JDavis

do you have something other than your own bias against the US to support this claim?

No Onan wanted to have sex with his brothers widow. He could have refused to marry here and past on his "Right" to have her as a wife and let another one of his brothers marry here. He knew that if he had children with her, they would be considered his brothers, children and they would inherent property/wealth that would not stay with his family line. He chose to take the women, use her and then try to not give her anything in return. This was not about birth control at all, it was about his act of using the women for sex and not giving her a child as was his duty by the law of the time. As for chemical birth control, my wife had to use it because of a genetic issue to keep from going sterile. I just had my firstborn son 48 hours ago, and he would not have been able to be born with out the use of these to keep my wife from losing her fertility. that is 100% fact. People using this story that way are just twisting a story from the Bible to try and support an unbiblical point of view.

do you not grasp the concept of the word "if" or is it that you don't comprehend the written words? OK. So "if" Snowden has not disclosed issues of national security to the Russians/Chinese, what should happen to those in Government who have lied and deceived about what they have been up to? And what, also in that event, should happen to Snowden? We're a nation of laws Gandolf, and whistle blowers do have some legal safeguards. He should return home and let things proceed through the system..... and all who have broken the law should be held accountable. Snowden as well as the others. One thing that many don't seem to understand is that to participate in civil disobedience, one must be prepared to shoulder the legal consequences. Most everyone who signed our declaration of independence lost everything they had. And what should happen to those in Government who have lied to and deceived the American people and arguably contravened the Constitution? Do they get off scott-free, because they have power, money and control of information? Again, what they were doing, thanks to the PATRIOT Act and a couple other laws was legal. It might be found to be unconstitutional, that is up to the Supreme Court to decide. Right now our country is split on if the government has the right to do this or not? Polls are showing a range of 45-50 percent approving of the NSA actions. Just as much larger numbers supported, and still support, the PATRIOT Act, which gave the government power to do this. For years I have been telling people about the NSA Data Center in Utah and have been told it was no big deal. Now many of those same people are the ones up in arms about this. But sadly, thanks to the actions that Snowden has taken since this came out, Snowden is the bigger story than the actual actions of the NSA. Snowden has made himself the story, instead of what should be.

He has information about our cyber war activities with China that he tried to peddle for his safety. We do not know yet how much he gave them or will give them in the future. Same holds true for every country he is begging to stay in. And sadly, our governments didn't break their own laws, at least the US didn't. With the passage of the PATRIOT Act and a couple other laws that were widely supported when they were passed, the US government gave themselves the right to do these things. They gave themselves the right to eavesdrop on Luxembourg? Or divert and harass a foreign presidents plane? If this had been Airforce One what would have been the result? Bombing! The oft used US response. I'm only trying to b e a voice of reason when I say the following: NO ONE diverts Air Force One as it is not a commericail aircraft and is accompanied by U.S. fighter jets at all times. And, gandolph, if the U.S. bombed everyone who made us mad, half the world would be smoldering ruins. Let's be fair here. There's the prideful, bully boy attitude the whole of Latin America is this time, right about! The President of a sovereign South American nation has his "airforce one" diverted on Washington's "advice", and the nations he is flying over "comply". This is bordering on an act of war against a foreign president. NO ONE had the right to do this. It is no wonder the Latin American countries have reacted as they have, and recalled ambassadors. Fez, the Bolivian President was flying commercially; that is why he could be diverted. No one was looking for him, they were looking for Snowden. And it wasn't the U.S. who diverted that plane, it was Austria. I don't think it's prideful or 'bully boy' to state the truth about our President's plane either. Why does everyone think our government bullies everyone else? This whole Snowden thing shows that we do NOT force other countries to do things our way. Did you see the "commercial" jet? And no it wasn't Austria, or France (who has since apologized) that were looking for Snowden. Only one country in the world cares enough about Snowden to divert a President flying from an official visit. yes, it was a very nice commercial jet, but a commercial jet none the less. and I disagree about who might care about Snowden. We know that he has already come out with information about the UK, perhaps some others EU countries are worried on what they have on them.

I'm elated! I'm curious, did you feel the same way when we learned that Kermit Gosnell was live birthing supposed abortions, who were mostly illegitimate black baby's, and then removing the babies heads with a pair of what amounted to tin snips as they squirmed around crying on the table? no, that was more a feeling of repulsion Though I did feel the same when the verdict came out, I was shocked they found him guilty on 1st degree murder. Resorted just a small bit of faith in mankind. By the way, since you seem confused here, I am not saying I disagree with the verdict, just that it was not the one I was expecting.

I am extremely pleased and thank God for answered prayer. I do not think there was a "good" outcome to the whole situation.

What's shocking about it, in your opinion? I really thought they would find him guilty of manslaughter. guess I was wrong.

Zimmerman was jumped and beaten by the kid. How, exactly, does that translate into provoking a confrontation? If Zimmerman had been black, and the kid killed was white or Hispanic, the case never would have gone to trial and he probably wouldn't have been charged at all. So your concept of "justice" and my concept of justice are not the same. You are advocating that an innocent man be held responsible and punished for something that he didn't do. Would that work for you, if the shoe were on your foot? I would say that getting out of your car and following Martin could be construed as provoking a confrontation.

They have always had the right to eavesdrop on Luxembourg. There is no US law that would make such a thing illegal. Countries have been spying on each other since the dawn of civilization, that will not change till the 2nd coming. I am much more concerned with what they are doing to their own citizens. So, it seems is Snowden, who believes the US government has been acting unconstitutionally by spying on its citizens without due cause. and many people agree with him, but his message got tarnished when he choose to try and trade secrets for safety.

He has information about our cyber war activities with China that he tried to peddle for his safety. We do not know yet how much he gave them or will give them in the future. Same holds true for every country he is begging to stay in. And sadly, our governments didn't break their own laws, at least the US didn't. With the passage of the PATRIOT Act and a couple other laws that were widely supported when they were passed, the US government gave themselves the right to do these things. They gave themselves the right to eavesdrop on Luxembourg? Or divert and harass a foreign presidents plane? If this had been Airforce One what would have been the result? They have always had the right to eavesdrop on Luxembourg. There is no US law that would make such a thing illegal. Countries have been spying on each other since the dawn of civilization, that will not change till the 2nd coming. I am much more concerned with what they are doing to their own citizens. Ok got it! They can listen in to anyone's conversations as long as they are not American citizens. interesting poll, the numbers that support Snowden are just a bit lower than those that supported the PATRIOT Act that gave the Govt the power to do this. I will say it again, I supported Snowden for his initial action, his actions since then have changed my mind. He went from whistleblower to traitor/coward when he tried to peddle state secrets for his own safety.

He has information about our cyber war activities with China that he tried to peddle for his safety. We do not know yet how much he gave them or will give them in the future. Same holds true for every country he is begging to stay in. And sadly, our governments didn't break their own laws, at least the US didn't. With the passage of the PATRIOT Act and a couple other laws that were widely supported when they were passed, the US government gave themselves the right to do these things. They gave themselves the right to eavesdrop on Luxembourg? Or divert and harass a foreign presidents plane? If this had been Airforce One what would have been the result? They have always had the right to eavesdrop on Luxembourg. There is no US law that would make such a thing illegal. Countries have been spying on each other since the dawn of civilization, that will not change till the 2nd coming. I am much more concerned with what they are doing to their own citizens.

He has information about our cyber war activities with China that he tried to peddle for his safety. We do not know yet how much he gave them or will give them in the future. Same holds true for every country he is begging to stay in. And sadly, our governments didn't break their own laws, at least the US didn't. With the passage of the PATRIOT Act and a couple other laws that were widely supported when they were passed, the US government gave themselves the right to do these things.

hello Davis, no, I never did that, please don't put words in my mouth.. Thomas I am not putting words into your mouth, I am describing your actions. Let me explain how I see what you are doing.... Lets say to prove a point we need to show A, B and C to be true. Verse 1 shows A and C while verse 2 shows B. you are looking at verse one and saying "it does not show B" and you are looking at verse 2 and saying "It does not show A or C" and not putting the verses together. This is what happens when you limit your discussion to only one verse at a time as you are requiring people to do

Links from my phone are way too hard

I am shocked

hey now, 0username0 is a very smart person. Just ask him

Very cool!!! Thanks for posting

Thank you for sharing, it can be hard to express these types of things. My family has been going through a similar period of hard times for about the last 5 years and it is hard at times to keep your head up and not give in to despair. between job/money issues and then serious health issues just making it through the day can be a struggle. I will pray for you that God can lift you out of this time. Stay strong.

you are on a Christian website, I would hope that you were fully prepared for people to use Bible verses. If not, then you have spent about 20 years wasting your time

good afternoon Davis, No, I did’t discount Bibleverses, I never do that. I’m just saying that I think that the various verses presented thus far are not proving omniscience (and I hope that the number of further verses stays modest to not make the discussion more complex than it is already). I think you are maybe messing up method and example, here. I’m not debunking the whole of a method when I say that at this particular example a Bible verse does not show the particular point my discussion partner claims it to show. Thomas you are correct, no single verse presented do far has proved omniscience, and none will. So what you have done by limiting people to a single verse is ensure that omniscience will never be shown to be correct. The concept of God's omniscience is not proven by a single passage or verse, it is shown by a interconnected range of verses from various books of the Bible. You take each verse as a stand alone "proof" when that is not the case. The strength of the concept of God's omniscience is not in a single verse, but in the whole of the argument.

Hello Davis, what are you talking about in your answer to me? I did not prove a concept (which one do you mean?), neither did I then show why it is wrong to do anything. Davis, I want to be very clear that I did not deny any Bible verse here. I once had the same debate with others. Then a lady joined the debate giving 25 Bible verses and left it up to me to discuss them. The verses were all somehow related to the subject but, in my opinion, she failed to explain her point. That was quite a bunch of verses. So this time, I chose to say something up front. Thomas You asked for a single verse to prove a Biblical concept. I said this was a bad way to go because a single verse is easy to discount. You then went and said that no, single verses were ok. Yet every time someone has posted a single verse you discount that verse for one reason or another. Thus you yourself are giving us the example of why trying to use a single verse does not work.

That's not true. There is continuum which has infinitely divisible points between the head and the neck, there is no actual dividing line, and if there were a dividing line, there would be some hair that grew on that line. Many paradoxes exist. They are undoubtedly a part of His design.Do they have answers? Well, some may spend 20 years investigating but much more time is required for even the brightest mind. But here is one I heard before the Lord Jesus came into my life:1. If God is all powerful and can do anything, than can He make a rock too big for Him to pick up? An answer to follow after time for others to think. So many have placed limitations on God! I wouldn't even dream of using a paradox to try to prove or disprove a potential being, and if you've read what I've written, there are no paradoxes here. Another paradox is that God must know what it's like to not know anything in order to know what it's like to contain all the actual ignorance that all being in the universe collectively possess, which means that God doesn't know anything and God knows everything, which reaches a paradoxical contradiction (as all paradoxes are). The very concept of infinity itself is a paradox, thus you are using a paradox to try to prove or disprove a potential being.

Where did you get your definition of dominion? I just checked 5 on-line dictionaries and none of them had that as a meaning for the word dominion. I guess it is easy to disprove things when you make up meaning to words.

A couple of points First you dont seem to know what the word domain means Second, you are trying to use a theoretical concept to put physical constraints on a non-physical being. Your whole thought pattern is flawed

That is not the way the Bible or Theology works. God does not use a single verse to tell us things, that would be a weak way that offers no support. Theological concepts are composed of multiple passage all supporting one another not unlike the steel girders in a bridge. People who ask for a single verse proving something from the Bible either do not understand the Bible or the know it can be done and that is why they ask. Hello Davis, well there are instances in which Jesus used single Bible verses and expanded on it. Thomas Welcome back Thomas T. Haven't seen you in a while. One Bible verse? Okay. I suppose we can start there. 1 John 3:19-20 19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before Him; 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything. There are others... God bless, GE Hello Jon, thank you very much for your warm welcome. I also appreciate you accepted the small challenge. However, taking into consideration that your verse starts with a condition - "whenever" - I think that it does not show that God indeed knows everything. Furthermore, I think that perfect knowledge could eventually leave out unimportant parts. If you have perfect knowledge about a TV show, does that imply that you know everything out of it? Have a nice day Thomas Thomas, Do you realize in the same post you supported using a single verse to prove a concept and then showed why it is wrong to do so. Any single verse can be picked about and denied, as you did here. This is why theological concepts are not based on single verses and why one should never try to support them with a single verse.