AsburySkinsFan

And what I'm saying is that what you have described is NOT what the Bible teaches. Life is not the prepwork, life is the point of it all. God creates life, sin ****s it up, God sends his son to restore life. Death is the enemy. What is being taught in modern Evangelical churches is FAR from that. Which is my whole point, and to push the point further it's what makes the whole thing even MORE unconvincing. That after thousands of years they STILL can't get it right. Oh I'm sure they will say they have, but a brief reflection of their stated beliefs about things like death and what their Bible actually says about death will reveal two very different ways of thinking. But hey no biggie it's just about Jezus the rest don't matter...all you got to do is tell the ghost in the sky you're sorry for the **** you do each day and when you die he'll treat you like the champion you know you are!

Facts!! Whole chickens man! $5-$6 each feed a family of four off one, two if they're big eaters. Learn to break it down on your own and the possibilities are wide open. Right now poultry producers are making a killing off pre-cut packaged individual chicken parts. It's easy to break them down and a youtube vid will teach you how. Try buying ANY other protein as cheap and versatile. Do you salt prep your egg plant first? I've heard that if you salt them and let them rest then they will shed a lot of their water.

Ted Cruz is like every other white Republican Evangelical gunporn loving jackass, white people out there ACTUALLY killing people in ACTUAL mass shootings are not NEARLY as much of a threat as a black person holding a gun promising to defend himself. BTW, if you are white, Republican, Evangelical, or gun lover, and feel this doesn't reflect accurately, I don't give a ****. You are the company you keep.

Classical Christian Theology: Prior to sin (man's participation in evil) there was no death. As part of the punishment for that sin god allowed humanity to be affected by death (NOT just the processes of sickness and age, but the reality of death). Death entered into the world through one man and death was over come by one man. The promises throughout the entire NT are not a happy existence AFTER we die but a resurrection and defeat of death. That's simply what the text says. Augustine in his dualistic theology abandons resurrection, and embraces Heaven as the reward, thus death is a now a mechanism. But Augustine misconstrues the Bible to his own ends. Even a cursory reading of the Bible demonstrates that God never intended for death to affect humanity, and that death is what is prevailed against, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" If you are serious about your faith, I'd encourage you to examine what you believe in light of what's in your texts. As for your red herring arguments about the Hebrews and their vision of Eden/Exodus, you know full well that the point of those stories is not the stories but the teachings that undergird them. Christianity, is after all a Hebraic religion, and if you are going to stand in judgment of those who authored your very own sacred texts, then sir, I might suggest that you are creating your own religion, around a god of your own design. For your religion is nothing without the foundation it was built from, and if they are wrong about their theological principles then what leg have you to stand on? You have literally given yourself permission to remake the religion into whatever suits your interests. That, I do believe is the very definition of idolatry. As for Philippians 1, Paul is faced with his imminent death, he's coming to terms with the fact that he is going to be martyred soon by the Romans. This is a guy who is embracing his reality. Paul is NOT saying that death is a neutral thing or even a good thing. His hope is that through death he will be with Christ, you are seriously twisting his words if you think that Paul is somehow pontificating that death is somehow a benign thing. Death is the scourge of evil.

So Jesus telling you that death is the wage you receive from sin you read that then to mean death is neutral. Even though according to the authors death was only known to humanity because of sin. All that to you makes death a neutral event? Lemmie tell ya, that's HIGHLY counter intuitive. 2. It's fine, you're both wrong. 3. So the actual authors didn't know what they were talking about? It couldn't possibly be that you feel this way because it's you who misunderstands them? Nah, after 4,000 years you finally got it worked out.

Except the whole New Testament part about the wages of sin and all. And Augustine was wrong, he wasn't in keeping with what the Bible actually teaches in this regard, nor was he in line with anything that would resemble a Hebraic understanding of post death because Augustine either ignores or outright redefines the meaning of resurrection. Just sayin'

Oh so now I'm Ted Bundy. Gotcha. Why not engage your brain and ask a question before posting some bull**** strawman next time? Some who aren't failing in their basic logic centers would recognize that there is a difference in seeing death as neutral and seeing people as valueless objects as a sociopath, but I'm sure you just need your coffee before you can fully engage....(your past posting history notwithstanding). And landing on the moon wasn't a miracle it was an act of science and engineering. The fact that you don't know how to do it does not make it a miracle. I bet my wife's gallbladder surgery was a miracle too...you know if you ignore the whole surgeon.

A Christian theist should, it is after all the consequence of sin and wholly preventable according to the faith. As I sit here now post-faith I don't place an emotional value on death any more than I do a stop sign. It's a thing nothing more. It is scripture in the Bible that considers death bad or a consequence of evil. That you suggest theists don't view death as bad seems to suggest that you've accepted the punishment as normal. It also suggests that you're more Augustinian/Dante version of the afterlife where death is a neutral gateway to the reward/punishment. Which I would argue isn't what your Bible actually teaches. Fine, if there are so many miracles name some verifiable miracles.

*sigh*

I had a good weekend on my 23rd Anniversary weekend in Louisville with my wife. Obviously some drinks were more refined than others.

Awwww, it's soooo kewt watching @twa ****ing about being less coal dependent and knowing that the "Great State of Texas" is going renewable. LOL It's like San Francisco invaded and he's being held hostage.

You got liberal coming out of your mouf.

@twa be all like 🤯 WTF, I thought Texas was Uhmerican!!

Whew, every time this thread pops up my heart skips.

Interesting article. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/07/22/is-congress-rigged-in-favour-of-the-rich?al_applink_data={"target_url"%3A"https%3A\%2F\%2Fecon.st\%2F32LrBKZ"%2C"extras"%3A{"fb_app_id"%3A193926687345108}%2C"referer_app_link"%3A{"url"%3A"fb%3A\%2F\%2F\%2F%3Fapp_id%3D193926687345108"%2C"app_name"%3A"Facebook"}}

The Block or Charge meme on Twitter is hilarious.... but this one...OMG...and the comments.....🤣😂🤣😂

Fair point on 2001 Space Odyssey, I disagree that a broken computer suddenly makes it syfy. That said Trekkies who say that SW isn't syfy are just stupid. Star Trek is just Star Wars told by Berkeley professors. There's nothing specifically sciency that differentiates Trek from Wars. Ahhh well that explains it. 1sec.... Here you go...this should help.

I'm not bashful about admitting that. Some stories are told before their time. Have you even been on twitter?

1) we see that in Ep 1-3 the way Obi and Qui gon deal with some crowds of droids. And the Jedi were to serve, using the force on people seems hostile. Now why Darth uses his physical strength to lift the Captain (opening scene) rather than the force I dunno. 2. And yes, I think the biggest problem with using the force in Ep 4-6 was the technology for the story telling, that existed for Ep 1-3 and following but in the 70's and 80's would have looked silly.

Yeah seems a pretty thin distinction, I guess 2001 Space Odyssey would be science fiction, just set in the future as well, and Jupiter Ascending. Oddly enough Star Wars isn't in the future. And I don't think of Jurassic Park as sci-fi. For me sci-fi is space/futuristic/time travel/future fantasy/adventure/horror etc. I'm not sure what I call JP or any of the awful sequels but not sci-fi.

Because they tend to gang up on you in pretty big ways. I will admit, the one thing that Ep 1-3 did was show a greater willingness to use the force than in 4-6.

Ouch! Well, that does make me feel a little bit better that those who were making the film knew it was ****. Space cowboys. I've never quite understood what people mean when they say "space opera". And why isn't science fiction appropriate? Is it because of the Force?

Honey teriyaki glazed cedar planked salmon on lemon slices, with grilled seared fresh green beans.