CANADIEN

I can only marvel once again at your knowledge. I was under the impression I was arguing that the only conclusion one can draw from the "God included some words at a later time when he thought people would understand His meaning" argument is that there muat be more than one Word of God. Thanks for pointing out I meant something else. I am? News to me. You truly amaze me.

Once again, you know what I think better than I do. I could have sworn my point was that I am no more a jerk that he is a bully for calling me so - that is, not at all. I stand corrected again.

Interesting. Most people would not think a hand reaching out is an apt analogy for the stretching of the Universe. As for me, I'll wait until you tell me what my opinion is.

Yet, unsurprisingly, you keep doing it. Like in... See, I wasn't even aware I said, or though, such a thing. Thank you so much for telling me I think that. And there is this. I could have sworn that my point was that, if someone claim that one word appeared in 11 different places in the Bible thousands of years ago, when biblical textes existed in one language, they should be able to tell what the word was. I stand corrected again.

Thanks for reminding me, once again, that what I think is not actually what I think, but your intepretation of it. Now, you want to introduce the issue of adultery? Good, you tell me what I think about adultery. Since you know better than I what I do actually think, shouldn't be too difficult for you, and it will save me some time.

Here we go again. What I mean appears to be clear enough to everyone else, except you. But you, of course, know better than I what I actually think, mean and say. So I will spare myself the time and energy and go ahead to the unavoidable conclusion of the whole thing - you telling me what my position is. So you tell me. What is my position? You tell me.

Here we go again. Thanks for enlightening me on the fact that I do not consider the Bbible to be the Word of God. You're so good, always knowing better than me what I actually think, say and mean. I know this is not related... But would you care to use your extensive knowledge of what I think to tell me want I want for dinner tonight? I was thinking chicken, but since you know better than me what I really want, please please ell me what it is. That way, I will get my dinner really much quicker once I arrie home. So...English-speakers at the time of the King James translation were ready to understand the concept of the Unverse stretching (even though that knowledge would come 3 centuries later)? Interesting that French-speakers of that time, to name only one group, were apparently not ready to understand the same thing, since different words are used in the passages you like so much. The notion that God waited until such time when some people would be able to understand (a few centuries later) the meaning of the text to change the text means one thing. The Hebrew Bible of 2600 years ago is not the same as the King James Bible (and I am not tlking about the New Testament being the sole difference here). In turn, French, Spanish, Talalog Bibles are not the same Bibles as well. There is not one word of God, there are many words of God. Excuse me if I find the notion utterly ridiculous. BTW, if God waited until the early 17th century to change the Bible, that means that, contrary to what you've claimed, people thousands of years ago did not include in the Bible those words that get you in such a frenzy. Right?

Actually, betsy posted something a few months ago claiming that the Bible describes gravity. The passage, if I am not mistaken, is... "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." Job 26:7 NIV Problem is... Gravity is not suspension, no matter how one looks at it. The idea of suspension (barely) fit newtonian of gravity, and even thn one has to well.. suspend understanding of science. And the idea of suspension doesn't match understanding of gravity that arose from relativity and quantum mechanics.

My actual point was that the Bible is not a manual on how the Universe works (unlesws, as usual, you know better than me what my point is). The notion that the Bible includes descriptions of the Universe only makes sense if the original texts (those written in Hebrew) provide such a description. The claim is based on the fact the English translation uses the same word 11 times in a similar context. Since that's not true of translations in some other languages, one has to go back to the original text and the original Hebrew word(s). Unless of course God sisn't include a description of the Universe in the original biblical texts, waited until the King James version to include such description, and didn't think French-speakers were entitled to such knowledge.

But the Bible is true. It IS the word of God. What it is not is a manual on how God created the Universe or the mechanics of it. The message is "I am God and I created the Universe". It is not "I am God, this is how the Universe works and don't worry if you don't get it, I'll make sure your descendants a few hundreds generations from now do."

If what Jerry says about women is true, then kids should be raised by... male gay couples

The same word was used 11 times in the original Hebrew text? And it is still used today by Israeli scientists to describe the expension of the Universe? Care to show me what the Hebrew word is?

Whether translation is wrong or not doesn't matter... But the argument is centred around the fact that one word in translations in one language appears 11 times "in the right" context. BTW... English translations of the Bible are not thousands of years old. Your argument only makes sense if the same word was used in the original Hebrew text all those 11 times and is also used today in the Hebrew language to describe what English-speaking scientists describe as the stretching of the Universe. And if it is also true in every translation of the Bible, no matter the language. I don't speak and read Hebrew. Do you Betsy? And if so, care to demonstrate that the same word was used eleven times in the ORIGINAL text and is also the term used today in Hebrew to describe the stretching of the Universe? Or am I supposed to believe that only the translators who worked on the King James translation were told by God somethng He didn't bother telling to His original scribes more than 2000 years ago?

In other words, retired teachers should just shut up, right?

Nice try. This is about the actions by romney and the management at Bain Capital. And please do yourself a favour by not trying to hide behind civil servants and unions.

Indeed... It's about you parading your ignorance, prejudice and cluelessness. May I suggest you grow up and become a man... You know, someone who doesn't spend his time trying to put down others to compensate for his own lack of common sense and humanity.

Don't insult 9-year olds, please

Destroying communities, shipping jobs to countries where people can barely feed themselves on their salaries. That's what Bain Capital is. And that's not the very nature of capitalism. It,s capitalism turned into greed.

Let me see if I get it right... Scientists use the word stretching to describe the expension of the Universe. The word stretching is used in 11 Biblical verses pertaining to the Universe. Therefore those verses accurately describe what scientists describe as stretching. How come then this works when using English translation of the Bible, and not those in other languages? Surely, if one takes French, for example, one would expect the same word to be always used, and for that word to match the one used by scientists to describe the expension of the Universe. Yet, such is not the case. Well, I must assume one of two things - either these verses are not a description of how God's creation works, and were not meant as such, or... God has seen fit to reveal to English-speaking believers things that are not to be revealed to believers speaking other languages.

A tax shelter is not an education program.

Ever heard of Howard Galganov? That's the former radio personnslity who comprared Quebec to Nazi Germany... and still has his ears ringing from the response he got from Jewish organizations. They felt he was insulting the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. I agree with them 100%.

The English-speaking communtiy in Quebec have more education rights than. let's say, the French-speaking community in Ontario. Or so we hear. Too "bad" it is not quite true. Under section 23(1) of the Charter, any citizen whose first language learned and still understood is either Enlgish (if living in Quebec) or French (if living outside Quebec) has a right to have his/her children educated in the monority lnaguage of his/her province. That is, a man coming from let's say, Madagascar to Toronto, who becomes a citizen and has children can send them to a French school. And a woman coming from let,s say, Boston to Montreal, who becomes a citizen and has children can send them to an English school. oops, I mispoke, Quebec is exempt of the application of that rule (article 59 of the Charter) and has its own rule saying she can't. Clearly, Anglophones in Montreal has, in this regard, less rights than Francophones in Toronto. Well... there's the business of section 23 (3), that states theat there is a right to an education in the minority language anywhere the numbers warrant it. But, this clause, which also applies to Québec btw, is not some sort of weasel statement government can use to prevent education in the minority language as much as possible. On the contrary, courts have made it clear that government had an obligation to provide education in the minority language whenever it was demonstrated there were enough children. Rarely, if ever, have parents claiming that their provincial government was denying them that right lost in court.

(tounge in cheek... to some extent) What is a Franco-Ontarian, an Acadian, or a Franco-Colombian to do? To some, we should keep our language to ourselves, pay twice for an education in French we already pay with our taxes, and avoid offending others by trying to obtain government services in the Canadian language of our choice. Ideally, we should "become" Canadians by assimilating, or at least go back to Québec (even those of us for whom going back to Qubec means going there a second time on vacation). And for some, we should get into a frenzy everytime we heard someone in Québec has the auacity to speak English at the water cooler, applaud when an inspector approaches a commercial sign armed with a measuring tape, and find absolutely normal that the education rights we have fought for and won be denied to others. Most importantly, to these people we should acknowledge that we are utterly assimilated, be content to be used as props when it suits their interests, ignored when it suits their interests, betrayed when it suits their interests (like when lawyers for the Quebec Government were arguing AGAINST the rights of Francophone minorities to manage their own schools). Or failing that, we should just go back to the loving arms of Mother Québec. Oh well, I guess that to please all those people we should just protest, in English only, every time someone in Québec enters a government office and starts speaking English, applaud every time someone elsewhere in Canada complains that people enter post offices and start speaking French, do our outmost to be assimilated while atoning for the fact we already are assimilated, be silent - by speaking English and french at the same time. More importantly, and that would truly please all those people, we should just go back to Québec. Nah, I'd rather take what those people say as what it is - ignorant ramblings.

Wbhat language a driver's licence anywhere in the world is printed is not, and should not, be dictated by whether or not a cop in Tennessee can read it. BTW, thanks for providing n argument as to why all driver's licences in Canada should have English and French on them.

When French and Aboriginal raidders were attacking frontier settlements almost at will in 1755 and 1756, the colonials felt pretty much involved, believe me. To the British, New France was a French colony to be conquered; to the colonial, it was a threat. As for the grumblings about the Crown in the colonies, they were indeed already there before 1760, and were nothing new. Commerce laws that favoured British traders at the expense of the colonials, the way the British Government had eneded any illusion of Massachusets, autonomy in the 1680's, the way colonial troops were treated by their British commanders, provided the breeding ground for what would happen later.