betsy

Smoking trumps security in trumping rights and freedom!

Read again.

I don't know the specific numbers....but I know that hundreds of crimes were perpetrated by people wearing ski masks or baclavas - similar to burquas and niqabs! Interesting how you insists on calling these apparels "veils." If you prefer to call them by any other name - the word " ski mask" would be more appropriate. Could you list the number of planes that were deliberately slammed by terrorists into highrise buildings BEFORE 9/11. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it never will. By the way, if you say you agree with some restrictions like in government buildings etc.., then obviously we agree on this issue. Really, I don't understand what you're on about now.... And you have not answered the question about banning ski-masked men in your child's schoolyard.

The possibility of getting identified is definietly a deterrant, otherwise why would criminals bother with ski masks at all? As I said, why make it easier for terrorists? Even if they did blow themselves up....the fact that they've been seen/identified could help in the investigation. Who were they associating with....staying with....connected with etc.., Are they acting alone or part of a group? It could help prevent further mayhem. Sure is more progressive approach than just wailing and doing a group hug and attending counselling and asking..."how could anyone do such a ghastly thing?"

They got identified, weren't they? Because they got their faces exposed! That's the whole point! It's not the same at all! Yes you can conceal weapons in trench coats but the perpetrators were identifiable! That is the problem with the niqab and the burka! You cannot determine any identity at all plus you can hide weapons/explosives in them.

Just for clarification, it's not the same at all. Burkas are rare in Canada. They totally obliterate the identity of the woman inside. The face is covered with a mesh grille, like a beekeeper’s hat. But less rare is the niqab, which leaves a slit open for the eyes. I've seen both niqab and burkas....the ones I've seen are also wearing loose-fitting clothes all the way to their toes. Now I don't know if they all come like that....but definitely the faces are covered. The niqab can be compared with a ski mask - only slits for the eyes can be seen. Parka hood is similar to hijab...the face is still visible. I have no problem with the hijab.

With a sweeping statement like this, why would I think you have some reasonable restrictions? Well it seems you have not read my posts either. I made it clear that I support the banning in PUBLIC PLACES! So can we say then that we both agree that they shouldn't be allowed in government buildings, banks and other public places? Are we together on this one? So what's your answer? Are you against banning ski masked people from entering your child's school?

Well what do you mean then about the Conservatives being hypocritical in pointing fingers? My opinion about the ethical conduct of the Liberals regarding Guergis was not based on mere speculation. Besides, if it boils down just between Ignatieff and Layton, I wouldn't pooh-pooh the NDP so readily....

Just to be clear that we are not talking of ordinary veils that covers the head....we're talking of full-face and head-to-toe coverings.

sorry. already posted.

Some places deal with certain kind of problems in their own way. And at times the measure they apply isn't so pleasant. I lament to see our notion of freedom changing....but changing it is, unfortunately because of worldwide terrorism....a reality we cannot deny no matter how we wish it ain't so. The disruption of our freedom as we knew it must be a considered victory for the enemy. Banning the face veils will not stop terrorism. Of course not. But tell me, why should we make it easier for them to strike and kill/maim? Your opinion regarding the burqua must mean you approve that ski masked people be allowed in banks....or even your children's schoolyard? I ask you, should a masked person be allowed to enter your child's school? Do you think they shouldn't be asked for id....their faces seen to match any id photos they produce? I am truly interested to hear your answer.

On one hand you say you kept mum about the 9/11-changed-the-world-stuff for a long time now because you "figured it would offend people,".....yet you never figured calling someone "security-obsessed" and "irrational" as offensive? Just read your statement again! Not only did you offend me with your personal attack, but you are also trying to censor me from expressing my own opinion. Your very own statement negated your own argument. Now, that is irrational! Anyway, what's so upsetting about stating that fact? 9/11 DID changed the world! You didn't notice? Where were you all this time? Gee, this is like Monty Python....kinda Rip Van Winkle-meets-the ostrich when it came up gulping for fresh air! For starter: The body searches and the new James Bond-like scanners that can show you in your glorious birthday suit for starter! Imagine that! You may not realize it but that's quite an invasion of one's privacy.....so unheard of in this country, or any other freedom-loving countries.... before 9/11! You notice though that those who buy lotto 6/49 obviously want to win big-time. Ditto with terrorist attacks! Check out how many died in 9/11! In London? In Bali? Etc., Why do you think they aim for public places? Why do you think we're having this discussion about covering in PUBLIC? What we should be tired of is the way some people are not consistent with their reasoning when they invoke "protection of rights" as the reason why they don't support the banning of burquas in public places. As demonstrated by someone we know. I bet some of these people wholeheartedly supported the sweeping smoking ban not only in public places but in private properties as well (not to mention tampered with freedom of choice), and also wholeheartedly stamped our freedom to express opinion/belief. Back to topic. Anyway, I couldn't care less whether Niqab/Burqua is part of religion or not. That's not the point. The point is the kind of concealment that garment could afford....anywhere from a fugitive/terrorist...to high-powered guns and explosives....and maybe even a battle tank! Of course that concern is compounded by the fact that those who wear such garments are very, very likely to be extremists in their religious belief or cultural way or whatever.

Which party aside from the Liberals do you mean? The NDP? Please explain....

There must be more to the issue than meets the eye....and the I think Harper is taking the high road in not making it public. Who knows perhaps there are conflicts within the party that involves Guergis....which should just stay within the party. And since you've brought up the issue of gender, I think Ignatieff and his party behaved like cads in ganging up and applying all sorts of pressure to force Harper to fire this hapless pregnant woman from office even though everything were just allegations at that time. A lot of Conservative MPs on talk shows were reminding everyone that this is all allegations at the time. That made no difference to the Opposition.....showing that they will willingly sacrifice anyone's reputation without batting an eye just to win some points.

I hope she sues the Opposition who applied all sorts of pressure from Day 1. This remind me of an old movie with Jodie Foster (The Accused?) where-in she was gang-raped in a crowded bar, with other bunch of voyeurs encouraging the rape. The voyeurs ended up guilty as well. We know how the Opposition played this. They instigated the public rape of Guergis!

I remember clearly how the Liberals were clamoring for Guergis' removal (resignation or firing) when the first of the scandal came up, that incident at the airport. I remember clearly how the Opposition castigated the PM for keeping Guergis inspite of her airport "tantrums." Then the Jaffer scandal broke out. The Opposition went on a frenzy with Guergis, demanding her head on a silver platter. They castigated and ridiculed the PM for not acting. Finally later, Harper gave a simple statement about giving the case to the RCMP regarding some allegations, and removed her from Caucus. I remember clearly how the Opposition was not satisfied with that and proceeded to pester and pressure the government to divulge the allegations....forcing the PM to publicly tar and feather Guergis, ignoring that she's supposed to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. Well thank you for the PM's steadfast stance and did not cave in to silly Ignatieff. Just imagine the lawsuit that would've ensued and the settlement that the taxpayers would've had to pay. Even now, there may still be a lawsuit but I imagine the damage will not be as much. The Liberals suddenly were batting for Guergis and again castigating the government for removing her from caucus. Suddenly they were trying to be the hero for this fallen woman (of course they tried to use the gender card). The Liberals have a very very short memory....or quite so sleazy slick. The accusing finger should not be on Harper....but at the guys sitting opposite him in the House. If we know what's good for us, a political party that sleazy bad should never be allowed to lead.

To a certain extent! Beheading an infidel ...or stoning an adulteress is definitely not tolerated (yet) in this country...although we came close to that in Ontario when McGuinty toyed with the idea of allowing Sharia law. No tolerance either for anyone to publicly express one's religious belief that homosexual act is a sin. In a blink of an eye, freedom of expression/opinion was another right we had to scratch off.

How can you say that banning those face coverings in public places will not make anyone safer. Can you expand on that please. I do not refer to just that incident that happened in 9/11! There have been female suicide bombers in other terrorist attacks in other parts of the world. Just because there never was one in Canada (yet) does not mean it will never happen. We have sacrificed some liberties already....one being the "property right." Big Liberal hearts who decide what's best for us have even gone as far as to change the meaning of "PUBLIC PLACE"....in their bid to enforce the smoking ban. The few who protested and fought to uphold that right never had a chance. And what did we give up that right for with hardly any sqawk? SMOKING! Compare that to high possibility of terrorist attacks or criminal acts that can cause massive casualties and damage....don't you find that absurd? Anyway, G20 terrorists include women in masks...though they were protesting and fighting for whatever "cause" (that never got really voiced out)...only show that women can be quite capable of destructive violence. However back to topic, Taliban fighters have been known to cross-dress to elude captivity. Burquas and nuquabs are now just the like of ski and Jason masks....only much worse since they also conceal the whole body.

9/11 changed all that. that's a fact. Reality. Niqab and burquas should be banned in public places for, first and foremost, security reason. Period. Female subjugation - although true - is being used as a justification in order to appeal to those who would place more value to their version of a so-called human right. I am not against burquas or niqabs to be worn anywhere else, including their mosques after all that is part of their culture and/or religious belief, and any woman who would like to exercise her freedom in this country have the available support/help that is available to all women in this country regardless of race/belief. They want to get away from the intolerance of their own culture....the abuse....they are welcome, in fact, encouraged to go to those help centres. It is not for us to say "we ban the burquas because they represent abuse to women!" What about those women who embraced that way of life? They've got the right too, you know. We may disagree but it is not for us to decide for them on that. I believe that it is not for me to dictate how they can exercsie their culture....as long as it does not tamper with mine. The government must protect the country and its people....I would like to partake of that protection. Therefore I fully support the implementation of a ban. Because of everything that's been happening after 9/11, it is only natural for me to put security as a top priority....protect and place the safety of the public (Muslims included), above the rights of a few.

The name of the tv program is "It Is Written," and the topic was "How Science Discovered God." Here is an excerpt from an article posted on their website: "In search of answers, scientists have been forced by their own theories to consider seriously the theological implica- tions of quantum cosmology1 and the anthropic cosmologi- cal principles2 concerning a Creator-God. In the early stages of development of quantum cosmology, scientists did consid- er the teachings of non-Christian (polytheistic) religions. But after much debate and study, they’ve come to the shock- ing conclusion that the traditional claims of Judeo-Christian theology concerning God and the origin of our universe best fit the implications of quantum cosmology and the anthropic cosmological principles. In his recent book on the physics of immortality, Frank J. Tipler makes the following confession: “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a con- vinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” In June 1998 the world’s leading experts in the field of cosmology and astronomy, including such giants as Stephen Hawking, attended a conference of scientists, theologians, and others at the University of California at Berkeley. The subject of the conference was the conflict and convergence between science and religion. Two questions attracted con- siderable attention among participants: 1. Is there enough evidence to warrant belief in God? 2. Is there something to the claims of anthropic cosmological principles that warrants an in-depth study? The answer to both questions was yes. By employing the most rigorous logic and the most advanced, sophisticated methods and experiments, cosmolo- gists and astronomers are now painting an astonishingly inter- esting picture of God, a picture that stands in stark contrast with the limited picture of the Creator-God presented by some Christian theologians, religious publications, clergy, and lay Christians. Professor Tipler, currently one of the mostvocal supporters of Judeo-Christian the- ology (but who is not himself a church- going person), is genuinely concerned about the future of theology, so much so that he is publicly advocating its inclusion into physics. In his recent book he contends that “it is time scientists reconsider the God hypothesis.” “I hope in this book to persuade them to do so,” he says. “The time has come to absorb theology into physics, to make Heaven as real as an electron.” More.... http://www.itiswrittencanada.ca/programs/current-program.html And remember, as I've said before, long long ago, if you set out to prove your belief, if you're honest, you must be prepared to disprove it. The honesty is the hard part.

I came across a christian show where-in a physicist, apparently with the Pentagon, was being interviewed. I didn't get his name. He stated that scientists who are Christians are no longer loooked down upon. He went on to talk about quantum physiscs.....and spoke about "quantum enigma"...and he mentioned one other scientist who was an atheist but now "writes as a Christian.". Frank J. Tipler "Frank Jennings Tipler III (born February 1, 1947 in Andalusia, Alabama[1]) is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.[2] Tipler is the son of Frank Jennings Tipler Jr., a lawyer, and Anne Tipler, a homemaker.[1] Tipler attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1965 through 1969, and he completed his bachelor of science degree in physics in 1969.[2] Tipler entered graduate school, and in 1976 he earned his doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree from the University of Maryland.[3] Tipler was next hired to a sequence of postdoctoral researcher positions at in physics at three universities, with the final one being at the University of Texas, where he worked under John Archibald Wheeler, Abraham Taub, Rainer Sachs, and Dennis Sciama.[2] Tipler became a faculty member in mathematical physics in 1981 at Tulane University, where he has been a faculty member ever since.[2] In his controversial 1994 book The Physics of Immortality,[4][5][6] Tipler claims to provide a mechanism for immortality and the resurrection of the dead consistent with the known laws of physics via the use of computers which use the entire universe to compute on and which diverge to a state infinite computational resources that Tipler terms the Omega Point and which he identifies with God. The line of argument is that the evolution of intelligent species will enable scientific progress to grow exponentially, eventually enabling control over the universe even on the largest possible scale. Tipler predicts that this process will culminate with an all-powerful intelligence whose computing speed and information storage will grow exponentially at a rate exceeding the collapse of the universe, thus providing infinite "experiential time" which will be used to run computer simulations of all intelligent life that has ever lived in the history of our universe. This virtual reality emulation is what Tipler means by "the resurrection of the dead." In more recent works, Tipler says that the existence of the Omega Point is required to avoid the violation of the known laws of physics. His 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (with John D. Barrow) reviews the intellectual history of teleology, the large number of physical coincidences which allow sapient life to exist (see anthropic principle), and then investigates the ultimate fate of the universe. This was the first book to describe the Omega Point Theory. Tipler has also published his Omega Point Theory in a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals since 1986.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Tipler's 2007 book The Physics of Christianity analyzes the Omega Point Theory's pertinence to Christian theology.[23] In the book, Tipler identifies the Omega Point as being the Judeo-Christian God, particularly as described by Christian theological tradition. In this book Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament without violating any known laws of physics, even if one were to assume that we currently don't exist on a level of implementation in a computer simulation (in the case that we did then, obviously and as noted by Tipler, such miracles would be trivially easy to perform for the society which was running the simulation whilst it would still seem amazing from our perspective). Tipler's writings on scientific peer review have been cited by William A. Dembski as having formed the basis of the process for "peer review" in the so-called intelligent design journal Progress in Complexity, Information and Design of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (now defunct), where both Tipler and Dembski served as fellows. In a 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper that was included as one of 12 papers in the journal's "Highlights of 2005",[24] Tipler combines the Omega Point as a boundary condition with a version of the FeynmanWeinbergDeWitt theory of quantum gravity along with an extended Standard Model od subatomic particles in order to form what he maintained is the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics.[16]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

More excerpt: "Now someone may say, Well, this is a pretty circular argument to say we believe the Bible is inspired because the Bible says its inspired, and we believe it when it says its inspired because we believe its inspired because it says its inspired. Thats a circular argument. Are there are other objective ways by which you may know the Bible is inspired and has its origin in the Holy Spirit? Let me give you quickly one. In the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 18, and verse 21, it says this: You may say to yourselves, How can we know when a message has [not] been spoken by the Lord? Good question. Here is the answer. If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously; dont be afraid of him. Very simply, how do we know when a message is spoken by the Lord? Because if it is indicating anything that is prophetic, it comes true, and if it doesnt come true, its not from God. One of the most remarkable evidences of divine inspiration in this book is the incredible prophetic accuracy of this book. In the Old Testament, there are hundreds of prophecies about the birth of Christ and the life of Christ. Somebody has counted. There are 333 prophecies about Christ. I remember saying here, about a year ago, that there was a chance, the chance is one in, I dont know. I forgot what I said, 54 billion or something of those coming true. I got that from somewhere else, and a man came to me after that service, said he was a mathematician, and he told me some incredible figure that I couldnt find when I was looking for it this week. He gave it to me, and I wrote it somewhere and lost it. So if hes here, give it to me again! But the chances he gave me are just something like twenty of those 333 prophecies being fulfilled in one person are something like billion times billions, incredible figures that our minds cant comprehend. And yet the amazing thing is that the Old Testament Scriptures, as weve already pointed out, completed 400 years before Christ, circulating 165 years before Christ, talked in detail about His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection. Matthew points out three prophecies about Christ, about His birth, that appear to be contradictory. You can look at this sometime. Very quickly, he says, Hell be born in Bethlehem. Thats one prophecy, and he quotes Micah. Micah wrote that 700 years before Christ. And then Jesus was taken down to Egypt to avoid the wrath of Herod, and Matthew says in Matthew, Chapter 2 He was brought out of Egypt and so fulfilled the prophecy, Out of Egypt I called my Son. Thats a prophecy written by Hosea 800 years before Christ. Then He went to live in a place called Nazareth, and Matthew says, And so fulfilled the prophecy, Hell be called a Nazarene. Now you can look in vain in the Old Testament to find a statement, Hell be called a Nazarene, because its not in the English. Its a play on a Hebrew word. In Isaiah, Chapter 11 where it talks about the root out of the root of Jessie (that was Davids father) out of the root of Jessie would come a branch … The word branch is the word nêster, and Nazareth was named after branch. And Nazareth didnt even exist when Isaiah wrote that, and Matthew says We understand it now. He was saying Hes going to come out of Nazareth. You see, Jesus was born in Bethlehem by a sheer fluke, humanly speaking. His mother did not live in Bethlehem; she lived in Nazareth. It just so happened when she was pregnant, Caesar Augustus in Rome said, “I want to count everybody in my Empire. Everybody must go back to the home town of the husband and father of every family.” And Joseph’s hometown was Bethlehem, and they just happened to arrive for the census on the very day she gave birth. They arrived late so all the places were taken, and she gave birth in a stable. Had Jesus been born one day earlier, He would have been born in Samaria. Had He been born a month later, they would have been back in Nazareth. They were just in Bethlehem for the census, that’s all. Joseph’s family were there, so they had relatives. Go and visit Granny, but obviously the relatives weren’t very welcoming. Nobody gave them a bed. They had to stay in the Inn so they probably didn’t stay very long. Would have gone back to Nazareth pretty quickly. By sheer fluke, He was born in Bethlehem, but 700 years before Micah writes, “But a new Bethlehem, in Judea, out of you will come a ruler of my people, Israel.” It just so happened that the wise men came, and they were a little unwise when they went to visit Herod, who was the King, and said, “Good morning, Mr. King. There’s a new king born. Where is He? I’m sure you’re interested.” “I’m very interested,” said the king. “Come and let me know.” And these unwise wise men were going to go and let him know until an angel appeared in a dream and said, “Don’t you dare! Go home another way.” And an angel came to Joseph, “Joseph, flee from the wrath of Herod.” And he went down to Egypt. Well, it just so happened 800 years ago, Hosea had written, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.” Then they settled in Nazareth, a town that didn’t even exist in Isaiah’s day, and he had written... You see, if the Psalmist had got it wrong, we could say on the basis of Deuteronomy 18, it did not come from God, but when you find these prophecies hitting their bulls eye again and again and again in fact there isnt one that doesnt hit its bulls eye youve got to conclude the only obvious conclusion: this is from God; this is God speaking. And this book is trustworthy. This book is authoritative. This book is important because even if I dont like it and lets be honest, there are things we dont like in this book. I sat listening to the entire Scripture, I want to be honest, there were parts of the Old Testament I thought, Boy oh boy, did God really say that? I dont like that. But His ways are very different than mine, and we have to trust Him. And my conclusion is this: if God has spoken, we had better make it our business to know what Hes said. Isnt that reasonable? Wed better make it our business to know what He said. You see asking you to read through the Bible and encouraging you to do so is not to brainwash us, its to know the mind of God. If God has revealed His purposes for humanity, we had better make sure we understand His purposes, and we bring our lives into conformity with His purposes. Theres a million reasons why people live. Theres one correct reason: God has told us. If God has made promises that apply to me, Id better believe them and start experiencing them, or Im going to waste my life. Isnt that reasonable? If God is speaking. If God has given us instructions by which we may experience life as He intended us to live, wed better find out what they are, and wed better do them. Isnt that reasonable? God is God, and Hes revealed His mind, wed better take is seriously." ---------------------- Like I've said way back in this forum, I struggled with my faith in the past. Looking back, when I started that other topic titled, "Rejoice On This Day," just by fluke I would say when one of the posters who replied challenged me to back up a satement (I forgot exactly what), I accidentally stumbled on several noteworthy people in different time - atheists - who embarked on investigative missions to prove the Bible wrong, only to end up becoming Christians themselves. Before one can dismiss something as false or untrue, one has to understand it first.

More excerpts: "And, of course, the story of the Bible has not been without strong opposition. It’s been declared illegal literature in some parts of the world ever since the beginning of the fourth century when, in the year 303 A.D., the Roman Emperor, Diocletian, issued an edict ordering the destruction of Christian churches and the burning of all Scriptures. And ever since then there’s never been a place in the world where the Bible has not been illegal literature. Interestingly, 25 years after Diocletian had issued that, the Emperor Constantine was converted to Christ, and he issued an edict ordering that 50 copies of the Bible should be prepared at the government’s expense. Now you say 50 isn’t very many, but remember that’s writing them by hand, word by word. And when they wrote it by hand, they wrote it with incredible accuracy. One of the things they did – and this was just one of the checks – they would count how many letters were in each book of the Bible, identified the middle letter, and when the scribe had finished writing this particular book, they would count the letters; and if it was one letter too many or one or two short, they would throw it away, even though they’d spent hours and hours and hours writing it by hand. They’d then identify the middle letter, and if the middle letter was not the correct letter, they would throw it away. And then when the whole Bible was done, they would count every letter in the entire Bible and do the same thing. Find the middle letter again, and if it was wrong, discard the whole manuscript. Incredible! But how grateful you and I should be for the accuracy with which Scriptures have come to us as a result of that. But it’s ironic, isn’t it, that 25 years after Diocletian ordered the destruction of all Scripture, Constantine, who became Emperor, was converted, and he ordered the government should pay for the preparing of copies of the Scripture. In the 18th century, the Frenchman Voltaire, he was a writer and crusader against tyranny and bigotry, he predicted that in 100 years time, Christianity would be swept from existence and would pass into history. That was in the 18th century. Do you know in 50 years, Voltaire had been swept into history, and the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press to print thousands of Bibles, and they used his house to store them in before they distributed them. There are various ways in which God revealed His truth to people. Many of the Old Testaments say quite up front, “The Word of the Lord came to me saying …” Quite up front about that. God spoke to me. How God spoke to them, they don’t tell us, but God didn’t just dictate their writings; they didn’t know what they were writing. He wrote through the writer, through the personality of the writer. God doesn’t just take a hand without it going through the mind and the thinking and the emotions of the writer when He gave the Scripture. And in fact there’s nothing to be added to Scripture now anyway. That’s why you can detect the personality of the writer. You see, John’s writings are quite distinct from Paul’s. Jeremiah writes very different from Ezekiel. Isaiah is very different to Daniel. Now it’s the Holy Spirit behind them that He is working through the personality and the experience of the writer. The writers weren’t neutral in this, which is why they have different messages and different emphasis. For instance – I’ll just pick out at random in the Old Testament – Moses emphasis, when it comes to sin, was that sin offends God and must be judged. You see Moses was a lawgiver. That was Moses’ thinking. He had a legal mind. So your sin offends God, God has to judge us, and that is perfectly true. That was Moses’ emphasis. Now Jeremiah had a different emphasis: sin makes God angry. That was Jeremiah’s emphasis because Jeremiah, you see, was a melancholic temperament. He lived on an emotional roller coaster. He was up high one day, down at the bottom the next day, and Jeremiah knew about anger. And he said sin makes God angry. That was Jeremiah’s message. Hosea had a different message. Hosea said sin hurts God. Do you know why Hosea said that? Because Hosea had a wife called Gomer, and Gomer became a prostitute. And she went off with other men, and Hosea’s heart was broken over his wife’s prostitution. In fact, he eventually bought her back for the half price of a slave, and God said to Hosea, “You know how you feel about Gomer? You know that hurt you feel about her being off with other men? Hosea, that is how I feel about my people, Israel.” And Hosea’s message was sin hurts God because that was Hosea’s experience." www.livingtruth.ca/pdf/transcriptions/WOG

Obviously, you simply don't believe. In your opinion, the whole thing from virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection is all myth. Deception. You clearly made your conclusion. Yet even though you've already arrived at a definite conclusion - basing it with the passion behind your statements - one would think that you'd rather not waste any more of your energy stating one reason after another as to why you think this is all baloney. It gives me the impression - at least that's my perception of your post - that you feel your conviction is on shakey ground. It almost sounds like the only one you're trying hard to convince is yourself. And that you need reassurance - team huddle in the bunker comes to mind - from likewise-minded that you are right in your conclusion.

This is for those who are conflicted and are torn, those who are unsure, and those who wish to understand. This is also for those who turned away. But this does not exclude those who believe and those who, like me, wish to develop and maintain a close relationship with God. I hope for us to have a constructive discussion. Having done a casual read of the New King James Version, I am now just beginning a serious attempt at Bible Study (King James Version). As I go through the Bible, some of the modern-leaning views I've expressed before in this forum may change. The Bible that I got contains Annotations and Doctrinal Footnotes, Personality Profiles (brief biographies of key men and women), Archeological Sites, Center-column references and notes, including alternate and equivalent translations, as well as explanations of difficult Bible words and phrases, Concordance, and some maps. I find these very helpful indeed. As an intro, here is an excerpt from the transcript of the series, The WORD OF GOD, Part 2: Revealing The Mind Of God, by Pastor Charles Price, which gives a description of the Bible. Isaiah 55 and verse 6: Seek the Lord while He may be found; call on Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my Word that goes out from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. Its the Spirit of God who gave us the Word of God and revealed the mind of God. Now, before we talk about how God has revealed His mind in Scripture, first let me say some general things about the Bible because the Bible is both a divine book and also a human book. It didnt drop out of the sky. The Scripture was given through human men who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, wrote it. And I wanted to give two aspects to what I want to say tonight. First, I want to talk about the fact that the Bible has a human story, and I want to talk about the human story. And then secondly, the Bible has a divine story. It has human authors; it has a divine author. Let me tell you just a little bit about the human story, and for some of you this may be very basic stuff you already know, but I want to tell you anyway. First of all, the Bible is written by over forty authors from every walk of life. There are kings writing in this book. There are military leaders, and there are peasants, there are philosophers, there are fishermen, there are tax collectors, there are poets, there are musicians, theres a harpist, and a drummer. A drummer wrote two psalms. His name was Asaph. There are scholars who write this book, there are shepherds who write this book, and there was a cowman who wrote part of this book. His job was looking after cattle. This has come from a huge variety of human sources. It was written over a period of at least fifteen hundred years. That means if the last book was being written now, the first book would have been written in the closing days of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire finally was disbanded in 476 A.D. Thats just over fifteen hundred years ago. Thats a huge time span. During that fifteen hundred years, cultures changed, outlooks changed. It was written in three completely different languages: Hebrew and Greek are the primary languages, but parts of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic, which also would have been the mother tongue of Jesus, so the original speaking of Jesus would have been in Aramaic, though written in Greek, which had become the international language. That was the legacy of the Greek Empire was they left an international language, a bit like the way the British Empire left English as a kind of language of international communication. Well, the Greeks did that; thats why its written in Greek, but Aramaic is the origin and some of the Old Testament Scriptures parts of Ezra in particular, parts of Daniel, and the language of Jesus. It was written in numerous styles; in fact, almost every literary style youll probably find in this book. Theres history, theres poetry, there are songs, there is law, there is biography, there is autobiography, there is prophecy, there is parable, there is allegory, and probably other things that I havent thought of. It was written on three continents in a day when people didnt travel very much: Asia, Europe, and a little bit of it was written in Africa, Jeremiah down in Egypt. It was written in scores of situations. Moses wrote part of it in the wilderness. Jeremiah and Paul both wrote in prison. David wrote some of his psalms up on the hillside; Solomon in his luxurious palace; Ezekiel in exile, sitting down by the rivers of Babylon; John exiled to the isle of Patmos as an old man; Mark back at home in Jerusalem; Paul on the road, busy but writing as he travelled; and Peter writing his epistles facing persecutions. It deals with dozens of controversial subjects like. Who is God? Thats a controversial subject. What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of life? It deals with things like authority and law. These are controversial issues. And there are hundreds of hot topics that it covers: marriage for instance, and divorce, sexuality, parenting, truth, lies, attitudes to wealth, attitudes to poverty, attitudes to the needy. It deals with things like sin and judgement, and heaven and hell. If you want controversy, just start talking about one of these subjects in an ordinary conversation with people. The Bibles full of controversial issues, and yet despite the breadth of authors, the huge period of time over which it was written, there is an amazing unity and harmony that runs all the way through. Because in spite of its diversity, the Bible presents one single, unfolding story. Its the story of creation, the fall of man, the redemption of man, and the future restoration back to what God intended everything to be. To quote John Milton, Genesis is about paradise lost, and Revelation about paradise regained. And everything in between, including the need, the means, and the results of being restored to what God intended. In the early part of Genesis, the gate to the tree of life is closed, and in the end of Revelation, the gate to the tree of life is opened again. One continuous story. Now if you tried to put that together humanly with a very smart editor, though no editor survives fifteen hundred years, you wouldnt get this kind of unity and harmony. -------------------------------