The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit
-
The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit[^] More Obamanation: Does any rational person honestly believe that a student in this school would have been prevented, say a year ago, from wearing a mask of, say Bush, in a skit?
The core issue is that it's not long enough ago since your forefathers dragged his forefathers into boats and enslaved them. So, everyone is worried that anything they do to make fun of Obama will be seen as racially inspired. This doesn't mean the Obama crowd is BEHIND such feeling. I am sure that if a child HAD been stopped from wearing a Bush mask, you'd be hard pressed to find Democrats stupid enough to blame Bush for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
viagra causes rainbows ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Anyway, didn't God flood the whole world?
Not if you read it carefully. The phrase 'the whole earth' is also used to talk about the area Cain was banished from. Adam and Eve were not the first humans, Cain was not sent to the moon, and the whole earth was not necessarily flooded, according to the bible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
viagra causes rainbows ?
You didn't know?
Christian Graus wrote:
Not if you read it carefully.
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. It seems fairly unambiguous. Or maybe the Bible is intentionally attempting to deceive its readers...?
Christian Graus wrote:
The phrase 'the whole earth' is also used to talk about the area Cain was banished from.
...yeah, sometimes I use the word 'potato' to mean 'DVD player'. Is this in the same way that they use the word 'disc' to mean 'ball', despite the fact that they have a different word for 'ball'?
Christian Graus wrote:
Adam and Eve were not the first humans, Cain was not sent to the moon, and the whole earth was not necessarily flooded, according to the bible.
But God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, it says so. There's a whole boring section devoted to it! And the Bible is very clear on the matter: it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and everything not on the ark died: 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
viagra causes rainbows ?
You didn't know?
Christian Graus wrote:
Not if you read it carefully.
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. It seems fairly unambiguous. Or maybe the Bible is intentionally attempting to deceive its readers...?
Christian Graus wrote:
The phrase 'the whole earth' is also used to talk about the area Cain was banished from.
...yeah, sometimes I use the word 'potato' to mean 'DVD player'. Is this in the same way that they use the word 'disc' to mean 'ball', despite the fact that they have a different word for 'ball'?
Christian Graus wrote:
Adam and Eve were not the first humans, Cain was not sent to the moon, and the whole earth was not necessarily flooded, according to the bible.
But God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, it says so. There's a whole boring section devoted to it! And the Bible is very clear on the matter: it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and everything not on the ark died: 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
As I said, the key thing to remember is that the phrase 'the face of the ground' represents the same thing as the area Cain was banished from. The other key thing is that knowing if the waters covered all the earth or not, is not really the core thing the bible is about, it doesn't particularly matter. And, don't forget, the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, we're reading translations.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, it says so
Actually, it doesn't. Gen 1 says that He created men and women ( plural ) and Gen 2 says He formed Adam and Eve, they are two accounts of two different things, with no indication of how far apart they were. Given that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years, this is hardly surprising. Later verses talk about there being other people about, also, obviously the people who were outside the garden all along.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
As I said, the key thing to remember is that the phrase 'the face of the ground' represents the same thing as the area Cain was banished from. The other key thing is that knowing if the waters covered all the earth or not, is not really the core thing the bible is about, it doesn't particularly matter. And, don't forget, the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, we're reading translations.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, it says so
Actually, it doesn't. Gen 1 says that He created men and women ( plural ) and Gen 2 says He formed Adam and Eve, they are two accounts of two different things, with no indication of how far apart they were. Given that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years, this is hardly surprising. Later verses talk about there being other people about, also, obviously the people who were outside the garden all along.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said, the key thing to remember is that the phrase 'the face of the ground' represents the same thing as the area Cain was banished from. The other key thing is that knowing if the waters covered all the earth or not, is not really the core thing the bible is about, it doesn't particularly matter.
There's only one way that the flood water can be fifteen cubits above the highest mountain, and that's if it covers the entire planet. There is no way of getting around gravity. And yeah, I think it DOES matter. I could easily write a book telling people that they have to be nice to each other, but nobody would listen because they wouldn't believe it to be the inspired word of God. People do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If it were to be so, God should at least show an understanding of the natural world beyond what would be expected of a mere mortal of the time. These aren't just mistranslations or misunderstandings, these Biblical stories show all of the sanity and restraint of fairy-tales.
Christian Graus wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. Gen 1 says that He created men and women ( plural ) and Gen 2 says He formed Adam and Eve, they are two accounts of two different things, with no indication of how far apart they were. Given that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years, this is hardly surprising.
So you think it's more likely that God just majicked some people into existence, lets them do their own thing, and then creates two new people for apparently no reason? Why does he need Adam's rib to create Eve? I mean, he created women beforehand, no sweat. Why would he create them, anyway, if he knew that they were going to be tempted by one of his own creations? Why did he create the serpent? None of it makes sense!
-
The core issue is that it's not long enough ago since your forefathers dragged his forefathers into boats and enslaved them. So, everyone is worried that anything they do to make fun of Obama will be seen as racially inspired. This doesn't mean the Obama crowd is BEHIND such feeling. I am sure that if a child HAD been stopped from wearing a Bush mask, you'd be hard pressed to find Democrats stupid enough to blame Bush for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The core issue is that it's not long enough ago since your forefathers dragged his forefathers into boats and enslaved them. So, everyone is worried that anything they do to make fun of Obama will be seen as racially inspired. This doesn't mean the Obama crowd is BEHIND such feeling. I am sure that if a child HAD been stopped from wearing a Bush mask, you'd be hard pressed to find Democrats stupid enough to blame Bush for it.
The core issue is that you're an ignorant git. Actually, and as always, the core issue is that you're intellectually dishonest (i.e. worse than a mere liar), but the phrase "ignorant git" is somewhat popular with your set.
-
Wow, the school principal did something? Then Obama MUST be a bad president!
-
Sorry...
-
Sorry...
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sorry...
I doubt it. "Sorry" implies a knowledge of what you did to offend and a commitment to not doing it again.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I know I'm a crappy person, and I don't blame you for not liking me, but I need to know that I can fix people if I really try.
-
The core issue is that it's not long enough ago since your forefathers dragged his forefathers into boats and enslaved them. So, everyone is worried that anything they do to make fun of Obama will be seen as racially inspired. This doesn't mean the Obama crowd is BEHIND such feeling. I am sure that if a child HAD been stopped from wearing a Bush mask, you'd be hard pressed to find Democrats stupid enough to blame Bush for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The core issue is that it's not long enough ago since your forefathers dragged his forefathers into boats and enslaved them.
That actually would not include Obama.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit[^] More Obamanation: Does any rational person honestly believe that a student in this school would have been prevented, say a year ago, from wearing a mask of, say Bush, in a skit?
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Can one dishonestly believe?
One would image not. And yet, "liberals" and 'atheists' (and "Darwinists," especially those called "theistic evolutionists") manage to pull it off all the time.
Well, no, one cannot; one either believes or does not believe a thing.
Ilíon wrote:
And yet, "liberals" and 'atheists' (and "Darwinists," especially those called "theistic evolutionists") manage to pull it off all the time.
That would be pretending to believe, which, while dishonest, is not believing. Are you saying that "liberals", 'atheists', and "Darwinists" (especially those called "theistic evolutionists") really believe all that you believe, but are pretending not to? Are being dishonest? To what end? Why would they perpetuate this charade?
Bob Emmett
-
I know I'm a crappy person, and I don't blame you for not liking me, but I need to know that I can fix people if I really try.
-
viagra causes rainbows ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Anyway, didn't God flood the whole world?
Not if you read it carefully. The phrase 'the whole earth' is also used to talk about the area Cain was banished from. Adam and Eve were not the first humans, Cain was not sent to the moon, and the whole earth was not necessarily flooded, according to the bible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
He said virga, not viagra. :laugh: Virga: Light wispy precipitation that evaporates before it reaches the ground (especially when the lower air is low in humidity)
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
-
Well, no, one cannot; one either believes or does not believe a thing.
Ilíon wrote:
And yet, "liberals" and 'atheists' (and "Darwinists," especially those called "theistic evolutionists") manage to pull it off all the time.
That would be pretending to believe, which, while dishonest, is not believing. Are you saying that "liberals", 'atheists', and "Darwinists" (especially those called "theistic evolutionists") really believe all that you believe, but are pretending not to? Are being dishonest? To what end? Why would they perpetuate this charade?
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
one either believes or does not believe a thing.
Really? I frequently go with "I don't know". I mean, what's so frackin important about believing or not believing. For must things, they are what they are regardless of what anyone believes, so what's the point? I see these video interviews from so called journalists all the time asking people in the street things like, "do you believe aliens exist?" Who gives a frack what that person believes, aliens either exist or don't regardless of what people believe. end rant. Wasn't aimed at you, not personal, I just have a thing about this, um, thing. :laugh:
-
Well, no, one cannot; one either believes or does not believe a thing.
Ilíon wrote:
And yet, "liberals" and 'atheists' (and "Darwinists," especially those called "theistic evolutionists") manage to pull it off all the time.
That would be pretending to believe, which, while dishonest, is not believing. Are you saying that "liberals", 'atheists', and "Darwinists" (especially those called "theistic evolutionists") really believe all that you believe, but are pretending not to? Are being dishonest? To what end? Why would they perpetuate this charade?
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Well, no, one cannot; one either believes or does not believe a thing.
Personally, I try to accept as little as possible on belief. If I can't personally verify the truth of something, it's nice, at least, to understand exactly what arguments there might be in favor of accepting something as true, and those that would lead one to reject it as false. A lot of time doing that will lead one to saying, "I don't know and there doesn't seem to be good evidence for it or against it." Not confusing knowing with believing, of course, interferes with hating everyone who disagrees with you, but I find that less of a problem than some folks might think it would be.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I know I'm a crappy person, and I don't blame you for not liking me, but I need to know that I can fix people if I really try.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Well, no, one cannot; one either believes or does not believe a thing.
Personally, I try to accept as little as possible on belief. If I can't personally verify the truth of something, it's nice, at least, to understand exactly what arguments there might be in favor of accepting something as true, and those that would lead one to reject it as false. A lot of time doing that will lead one to saying, "I don't know and there doesn't seem to be good evidence for it or against it." Not confusing knowing with believing, of course, interferes with hating everyone who disagrees with you, but I find that less of a problem than some folks might think it would be.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Belief is moral. Knowledge is filthy humanism. ;)