Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Is there a link between abortion and catastrophes?
Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:54 AM PDT
Why was America attacked on 9/11? Why did so many suffer through Hurricane Katrina? Why has our country been plunged into the greatest economic catastrophe in decades?
Is there any connection between these three disasters and the legacy of Roe vs. Wade? Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, approximately 50 million innocent Americans have died in what should have been the safest sanctuary on earth: their mother's womb.
In Ezekiel 16:21, God says, "You slaughtered My children and sacrificed them to the idols." (NIV)
We have sacrificed our children to the idols of "a woman's right to choose" and "convenience." Can any country do that by the millions with impunity?
There are at least three victims in every abortion — the child who was to be, and the motherand father-to-be who aren't. Fortunately, the same loving God who condemns such violence against the unborn allowed his only Son, Jesus, to die a violent death on a cross for our sins.
Jesus died and rose again to prove His victory over sin and death. Now He extends nail-scarred hands in love to every woman and man who has ever been victimized by abortion and says, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened (with guilt and shame), and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28)."
To experience the forgiveness Jesus offers, a person must do three things:
— Repent or turn away from sin (Acts 2:36-38; 17:30).
— Believe that Jesus alone can save you (John 1:12; Acts 4:12).
— Receive Jesus as the Lord of your life because He died for your sins and rose again so that those who believe these things may be forgiven and saved (Romans 10:9-10).
God bless you all!
Greg Myers
Woodbridge
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Robb wrote on Aug 31, 2009 7:33 PM:
edumacation wrote on Aug 31, 2009 4:10 PM:
This is because most kids who are not wanted, yet not aborted in time, will end up on some public welfare dole or on some type of social institution for criminals.
We need abortion on demand to 8.99 months. How else can we stopp the "me me me"...I want another freebie too. Abort now so we can reduce crime and welfare payments in the future.
That should get the ball rolling "
ccinlodi wrote on Aug 31, 2009 3:04 PM:
1422 wrote on Aug 31, 2009 12:50 AM:
Just for you approving this article you should be fired. This sounds like something "The Onion" would have ran. "
edumacation wrote on Aug 30, 2009 4:15 PM:
These posts remind me of the preachers we keep reading about in the papers.
Garrido ["TheManWhoSpokeWithHisMind"]
Google [*} for more nutso conversations of a religious numbskull.
Okay, here is a hypothetical folks.
What event(s) do you think could be "correlated" with an Increase in not only abortion numbers but in the rate---across the USA?
MANY would like to see the abortion rate across many sub populations increase to support inefficient or unused birth control.
Many of us are tired of paying for all the welfare leeches who add nothing to society but crime, misery, more kids like themselves and taxes to pay them to do nothing.
Is anyone ready for the "big one" (California super earthquake)?
ROFL "
voter wrote on Aug 30, 2009 3:22 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 30, 2009 3:12 PM:
The United States of America must elect a Theocracy so that the clerics will then be able to approve building sites according to biblical prophesy. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 30, 2009 3:05 PM:
Contractors would not be allowed to replace a roof on a house, there would never again be a new house built anywhere in the Golden State. The risk. The evilness. The wickedness. If a contractor built someone a house and the man-made levee broke, he'd fry in hell forever due to the evilness!
If someone bought a house at a lower elevation from a dam and that dam broke, then what? That contractor should be put to death because he's EVIL! WICKED AND EVIL according to Rhodie. What would happen if someone were to move somewhere like just off Lower Sacramento Rd., and those flood basins should fill up and the excess flow into the neighborhood?
Rhodie's god will get them, smite them, kill them, kill the evilness. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 30, 2009 2:55 PM:
Now the evil people are the ones who profit says the anti-capitalist communist Rhodie. Profit, not river views, is the Axis of Evil to Rhodie. People who profit by selling groceries to sustain the victims in Rhodie's story would be evil. The power company that sells (at a profit) the electricity to keep the groceries cool in the victims' homes is evil - and so are the power company employees because they also profit. Stores that sell clothes at a profit to the hapless victims who need them are evil. Anyone who provides a service to others anywhere but in a location of certified eternal safety is evil.
Profit is the enemy.
Profit is evil if it is made if there is any risk to anyone, anywhere, according to Rhodie. New Orleans must be abandoned. California's earthquake prone coast must be abandoned.
Only people who transport others to sanctuary locations should be allowed to made a modest profit- so they can give it to the church.
Right Rhodie? "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 30, 2009 2:28 PM:
I addressed that a few posts down: "Most people live where they do out of necessity, that is where they can farm (sorry Voter), where they can provide for their family or where they can do what they can do to live." There were victims of Katrina. But I also believe there were villians there as well. The contractors and city council who rebuilt in the below sea level areas after the last time in 1965 with huricane Betsy. The measures that would have saved the homes, lives and livelihoods of so many people had been on the books to do for 50 years but put off for other considerations. These are the people who are responsible for much of the tradedy. "Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it" is apparently N.O. city motto. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 2:05 PM:
This has got to be the most absurd title I've ever seen. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 2:03 PM:
Rhodie: Do you think the people of New Orleans live there only because of pride and status? And in doing so they got what they deserved when New Orleans flooded? "
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 1:47 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 1:38 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 1:28 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 30, 2009 1:26 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 1:26 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 30, 2009 1:05 PM:
Your "greed" angle is something you added later. You said, "Like in the example I used of man who wanted the best view along the river. His children would be innocent victims of his evil..."
You can keep lying your face off now, but YOU typed those words. To you the man was evil for wanting "...the best view along the river..."
That is a cut and paste - YOUR fingers on YOUR hands pressed the keys that created that. Save your sanctimonious pronouncement that "MY" claims are "malicious".
YOU are the one who said the man who wanted the best view of the river was evil.YOU YOU YOU.
So now we have four choices for Rhodie; Ignorant, dishonest, evil or malicious.
None of this is a surprise. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 30, 2009 1:00 PM:
Have fun mocking me for believing people should be held responsible for their decisions and for thinking people who cost other peoples lives because of greed are not good people. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 30, 2009 12:59 PM:
When car makers who cut safty corners and it costs people lives don't we hold them responsible? Then why not individuals who act the same way?
for example: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/truck-van-accident.html "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 30, 2009 12:45 PM:
Billy seems to be leaving a key element out of my example and I can only guess that it is out of malice that he is so deliberatly leaving it out since I have said it several times. That element is **greed**. Most people live where they do out of necessity, that is where they can farm (sorry Voter), where they can provide for their family or where they can do what they can do to live.
I have never blamed them despite Billy's malicious claims. I do however think very poorly of people who build and rebuild (areas effected by Katrina have flooded horribly several times and should have been abandoned) on/in real risk areas simply out of greed. Take that town built straddling the fault line here in Ca. A builder who constructs and sells a house over this line is not a moral person because they know the real risk of damage or threat to life of those that live there. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 30, 2009 12:36 PM:
" Rhodie, don't transfer your belief system onto me. I don't "blame" anyone (and certainly not a supernatural being) for natural disasters."
WOW! Finally. I've been asking the same question for 8 days and this was the first time you answered it, Voter. You think no one bares responsibility when when lives are risked in high risk enviromental zones? Is that correct?
Rhodie wrote on Aug 22, 2009 2:46 PM:
" If someone builds a house on the bank of a river so he can have the best view and the river floods, is it God's judgement or man's folly? If man pollutes the enviroment to save a buck and the sea levels rise, is it God's wrath or our own greed? If a sheep wanders outside the pen to eat a patch of grass and wolves attack is it the shepard's fault?" "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 30, 2009 11:49 AM:
Furthermore, people are evil because, to earn a living, they commute to work in a car and cars have traffic accidents.
Rhodie expects you (and me), Voter, to blame his god for everything because he does. He thinks that a person who buys a home near the coast must be evil to want to see the ocean. A person with a cabin is evil because they enjoy the mountain air and the view, but a forest fire may consume it in decades to come - conclusive PROOF that they're evil. EVIL - his word. "
voter wrote on Aug 30, 2009 7:51 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 29, 2009 7:57 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 29, 2009 5:50 PM:
Thanks for comfirming what I thought. You don't want to blame the person who builds against the river, I believe you called them the victim, so you are left blaming God. No wonder you don't want to consider God as a reality, to you God is responsible when people do stupid things, like build against a river. "
rantraves wrote on Aug 29, 2009 7:55 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 29, 2009 6:56 AM:
Let's see, when did the valley last flood? I seem to remember a levee breach and flood out towards Tracy a couple of years ago, and Acampo flooded a few years before that, and then there was about 10 feet of water in Thorton back in when was it, about 1988? Lodi would flood almost every year except for the pumps that keep the drains running. And then they built Comanche Dam (with would NEVER fail - who ever heard of an earthen dam failure? In earthquake country? Ridiculous!) And still within human memory was a flood in Lodi in the 1950s, back when dinosaurs romaed the vineyards. And innumerable floods before that.
Yes, I remember Grandma Rubin telling me of when she was a girl, riding her triceratops through the flood waters to school.
But we all know, Rhodie, that what happened 50 years ago can't happen now! We have perfect, up to date levees! You did your research! "
snowridah wrote on Aug 29, 2009 12:11 AM:
danielh wrote on Aug 28, 2009 11:19 PM:
Abortion is but one tiny, single defect amongst numerous.
I think people prefer to be uneducated. "
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:58 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:54 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:51 PM:
Splitting hairs with you here, Voter, but there is a significant difference between "fact" and "truth". Especially when talking religious issues. "Facts" change according to what we know. It was a "fact" that a meteor killed all the dinos, but new theories are claiming a mixture of things. It was a fact that the coelacanth fish was extinct, until a fisherman caught one (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/extinct2007.html) Some people think ghosts are a fact other think it is a fact that they don't. Facts are subjective.
Truths are an absolute conviction in a reality. It is a truth that the sun will come up tomorrow. It is a truth that an incredible set of circumstances occured for us to be on this planet. Experiences have givin me an absolute conviction of certain truths of things you know for a fact are wrong. So you may be right, to take the Bible as fact would require magic. But to believe in it as truth requires conviction. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:39 PM:
I guess now we have THREE choices for Rhodie; he's either ignorant, dishonest or evil."
You are right, this area **use** to flood. Of course there use to be dinosaurs here to but I'm not worried about them either.
Actually before I bought my house I did my research, looked at topo maps and flow patterns for the area and choose an area that minimalized the risks in the valley. I also looked at Earthquake trends.
So you are making the claim here, Billy, tell us when the LAST time Lodi was completely flooded. Here, I'll even help. http://www.safca.org/floodrisk/index.html
Oh, wait, I forget who I'm talking to, you'll never back up your statements with anything other than "look how crazy the religious person is, he won't even accept that the valley flooded at some point in the past so far back that it is really irrelevant but he's the crazy one." "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:25 PM:
And I still maintain that building a house on the bank of a river that poses a significant risk of flooding, risking your family's life is evil.
Never any ascribing evil in the **first** posting, simply asking who was to blame. Now for Billy's interpritation: "after **first** attempting to say the man with the river-view house was evil because he wanted to see the water."
But seeing how Billy wants to mock my belief that risking your family's life for social gain is wrong then I guess we got his answer. He would blame God for the river flooding. "
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:11 PM:
" BR: since you are also a participant in the discussion, please feel free to provide some proof that the available scientific evidence shows conclusively that the flood didn't happen"
Aimee, reread your own words. You asked someone to prove that something didn't happen. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:51 PM:
So, Rhodie, did you know the central valley used to flood? Lodi, too? And you let your wife buy a house here for your doomed children to live in?
I guess now we have THREE choices for Rhodie; he's either ignorant, dishonest or evil.
Eh, we'll let him sort himself out.
Back to the increasingly evil river-house guy, what's next for him, Rhodie? Are you going to make him a murderer? Everybody would agree a murderer is evil. You could say he was a bank robber, too.
Ooo! I know!
A murdering bank robber! "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:15 PM:
Well, okay..if you insist. Rhodie, they're all yours. I'm going to eat some dinner and relax.
Ta. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:08 PM:
"Bob WhoSays Nothing" "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:07 PM:
Bob's just, well, Bob was never really in the conversation, was he? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:42 PM:
I'm off to watch The Flintstones with my kids. Aimee, that is a fictional show, not a documentary.
Go back to Bryan for your level of intellectual debate. As of now you shall be known as Bryanee. "
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:06 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 4:43 PM:
You've made it easy for me to show that you're all words and no substance. You've presented no reliable evidence that a world-wide flood didn't occur, yet my curiosity on the subject, in the absence of any cognizable reply on your part, led me to find scientific sites on the web that assert that a world-wide flood is not possible.
Strange that Lodian hasn't popped in yet to call me a name or two..that's interesting, she was on this site earlier today. Are you two avoiding posting comments on the same articles so as not to draw attention? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:36 PM:
Let's review. I said: "There may indeed be geologic and historical evidence of a large flood.
There is also geologic and fossil evidence of dinosaurs."
What is unclear to you Aimee? Do I believe floods happen? Yesssssss!
Do I believe your goofy fairy tale about Noah and an ark? Noooooooo!
Do I believe the fossil record proves bible stories are fairy tales? Yessssss!
Do I believe you are truly stupid? YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!! "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:28 PM:
" Bob wrote: "The whole premise that your bible is built on is a farce."
Oh, this should be quite an eye opener. Please, Bob, tell us what premise the Bible is written on. "
Bob's answer: "Show me some proof that your holy book is not a farce."
Bob you made the claim based on your opinion and when asked to back it up you say for us to go get the evidence? Would you let us offf with that kind of agrument? I don't think so.
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote: " Easy. Your bible was written based on the same premise all fairy tales are written on."
As evasive of answer as I've ever heard. What IS the premise of the Bible? Enlighten us poor misguided Christians what the premise of the Bible is. Use specifics, not vague generalities. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:19 PM:
I think we'd all like to hear that response. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:17 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:10 PM:
You were the one who brought up dinosaurs..I'd like to know what they have to do with the flood in our particular discussion. The fossil record that I was referring to is ROCK formations (hence the discussion with the geologist this morning) that give scientists a guide to what may have occurred during the time that particular rock was exposed those self-same formations that indicate that a world-wide flood just isn't possible. Fossil record means more than just dinosaur bones, Bob. Can we just focus on the geologic record here?
You have failed to clarify any of my questions listed below...are you ever going to? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 2:50 PM:
Also, study up on geologic time, then get back to me. Humans and dinosaurs are separated by 65 million years. Oh wait, your holy book doesn't cover that, so how would you know?
Now I see why Lodian can't stand you. You argue like a three year old. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 2:17 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 2:16 PM:
--"Bible is written on the same premise as fairy tales"
Could you explain what you mean by this? It's rather vague and conclusionary. Do you mean "premise" as to entertain little kids, to make a moral point, etc. what exactly do you mean by this statement?
--"..for you to deny existence of life on this planet millions of years ago..."
Okay, were we having a discussion about evolution and I missed it? I don't remember making a negative declaration concerning evolution, just asking for clarification of your prior statements regarding the flood and the Bible as a farce. How did you come to the conclusion that I am denying anything?
--"I don't care about you"
Then why do you keep engaging me? It's certainly not to save face, because you lost that when you admitted that the flood "may" have happened, yet now you claim it most certainly doesn't?
Still waiting for you to back up your statements with ANY sort of documentation. All you given me so far is your own opinion, vague statements, insults and speculation. "
Robb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 12:29 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 11:44 AM:
Aimee, for you to deny the existence of life on this planet millions of years ago is just plain stupid. I don't have a better word for it. Denying the volumes of evidence is.....stupid.
Whatever. I don't care about you, so go ahead and live in ignorance and denial. I'm sure your book of fairy tales is very comforting to you, just like Mother Goose is comforting to five year olds. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 11:19 AM:
This discussion would be better served if people wouldn't use such definitive words to make a point - you really paint yourself into a corner. Stating that something is conclusively proven as a "myth" by the available scientific evidence doesn't serve your purpose for arguing the point at hand.
I did some research (I said I wasn't going to do legwork, but I got bored waiting for a response). I found that the general proposition is that the fossil record does NOT support the theory that the world was completely covered with water, for various reasons. However, according to some of the sites I visited as well information gleaned from an interesting discussion with a geological scientist I have the pleasure of knowing, mutliple floods of an extremely large magnitude have been seen in the fossil record, floods that covered vast areas of land and caused intense destruction to both man, beast and land. However, there is no proof that I could find that the Bible is a "farce".
Maybe you guys will find proof of that. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:25 AM:
I'd really love some proof to show that science has determined that the Bible is a farce.
Please, elighten us with your knowledge and not your ability to be abrasive. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:22 AM:
Your statement that the fossil record shows that the Bible is a farce is simply speculation on your part.
Can't you do better than that? if you make a broad-based statement like that, you should be willing to back it up. Don't make me do all the legwork, your advancing this theory, not me. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:19 AM:
Oh, this should be quite an eye opener. Please, Bob, tell us what premise the Bible is written on. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:18 AM:
Uh, Bob, you may have me confused with someone else. I know humans have had a serious and damaging impact on the enviroment. An impact that current and future generations will have to struggle with to over come. And to tie it into the conversation I think much of the corporate damage was done out of greed. Looking at just the auto industry, they have known for a couple decades about the impact of fossil fuels on the enviroment but ignored the issue as long as it didn't effect their bottom line. From the time of the gas shortages in the 70's the auto industry should have been working for more lower impact engines, alternative fuel, or at the very least NOT producing cars and trucks that get 10-12 mpg. I don't know if I would call the auto industry evil, but at the very least they have been immoral in their treatment of the enviroment. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:12 AM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:03 AM:
The whole premise that your bible is built on is a farce. The geologic and fossil record of this planet clearly shows that. If you want to indulge in fairy tales and nonsense, blather away... "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:00 AM:
If there is evidence of a historically large flood, then Voter's statement that Rhodie's belief of a flood of that magnitude is based on a myth, must be flawed.
If there is indeed evidence of a flood of that magnitude, how are we to explain the failure of the extinction of all (or most of life on this planet)?
And as far as dinosaurs are concerned, a fail to see why that is at issue in this particular discussion. What's the your logical connection between including the statement that there is evidence of dinosaurs in a discussion about a world-wide flood? I suppose, if anything, one could make the presumption that the dinosaurs were killed by the flood, as a possible cause for their demise.
Yes, I care to keep going. Please elucidate. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 9:52 AM:
Unless I missed something, no one has made the connection between the phenomenon of global warming in relation to human activities here.
But, keep trying. I am sure you and Lodian, working together as a team, can come up with an insult that is more appropriate to the discussion at hand. I have faith in you! "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 9:46 AM:
There is also geologic and fossil evidence of dinosaurs.
Care to keep going? "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 9:40 AM:
You're comparing apples and oranges Voter. We live in a modern society where the average person is not required to live near sources of water for their sustenance. Land that is located next to a body of water, such as in this case, is very valuable due to its location and access to riparian rights.
Although your history lesson is interesting, it doesn't apply here. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 9:23 AM:
Saying that a reader finds "pointless" material interesting is a direct insult; acting as if you were just making an observation is dishonest.
As this is a regression of the topic at hand, I'd like to point out that you still haven't produced proof that a flood of this magnitude didn't happen, so as to bolster your argument that "...your story is a myth, pure and simple. It is not supported by science or history". "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 8:55 AM:
Brian wrote on Aug 28, 2009 8:39 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:53 AM:
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:49 AM:
Awful lot of churches built along the gulf. Evil pastors, putting their congregations in danger.
Wha . . .. you are so grasping . . . your argument, so very weak.
Read a little history. Cities have sprung up along rivers since the Sumerians built the very first communities along the Tigress and the Euphrates in Mesopotamia. People need water to farm. They need the river for transportation. It's not greed; it's survival. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 27, 2009 10:17 PM:
Not the people but the builders and city planners who took money in and okayed the use of land that was obviously unsafe, then yes, the greed that they displayed was evil. It is no different than a car maker selling a car they know is a safty risk or a drug maker selling a drug that does more harm than good.
Putting peoples lives at risk simply so you can make a buck is evil, wouldn't you agree, Lodian?
As for if the man didn't know the river was dangerous. There are all sorts of games we can play in the what if range. What if the river had never flooded before. What if he didn't have a family when he bought the land. What if the house was suppose to be flood proof.
I am saying buying something/doing something that you know risks lives just for status, pride money or the likes is evil. Evil is an action and/or choice, very rarely do I consider a person evil themselves. "
stantaves wrote on Aug 27, 2009 7:31 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 27, 2009 7:05 PM:
"9/11 proves the evil in man's heart, not God's judgement. Katrina also proves man's evil (greed for building in a huricane zone a city that is below sea level). You can't blame God for man doing things we know are wrong."
Rhodie: So you say the people of New Orleans are all just evil for living there? Really? "
Lodian wrote on Aug 27, 2009 6:59 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 27, 2009 6:29 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 27, 2009 6:19 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 27, 2009 5:55 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 27, 2009 5:52 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 27, 2009 2:00 PM:
Ignorant? Dishonest?
No doubt. Dishonest. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:43 PM:
(a more complete quote of what I said) "Oh and while the youngest may not have been evil, many times the innocent have to pay for the **evil of their parents**. Like in the example I used of man who wanted the best view along the river. His children would be innocent victims of **his** evil, but do you blame the river, God or the man for tragedy?" "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:08 PM:
I love it when you post. Reading the crazy talk is my entertainment. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:03 PM:
I didn't say that you said the "river is evil", did I? Did I, Rhodie? DID I?
I said you claimed the VIEW of the river was evil, which you in fact DID: "Rhodie wrote on Aug 23, 2009 9:41 AM:"Like in the example I used of man who wanted the best view along the river. His children would be innocent victims of his evil.."
Are you gettin' that, Rhodie? Maybe read it once more.
Crazy. First you believe Noah's Ark, then you don't, then Noah saved a few animals, but then it was all animals on earth, then the man builds a house to see the river and his kids are murdered by your god because the man is so evil to see the river.
BAT POOP RELIGIOUS NUT JOB CRAZY. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:53 PM:
You see the posts as "pointless" because they don't provide a source of material for you to turn around in order to highlight your inflated ideal of your own intelligence and importance on this site. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:41 PM:
But, Lodian, when it does flood, do you blame the river, God or the man who built it in a high risk area?
All those people who have expensive houses in San Fran built on the debris of the 1906 earthquake, when the next big one hits and those houses are destroyed, who is responsible for that tragedy, the ground, God or the people who bought there? "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:37 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote " What level of religious derangement does it require to designate a view of the river as "evil"?"
Fine, Billy, show me where I called the river "Evil"? How's this for a deal, show me where I called the river "evil" and I won't post on the LNS site until Sept 5th. That gives you a little over a week without me (and no, I'm not going on vacation anyway). "
Lodian wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:30 PM:
Oh, I thought the guy just wanted his family to enjoy a nice view of the river. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:14 PM:
I suspect you are willfully dishonest.
You will, of course, deny it and follow up with some new cockamamy story... and then a new idiotic simile that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything("It's like if you had a big bag of cookies and your friend didn't have any, so you..."). "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 27, 2009 10:38 AM:
Never said the river was "evil", but the greed of the man to build in a dangerous place just for the status. I would think that even you would consider it morally wrong to build a house in a place that significantly or even moderatly jepordizes a family just for social status or pride.
Then again I could be wrong about you. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 27, 2009 10:13 AM:
Crazy. Just plain crazy. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 27, 2009 9:17 AM:
Asked and answered:
voter wrote on Aug 23, 2009 8:02 AM:"You believe the unborn fetuses were evil? The newborn infants were evil? Every animal on Earth was evil?"
Rhodie wrote on Aug 23, 2009 9:41 AM:
" "You believe the unborn fetuses were evil? The newborn infants were evil?"
Oh and while the youngest may not have been evil, many times the innocent have to pay for the evil of their parents. Like in the example I used of man who wanted the best view along the river. His children would be innocent victims of his evil, but do you blame the river, God or the man for tragedy? Right now thousands of unborn children are killed every week for the sake of convienence, pride or shame, is it God's fault or the parents' fault?"
Rhodie wrote on Aug 22, 2009 2:46 PM:
" If someone builds a house on the bank of a river so he can have the best view and the river floods, is it God's judgement or man's folly?: "
stantaves wrote on Aug 27, 2009 8:57 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 27, 2009 8:35 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 27, 2009 8:33 AM:
" Aimee wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:20 PM:
" Does he need to have one, voter?
Nope. I was just curious. Bang away, Stan. Aimee finds pointlessness refreshing. "
Yes indeed. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 26, 2009 10:48 PM:
I tried to put you off and you went all clingy and everything, just proving my point.
You know, why not settle for Aimee? "She" already likes you - you saw for yourself she thinks you're "refreshing" and that's one of Jerome's favorite words, so "she" has that going for her.
So, how about it, rant? I know, it may not be the friendship you most want, but it may be all that is offered to you. "
voter wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:07 PM:
" Does he need to have one, voter?
Nope. I was just curious. Bang away, Stan. Aimee finds pointlessness refreshing. "
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:23 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:20 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:20 PM:
In a place where all seem to be jockeying to be the best, the smartest the most leatned (or the most insulting) I find him refreshing. "
voter wrote on Aug 26, 2009 7:45 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 7:19 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 26, 2009 6:53 PM:
But, the good news for you is I'll bet Jerome (and Girard, Safeway, Veritas, Gray Cloud, Track Back and USAFStffSgtblahblah, etc.) and Brian (and dyan, Onelastthing and Tosh Conn, etc.) will happily pull you into their odd little orbits. I think they're always on the lookout for new friends - that's why they so often resort to creating new pretend ones. "
Leonard wrote on Aug 26, 2009 6:25 PM:
And as in the case of the Flood the story states that all but Noah was found to be wicked
The unborn fetuses were "wicked"?
That seems unlikely. "
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 4:35 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 26, 2009 4:00 PM:
I can live with that. "
Robb wrote on Aug 26, 2009 3:50 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 26, 2009 3:04 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 2:49 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 1:35 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 26, 2009 12:52 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 12:07 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 26, 2009 11:32 AM:
I really like the imagery of God as a Father figure because while He loves us enough to give us chance after chance, there is also the authority behind the Father-figure to discipline. (Yes I know that mothers also can play this role.) The Flood was simply (mostly) a planetary wide spanking and sent to the room with no dinner. Unpleasent for the species of man (and tragic for the loss of life) but makes you wonder how bad we were back then that the flood was the only answer.
This "disapproving father" idea comes back to who do you blame? If a sign is up that a bump is ahead on the road (God's laws) but Mitsey guns it and wrecks her car (deliberate action against with a consequence) is God at fault or Mitsey for the accident? Sounds like you, Robb, blame God for our actions. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 26, 2009 11:22 AM:
No wonder you don't like God, you THINK He doesn't like you. In fact, using the Bible as a referance for your "Disapproving father" we can see that most of the judgements man has brought on himself: Lot's daughters seducing him while he is drunk leads to two rival tribes that persecute Isrealites. Betraying and selling their own brther leads the twelve tribes into slavery. Failing to trust God adding time to wandering in the desert. Daniel seducing a married woman loses his authority. Jonah swollowed by the whale because he was trying to flee God mission for him.
Even the natural disaster "judgements" (if you want to call them that) were warned about. Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah's flood, all were warned before hand but the faithful took seriously. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:29 AM:
"Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Is the fact that a flood of this magnitude occurred "impossible" according to modern science?
Thanks! "
Robb wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:15 AM:
Now,that makes me sound crazy?? does it not?
Why is it that we CHOOSE to believe that there is a disapproving "father" pointing his finger at us through the ages?? Makes no sense.. "
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:13 AM:
Robb wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:12 AM:
voter wrote on Aug 25, 2009 9:08 PM:
Isn't it more likely that the story evolved as a result of humans finding seashells and fossils on mountain tops all over the world? Without an understanding of plate tectonics, it would be easy to see how far flung cultures would come to the same erroneous conclusion that the Earth had been submerged by a devastating flood.
Your story is a myth, pure and simple. It is not supported by science or history. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 25, 2009 6:27 PM:
You'll consider it a wimp out, but there are more than just "literal truths", especially when it comes to the Bible.
What I believe I already said. How many animals were known in Noah's time? How many did Noah know about himself. Two of every animal to him may have been a few dozen species, after all I doubt he knew about platypuses and do-do birds. So I think the the story is as accurate as Noah and family could understand. Does that mean that it is false, irrelevant or outdated? This is where the other truths of the Bible come in. A man was willing to sacrifice his public image, be ridiculed and scorned, face the possibility that he was wrong and only hearing voices all for what he believed was a mission from God. Because of his faithfulness his family was spared and his descendants are still in the land he settled on. So which is more absurd, finding inspiration in a man who obeyed God or dismissing the whole thing as useless? "
voter wrote on Aug 25, 2009 3:46 PM:
Or do you think some guy saved his wife and kids and some livestock from a big flood by hauling them onto a raft, and the story morphed into the Genesis account? "
voter wrote on Aug 25, 2009 3:42 PM:
Do you believe that Noah collected pairs of every animal on Earth and kept them alive on the ark for 40 days and 40 nights? And that the rainbow following the story was the world's first? And that all the animals miraculously walked back to their required ecosystems (which would have been destroyed) and found food along the way (probably the other animals from the ark) and repopulated the planet? Because that would be the literal truth. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 24, 2009 4:27 PM:
So now to you, Voter, are you absolutely certain that no flood occured as is stated in cultures around the world? Are you certain that nobody, in seeing a great flood coming, thought to rescue animals as well as family? Are you certain it is a myth or is it a cultural story based on the same occurance and same man? "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 24, 2009 4:20 PM:
What I *know* (based on geological and cultral information):
1: There was a flood that affected a large portion of the world, large enough for most cultures to believe it affected the whole world.
2: The event put humanity to the brink of extinction (evidence is in our genes, scientists believe that a bottleneck occured in our past around the time the flood stories pop up meaning our population was significantly reduced to only a few family lines.)
What I believe:
1: That God saw an impending disaster and warned "Noah" of it. Noah being strong in spirit followed God's warning which saved his family's life.
2: That the Ark is a real thing in which Noah took as many animals on as he could as directed by God. This could have been to save the animals or to give Noah and hid family something to eat after the floods went down (or simply a test by God to see if Noah would follow unconditionally). "
voter wrote on Aug 24, 2009 3:18 PM:
So, now I am asking: Do you literally believe in the Noah's ark story as written in the Bible? "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 23, 2009 2:06 PM:
Yes, it is amazing what people will do to be politically correct rather than just correct. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 23, 2009 2:00 PM:
What Voter reads: voter wrote " Catholic schools are teaching that the ark story is a legend/myth. I can't fathom that you would believe it as literally true."
*IF* the flood is just a myth then why does it appear around the world?
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html "
voter wrote on Aug 23, 2009 1:04 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 23, 2009 9:41 AM:
Oh and while the youngest may not have been evil, many times the innocent have to pay for the evil of their parents. Like in the example I used of man who wanted the best view along the river. His children would be innocent victims of his evil, but do you blame the river, God or the man for tragedy? Right now thousands of unborn children are killed every week for the sake of convienence, pride or shame, is it God's fault or the parents' fault? "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 23, 2009 9:35 AM:
As for what I believe about unborn children and infants is moot in terms of the great flood. I asn't there and had no part in it's occuance (unless I perfect the time machine at some future date). All I know is: "5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually...I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth". Which says to me that humans are easily corrupted to evil when left to their own accord.
And in terms of the animals being evil, Noah saved them according to the story. Plus God said he wouldn't curse the ground again for man's actions. Nowhere does it say that the animals and land was evil. "
voter wrote on Aug 23, 2009 8:02 AM:
You believe the unborn fetuses were evil? The newborn infants were evil? Every animal on Earth was evil?
Wow. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 22, 2009 2:46 PM:
I don't think God is judging us with the disasters as they happen but He watches them happening wondering if we will ever learn the meaning of "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth". "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 22, 2009 2:39 PM:
Yes, and He promised to never do it again, and hasn't yet.
And as in the case of the Flood the story states that all but Noah was found to be wicked, "5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen.6. The judgement of the flood was devistating and kind of a reset button for us (considering that only a handful of people survived historically). And the story finishes with God decreing that judgement is something man needs but not the land "21the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth".
9/11 proves the evil in man's heart, not God's judgement. Katrina also proves man's evil (greed for building in a huricane zone a city that is below sea level). You can't blame God for man doing things we know are wrong. "
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 11:23 AM:
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:10 AM:
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:07 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:04 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:21 AM:
The flaw in your argument is that people who were strongly against abortion most likely died in the events you mention as well. This would be like God smiting bethlehem for Sodom's sins.
There is a statement of taking the wheat with the weeds (http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/pbl6.html I'm making no claims as to the content of site other than it was easy to find with the parable I wanted) but then you would have to believe that this is the end times.
No, if it was judgement then i believe it would be something that would get our attention, not events which have happened often in some variation before. No one has flown a plane into a US building but we have been attacked before and even more brutally, Pearl harbor was before abortion in the US. "
Comments on this story are now closed.