Christ's claim of divinity must be false. At the very least, even the simplest logician must admit that any religion rejecting Christ's claim of divinity is not Christ-centered...that is to say, is not Christian.
stephen - please flesh out for me what you mean by "wherein is the nature of the Divine?"...
sorry for not understanding immediately. use simple terms for my benefit too. :)
ok - this will take some time to prove my points - but yes, early Christians DID believe Jesus was "endowed with godhood". i will also show where they did consider him much greater than Moses. and i will specifically answer these questions...
QuoteThis is one of the central conflicts of Christian belief. Was Christ physically divine? Or was he spiritually divine? Or was he both?
If he was physically divine, then why bother with the human birth process? Why did he die?
actually, not I, but Scripture will. will take some time though. probably by tomorrow afternoon (we have an appt in the morning).
Sure, let's malign a faith of people, stating that they are not Christian, while the other "Christians" openly endorse hatred of foreigners, killing of innocent people in an illegal war, hatred of boys who like to kiss boys (but not priests who like to), destruction of the planet that GOD Himself made, hatred/uncaring attitude towards the poor (which Jesus Himself would disdain), the death penalty, and on and on. So, stating that a Universalist Unitarian is not a Christian, but the war-lovin', gay-hatin', non-charitable guy who goes to First Baptist is a Christian seems mighty dumb to me.
Quote from: Eazy E on July 29, 2008, 08:53:18 AM
Sure, let's malign a faith of people, stating that they are not Christian, while the other "Christians" openly endorse hatred of foreigners, killing of innocent people in an illegal war, hatred of boys who like to kiss boys (but not priests who like to), destruction of the planet that GOD Himself made, hatred/uncaring attitude towards the poor (which Jesus Himself would disdain), the death penalty, and on and on. So, stating that a Universalist Unitarian is not a Christian, but the war-lovin', gay-hatin', non-charitable guy who goes to First Baptist is a Christian seems mighty dumb to me.
easy Eazy. you seem to have a lot of pent up rage. no one has maligned any faith. Is Islam Taoism? No? why not? Please try and convince me why Islam is NOT Taoism.
If UU is Christianity, why can't Islam be Taoism? Is it maligning Islam to say that it is not Taoism? I certainly think not.
Btw, America (supposedly being a "Christian" nation) is the most charitable nation in the world. And to press that particular issue further, I think there was an article posted on here (I think it was before you joined us) that showed the results of a study that proved that your hated Baptists and other small-town conservative church-goers gave more than the big-city rich unfaithful who were not believers. Sad, but true.
Quote from: Driven1 on July 29, 2008, 12:47:51 PM
Quote from: Eazy E on July 29, 2008, 08:53:18 AM
Sure, let's malign a faith of people, stating that they are not Christian, while the other "Christians" openly endorse hatred of foreigners, killing of innocent people in an illegal war, hatred of boys who like to kiss boys (but not priests who like to), destruction of the planet that GOD Himself made, hatred/uncaring attitude towards the poor (which Jesus Himself would disdain), the death penalty, and on and on. So, stating that a Universalist Unitarian is not a Christian, but the war-lovin', gay-hatin', non-charitable guy who goes to First Baptist is a Christian seems mighty dumb to me.
easy Eazy. you seem to have a lot of pent up rage. no one has maligned any faith. Is Islam Taoism? No? why not? Please try and convince me why Islam is NOT Taoism.
If UU is Christianity, why can't Islam be Taoism? Is it maligning Islam to say that it is not Taoism? I certainly think not.
Btw, America (supposedly being a "Christian" nation) is the most charitable nation in the world. And to press that particular issue further, I think there was an article posted on here (I think it was before you joined us) that showed the results of a study that proved that your hated Baptists and other small-town conservative church-goers gave more than the big-city rich unfaithful who were not believers. Sad, but true.
Well, in my experiences, the Christians i Know are some of the most uncharitable people I know.
And, in looking at how First Baptist (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE) treates the homeless that literally surround their church, I am less than impressed.
And, yes, I do have rage because I see teachings of Christ distorted in the most disgusting ways by supposed "Christians" on a daily basis in this town.
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 12:58:59 PM
Actually, Sweden and Spain give higher per capita for real charity and development aid to other countries than the US, Driven.
That was true for a while, especially after WW2, when Europe was still rebuilding, but hasnt been true since the 90s. In fact, the US actually withheld UN dues which went wholly to world hunger funds over some political debate for several years.
You are referring only to government aid programs. Private individuals can give to charity also and it is usually far more effective. If you look at all charity, public and private, the US is far and away the world's leader in giving (if I am recalling the stats correctly).
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 01:24:08 PM
Unitarians have as much claim to Christianity as Pentecostals or any of the rest of us heretics belonging to the general Protestant heading that denies transusbstantiation, Apostolic Succession or the sacraments.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....
Mel Brooks!! I love it!
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 12:58:59 PM
Actually, Sweden and Spain give higher per capita for real charity and development aid to other countries than the US, Driven.
That was true for a while, especially after WW2, when Europe was still rebuilding, but hasnt been true since the 90s. In fact, the US actually withheld UN dues which went wholly to world hunger funds over some political debate for several years.
Additionally our own charitable donations are somewhat clouded by our tax laws, as endowing a foundation for the purposes of conserving a private fortune counts as 'charity'.
For example, the Vanderbilt family has donated the use of the Biltmore Estates to public viewing and as a museum. They retain the ownership of the Estates and total control of the family properties revert back to Vanderbilt control eventually. However while it is presently open, they pay no taxes on the real estate, and the several hundred million that constitutes the value of the endowment counts as 'charity'.
This kind of distortion led to the use of actual development aid monies to other countries as the gauge of charitability.
I also do not remember the study showing any particular group of Americans being more or less charitable based on faith. Do you remember the link?
Giving to the UN is political in and of itself so I would throw this oen right out the window.
Second Stephen are we talking cold hard cash, or goods, services, and actual human volunteers? IS this private donations or "country govenrment" donations. Big difference here also. Can you post the supporitng documentation for your comments, because this is news to me. As many people as hate us around the the world, they can almost w/o fail all agree we give more than anyone else. They may not always want what we give (democracy in Iraq comes to mind...sorry couldn't help myself! ;)) but they would agree we give more, especially in times of severe distress.
In any case on topic, I don't think being conservative or liberal had anythign to do with this, I think the guy was juts nuts.
QuoteObviously the status of their denominational credentials makes it ok to murder them in cold blood, since they were liberals.
So much for this damn thread. How in the hell did a rhetorical question about the doctrine of Christ's divinity and it's bearing on questions of core Christian beliefs come down to this idiotic level? When I left much earlier I thought it was leading to some interesting opinions and food for thought. Wrong!
I apologize also for bringing Monty Python to this thread... sorry... :-X
This nut job was perhaps the product of the tiny "independent" churches that claim to be Baptist or other orthodox faiths, but won't hold any of their teachings. They tend to fall in the farm and lumber belts and mountain reigons of the Country. The have no redeeming value to Christian or Universalism. While I think in his own sick way he was "doing the work of God". Gee where have we heard that before? I think the Universalist denial of the Diety is perhaps at the heart of whatever he was programed to think. But I doubt he ever read the Bible, or any other book for that matter, or he would have known better. No where did Christ say to Teach the World or Kill them ALL! Geeze.
On the flip side his life was probably puerile and under-dramatized. He lacked any sense of structure, character, or the Aristotelian unities. But not to worry, in prison he will finally meet someone special, someone VERY special, someone who won't file manslaughter charges.
OCKLAWAHA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/233106/america_the_most_charitable_nation.html?cat=37
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19409188/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm
Now that addressed, My whole point about this guy is no matter what he wrote in his suicide letter, he is nuts so you can only take it with a grain of salt. This is no different to me than the Son of Sam sayinf his neighbors dog told him to do it. In the end these poor people still went through this traumatic event and people lost their lives. It seems there may have been more going on too, I saw a report where his ex-wife was a member of the church and he had some issues in that corner.
Are you serious? How much do you hate your country? In REAL terms (that is actual $ amounts) the USA donates more. As with everything else, you can find the negative.... this small picture you are looking at does not take into account the INDIVIDUAL American's doantions, nor does it look at non-profit groups (such as churches) individual donations. We kick everyone elses rear end in the individual "giving" so who really gives a flying hooptedoo about this category? Or do you think the government should give more and the people give less? The peoples donations make it to the end, where the governments get skimmed more.
I guess a Europhile would love this accoutning since:
If a donor country accords a grant or a concessional loan to Afghanistan it is classified as ODA, because it is on the Part I list.
If a donor country accords a grant or a concessional loan to Bahrain it is classified as OA, because it is on the Part II list.
If a donor country gives military assistance to any other country or territory it is classified as OOF, because it is not aimed at development.
dudette please...
I didn't call anyone a name. I just stated the facts. The fact is America gives more in real terms, it even states so within the link you posted. Take this along with the fact individuals in America donate more individually, add to that ODA :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Development_Assistance
and then add to that the OOF and America far surpasses every other country out there.
Dude, Im sorry that the facts make you angry.
Nor do I think that the easter bunny is originally from oklahoma, either he is obviosuly from Germany!
I can't argue with you on any of that, All I can argue is that overall America far exceeds any other country as far as giving, period.
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 03:09:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Development_Assistance
is the money shot on that page, ug.
also simple math would make the point even clearer.
Europe and the US are about similar in size.
Add up the European total and compare it to the US total.
The UK and France alone equal the US amounts spent on Charity, despite the fact that there are 124 million people between the two countries, and 304 million in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Interesting bit of sophistry here. If you only consider development aid as charity, then the US is not as charitable. However, here in the real world all of the other charity counts and the US is the most charitable nation on Earth.
BTW, Stephen's original point in posting this story was to attempt to tar conservatives with the actions of this lone nut. The truth is no sane conservative is in favor of shooting anyone (except perhaps for terrorists) much less unitarians, regardless of whether or not they can be considered Christian. End of story.
So, do you consider the left similarly tarred by its association with the violent radicals of the 1960s (including Obama's friend William Ayers)? How about the left's associations with the communists who murdered people by the tens of millions in an attempt to advance their perverse ideology of ending religion and the redistribution of wealth?
Oh and speaking of assassination, I cannot recall how many times I have heard people on the left fantasize about this "solution" for Bush.
Sorry. Meeting with officials of foreign governments is not in any way analogous to condoning domestic terrorism or applauding murderous ideologues.
What does any of this have to do with some poor unfortunate people getting shot in KY by some WACKO nut job?
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 29, 2008, 06:35:53 PM
Sorry. Meeting with officials of foreign governments is not in any way analogous to condoning domestic terrorism or applauding murderous ideologues.
Talk about turning a sow's ear into a silk purse!
This event is a parable about hatred, both political and religious as well as the mental illness that extremist nationalistic rhetoric can cause in low normal individuals, wherein the additional pressures of a downwardly spiraling economy can be the tipping point in driving these people to become homicidal.
And remember, there's lots of people just like him waiting to snap. they just need the right combination of circumstances and a nice automatic weapon.
There are lessons to be learned here, but most will just turn a blind eye.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2008, 11:38:17 PM
Was his flesh the physical flesh of God?
Or was his Spirit?
What was it that made him actually Divine? What part or aspect of him was "Divine" and how would you explain that?
He was God, in the flesh and in spirit at the same time. He was God in every way imaginable - even while on earth and in the flesh. Fully and completely. We know this from Colossians.
Colossians 1:19 - "For it was the Father's good pleasure
for all the fullness to dwell in Him,"
QuoteIf he was physically divine, then why bother with the human birth process? Why did he die?
First, why bother with the human birth process?
One answer is to fulfil the prophecies set forth from LONG before. God always keeps His promises. It was common knowledge among the Jews that God had promised His Messiah would come from the line of King David. 2 Samuel 7:16 - "Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever." The Jews knew that David would die (he did) and so for God to fulfill his promise to the Jews, the Messiah would have to be a linear descendent of David.
Also, God HAD to come to earth through his Son to fufill the law of God and as a sin sacrifice.
Romans 8:3 - "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,"
No ordinary man could ever - and has never - keep the law of God. Therefore God had to come Himself to fulfill the law and make a way of salvation, "first for the Jews and then for the Gentiles".
And why did he die?
He died that we may have life. Before Christ, we are all "dead in our sins" (Eph 2:1) and under the condemnation of God (Romans 1:18) due to our inability to fulfill the law.
Christ made "propitiation for the sins of the people". That is, on the cross, he satisfied the just and holy wrath of God that God would have otherwise poured out on all of humanity. Through Christ He made a way for reconciliation of mankind to Himself for those who believe in Him (Acts 16:31), receive Him (John 1:12), repent from sin (Acts 3:19), continue in His word (John 8:31) and obey Him (Hebrews 5:9). And none of this through efforts of our own, but rather "by grace through faith" in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8 ).
Romans 5:11 - "And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."
I feel like I just got hit over the head with a bible.
Quote from: Lunican on July 29, 2008, 11:22:06 PM
I feel like I just got hit over the head with a bible.
lol
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 11:19:39 PM
So the human Flesh itself was made of the substance of God, and therefore divine?
Would that extend to his tears, fingernail clippings, cut hair and sweat?
fully man AND fully God, so yes.
I meant to ask the much earlier... what or who are "conservative bitters"?
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2008, 11:28:48 PM
So surely if the flesh of Jesus was not human but Divine, what would be the quality that would indicate its divinity?
Interesting question. One of the qualities would be miraculous healing, and that indeed did occur, according to the Gospels. In fact, because of Christ's flesh being divine, his clothes exhibited that same power. Case in point, read Mark 5:24-29 (NIV):
QuoteA large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.
good point CN.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 30, 2008, 06:57:31 AM
I meant to ask the much earlier... what or who are "conservative bitters"?
These are those voters who had or will have the unmitigated nerve to vote against the messiah Obama.
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2008, 12:03:53 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 30, 2008, 11:46:29 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 30, 2008, 06:57:31 AM
I meant to ask the much earlier... what or who are "conservative bitters"?
These are those voters who had or will have the unmitigated nerve to vote against the messiah Obama.
Just can't help being a viper can you?
Bitter is the name that ironically stuck when Obama characterized the poor and unemployed bitter people who cling to guns during the race in Pennsylvania. Originally it referred to democratic voters.
It has since come to mean the angry and not necessarily educated working class of ever political stripe. It doesnt include the non angry non bitter people though.
Ah... OK... I had not heard the term before... used in that context.
To paraphrase Barack, he referred to the "bitter people who live in small town America with no economic hope so they cling to their guns and religion". This was a great political move to win over small town and rural voters and a typically condescending remark from His Majesty, the anointed one. :D
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2008, 12:13:59 PM
its a pretty smart alecky term to use.
A vice I absorb from the archer corners of the blogosphere, Im afraid.
lol... I have my vices also...
McCain is unsuited to hold office but Barack Obama is? Good one. :D :D
???
I never condone killing someone except in wartime or self-defense so this clearly a heinous crime. I never defended it. Nice try throwing up a smokescreen though.
Quote from: RiversideGator on July 30, 2008, 02:54:36 PM
McCain is unsuited to hold office but Barack Obama is? Good one. :D :D
Based on the FACTS that:
1. McCain stated Czechoslovakia is still a country,
2. McCain stated that Iraq and Pakistan share a border
3. He doesn't know/recognize the difference between Sunni and Shia.
4. His CHIEF foreign policy advisor is one of the Project for a New American Century guys who was literally wrong in every prognostication and predicition for the war in Iraq and the WMD justifications for it.
These from a guy whose "expertise" is foreign policy.
5. He has been on the air
blantanly lying about this "Obama wouldn't visit the troops because cameras weren't present" when he knew it was false.
6. His former chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm,'s love of deregulation of banks can easily be viewed as one of the, if not the, major reason for our current economic mess.
In short, McCain is completely unsuited to hold office.
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2008, 03:43:54 PM
Gentlemen.
As pressing as this election may be, and as ferociously as I agree with one of you.
Can we please cofine the electioneering to a thread that doesnt stand over the grave of two dead people?
Havent enough innocent liberals died at the hands of this conservative Bitter that we can show some respect for the dead?
fair enough. i took the bait- my bad.
What was the purpose of this thread again?
Quote from: Driven1 on July 28, 2008, 06:38:41 PM
btw, i'm sure most know this, but Unitarian Universalist is not "Christian". therefore, this was not a Christian congregation. a terrible tragedy nonetheless.
QuoteUnitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal religion characterized by its support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.
Both Unitarianism and Universalism trace their origins to Christian Protestantism and thus Unitarian Universalism has its historical roots in the Christian faith. But by the time they decided to combine their efforts at the continental level, the theological significance of these terms had expanded beyond the traditional Christian understanding. Today’s UUs appreciate and value aspects of other religions ranging from Judaism to Jainism. Although Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions, such as Sunday worship with a sermon and the singing of hymns, they do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians nor do they necessarily subscribe to Christian beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
as I said...this was a terrible tragedy.
You often quote Bible Scriptures and make them work for what you believe...
You need to study more and deeper...
Quote from: Driven1 on July 29, 2008, 11:15:23 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2008, 11:38:17 PM
Was his flesh the physical flesh of God?
Or was his Spirit?
What was it that made him actually Divine? What part or aspect of him was "Divine" and how would you explain that?
He was God, in the flesh and in spirit at the same time. He was God in every way imaginable - even while on earth and in the flesh. Fully and completely. We know this from Colossians.
Colossians 1:19 - "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,"
QuoteIf he was physically divine, then why bother with the human birth process? Why did he die?
First, why bother with the human birth process?
One answer is to fulfil the prophecies set forth from LONG before. God always keeps His promises. It was common knowledge among the Jews that God had promised His Messiah would come from the line of King David. 2 Samuel 7:16 - "Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever." The Jews knew that David would die (he did) and so for God to fulfill his promise to the Jews, the Messiah would have to be a linear descendent of David.
Also, God HAD to come to earth through his Son to fufill the law of God and as a sin sacrifice.
Romans 8:3 - "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,"
No ordinary man could ever - and has never - keep the law of God. Therefore God had to come Himself to fulfill the law and make a way of salvation, "first for the Jews and then for the Gentiles".
And why did he die?
He died that we may have life. Before Christ, we are all "dead in our sins" (Eph 2:1) and under the condemnation of God (Romans 1:18) due to our inability to fulfill the law.
Christ made "propitiation for the sins of the people". That is, on the cross, he satisfied the just and holy wrath of God that God would have otherwise poured out on all of humanity. Through Christ He made a way for reconciliation of mankind to Himself for those who believe in Him (Acts 16:31), receive Him (John 1:12), repent from sin (Acts 3:19), continue in His word (John 8:31) and obey Him (Hebrews 5:9). And none of this through efforts of our own, but rather "by grace through faith" in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8 ).
Romans 5:11 - "And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."
As the Bible says God sent his SON to earth not himself....
You need to study more
QuoteHe succeeded in convincing the board to make them invisible to everyone except signed up members.
Lunican made this decision on his own. I found out about it a week afterwards.
Now continue on with your obsession...
Quote from: avonjax on October 28, 2008, 12:42:11 AM
You need to study more and deeper...
I agree. You sound like an expert. Any other suggestions?
Still more of the thumper arguments.
Crazy. One thumper kills some more religious people over religion, and then you people fight with each other over the imaginary people in the sky. Will people start getting killed from this site too?
Waaah thumper. Welcome to the site yourself.
Glad to see everyone's playing nice.....
really driven? really nomyths? please grow up and stop acting like kids. this isnt elementary school anymore.
I don't even know this guy and he just started out with calling me 'lefty' and shit. The guy is obviously a bully.
whatever, clearly nomyths and driven are incappable of growing up and acting mature. please, both of you, stop your stupid, mindless bickering. i dont care who started it, just stop it. this isnt the place for it. go to another website and argue, but not here. i think i am not the only one here who thinks that Metrojacksonville should not be associated with driven's and nomyths' style of 'debating'
Making an assumption as to who may or may not be behind someone joining the forum and taking part in the ongoing discussion, is irrelevant. It seems that the two of you buck heads on many of those issues. The idea is, be respectful of different views, opinions, etc. No name calling and stop to foolishness. It gets old, really quick.
Thanks JBM. I wasn't looking to get into it with anyone. This person just attacked me out of no where.
Quote from: Driven1 on November 02, 2008, 11:21:46 AM
Quote from: nomoremyths on November 02, 2008, 11:19:59 AM
I don't even know this guy and he just started out with calling me 'lefty' and shit. The guy is obviously a bully.
translated... "my good buddy told me to come to this site and start divisive, left-wing posts"
thats uncalled for driven
It is also uncalled for to call someone a "thumper"... :)
granted.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 02, 2008, 11:46:19 AM
It is also uncalled for to call someone a "thumper"... :)
true, good point troll
Thanks guys... It is difficult but we try and keep things civil. As you will see... there are many differing viewpoints around here. We have all managed to learn from each others points. You may disagree with Driven... but he believes everything he says and is most definately very intelligent and knowledgeable. If we just stick with the facts and not take things personal... all is well...
BTW... Welcome aboard!! :)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 02, 2008, 11:57:36 AM
Thanks guys... It is difficult but we try and keep things civil. As you will see... there are many differing viewpoints around here. We have all managed to learn from each others points. You may disagree with Driven... but he believes everything he says and is most definately very intelligent and knowledgeable. If we just stick with the facts and not take things personal... all is well...
BTW... Welcome aboard!! :)
thanks BT.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 02, 2008, 11:57:36 AM
Thanks guys... It is difficult but we try and keep things civil. As you will see... there are many differing viewpoints around here. We have all managed to learn from each others points. You may disagree with Driven... but he believes everything he says and is most definately very intelligent and knowledgeable. If we just stick with the facts and not take things personal... all is well...
BTW... Welcome aboard!! :)
its not that i disagree with what driven or nomyths are talking about, i just think that they can go about with more class...
I believe he beleives everything he says, BridgeTroll. Im just not so dumb as to believe what he says as well. This guy just started calling names out of the blue. That doesnt sound very intelligent. I mean fine. Disagree with my position. Im used to it. But don't attack me as a person. And why is this crap on here in the first place? Two stories about one group of religious nuts killing another group of religious nuts. How is this news?
Basically two bible thumpers, Stephendare and Driven1 boring everyone else silly with their magic verses revue.
Quote from: nomoremyths on November 02, 2008, 12:05:00 PM
I believe he beleives everything he says, BridgeTroll. Im just not so dumb as to believe what he says as well. This guy just started calling names out of the blue. That doesnt sound very intelligent. I mean fine. Disagree with my position. Im used to it. But don't attack me as a person. And why is this crap on here in the first place? Two stories about one group of religious nuts killing another group of religious nuts. How is this news?
Basically two bible thumpers, Stephendare and Driven1 boring everyone else silly with their magic verses revue.
What is with the name calling? Sounds like someone with no real argument.
Just calling it as I see it. Is this a Baptist website?
Quote from: nomoremyths on November 02, 2008, 12:12:54 PM
Just calling it as I see it. Is this a Baptist website?
Not at all... though you seem intent on making it one... :)
OK then. Why am I being attacked for not agreeing with your religious posters?
Quote from: nomoremyths on November 02, 2008, 12:43:01 PM
OK then. Why am I being attacked for not agreeing with your religious posters?
I am not attacking you. Sorry but from where I sit you are doing all the attacking. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are mistaken. Im not attacking anyone. I have responded to some namecalling. I stated my opinion about the religious content on the site. Its been backed up by others on the site and in private messages. Its offensive and none of you seem to care. Instead of dealing with the truth, the messenger is now the bad guy.
You are an idiot. Im a grown man, and unlike yourself, I don't have imaginary friends who tell me what to think or say.
This is going nowhere...I'm closing it down