Lowest Crime Cities Have Huge Immigrant Populations and Vice Versa

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys seem to know your stuff so, can someone please explain something to me that has been buggin me for a while?

Why on earth would ANYONE in their right mind believe that Mary was virgin? Seriously, is it because she SAID she was? Was there an ancient gynecologist back then that VERIFIED it? And wasn’t she like… MARRIED when Jesus was born? (did she have sex AFTER he was born? if so, did this not “compromise” her purity in the eyes of some?)

I mean if someone made that claim today, would you believe them? Why should we believe it back then? It seems to me that a SHIT TON of that religion is pinned to (in MY mind) a rather dubious “fact”…

By the way, I think Jesus was a cool guy and don’t take anything away from him - he showed GREAT courage. I would follow his example even if his mom and dad had sex…

I mean, all this stuff is based on shit that NO ONE CAN PROVE, yet many of you argue about it like it happened right in front of you and you witnessed it personally…

Please, ENLIGHTEN me…[/quote]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp[/quote]

OK, so I read the fisheaters.com and it proved absolutely nothing. The catholic.com link states that according to the Protoevangelium (could someone elaborate on how we are SURE the Catholic Church didn’t alter those records in the same spirit with which they transfer pedophile priests around?) Mary’s birth was “prophesied” (imagine that) and her mother, St. Anne (who apparently DID have sex) “vowed she would devote the child to the service of the Lord”. So in order to “guard her ceremonial cleanliness”, she was to have a “guardian” and Joseph (a widower who had children already) was chosen to be her spouse.

And when it was discovered that Mary was pregnant, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities for “violating a virgin” and Mary had to answer to them for “breaking her vow”.

So let’s come back to planet earth for a moment. What is a FAR more probably scenario:

A, Joseph’s wife died so he hadn’t had sex in a LONG time, so when he had “access” to a young, nubile girl, through MARRIAGE, he did what MOST red blooded men would do and took full advantage of the situation. Fearing the consequences when her resulting pregnancy was sure to reveal his indiscretion to the temple authorities (who for all we know may have cut off his wiener for "violating the Lord’s property or other such nonsense), he LIED and convinced Mary, a young and impressionable girl, to LIE and say it was the Holy Spirit so that they would both not get into trouble. They had OPPORTUNITY and MOTIVE to conceal the truth about their sexual relationship.

OR is it MORE LIKELY that:

B, Joseph, Mary’s HUSBAND, didn’t have sex with her and the “Holy Spirit” did (which, by definition, defiled her and knocked her up in the process, but I digress).

What does COMMON FUCKING SENSE tell you?

If I am missing any facts, please point them out.

82

OK, since no one can dispute THAT one, I have another question about Deuteronomy 23:1. Here are a few translations:

New International Version (©1984)
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

English Standard Version (©2001)
â??No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

King James Bible
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American King James Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American Standard Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No man whose private parts have been wounded or cut off may come into the meeting of the Lord’s people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

Webster’s Bible Translation
He that is wounded or mutilated in his secrets, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

World English Bible
He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

Young’s Literal Translation
'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah;

So BASICALLY what it’s saying is that if you somehow manage to damage or lose your penis or testicles, you are unfit to go to heaven, BUT, if you should actually sin and USE your “privy member” LOL you are bad and are a SINNER, right?

Also, what about circumcision? Isn’t that “cutting” the penis intentionally by another person? I do believe it meets the definition above… So does than mean the EVERY MAN who has been circumcised is UNFIT to enter the kingdom of heaven? OR is it just OK to cut off PART of the penis? How much is too much? Let’s say the Moil got sloppy and nicked the tip?

OR for a modern day example, let’s say a DEVOUT catholic/christian is a soldier in what many would say are the modern day crusades in Iraq. What if an IED blew his junk off? Can he say ten hail mary’s and still get into heaven, or is he just FUCKED?

83

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
OK, since no one can dispute THAT one, I have another question about Deuteronomy 23:1. Here are a few translations:

New International Version (�©1984)
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
New Living Translation (�©2007)
"If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

English Standard Version (�©2001)
â??No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (�©1995)
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

GOD’S WORDÃ?® Translation (Ã?©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

King James Bible
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American King James Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American Standard Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No man whose private parts have been wounded or cut off may come into the meeting of the Lord’s people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

Webster’s Bible Translation
He that is wounded or mutilated in his secrets, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

World English Bible
He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

Young’s Literal Translation
'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah;

So BASICALLY what it’s saying is that if you somehow manage to damage or lose your penis or testicles, you are unfit to go to heaven, BUT, if you should actually sin and USE your “privy member” LOL you are bad and are a SINNER, right?

Also, what about circumcision? Isn’t that “cutting” the penis intentionally by another person? I do believe it meets the definition above… So does than mean the EVERY MAN who has been circumcised is UNFIT to enter the kingdom of heaven? OR is it just OK to cut off PART of the penis? How much is too much? Let’s say the Moil got sloppy and nicked the tip?

OR for a modern day example, let’s say a DEVOUT catholic/christian is a soldier in what many would say are the modern day crusades in Iraq. What if an IED blew his junk off? Can he say ten hail mary’s and still get into heaven, or is he just FUCKED?
[/quote]

Kind of a weird passage, I know. If you look a this passage:

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

eunuch, in the spiritual sense is one that is barren (testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off) in good works. Has nothing to do with being castrated or your cock cut off physically. Has to do with spiritual matters of not producing good works.

84

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You guys seem to know your stuff so, can someone please explain something to me that has been buggin me for a while?

Why on earth would ANYONE in their right mind believe that Mary was virgin? Seriously, is it because she SAID she was? Was there an ancient gynecologist back then that VERIFIED it? And wasn’t she like… MARRIED when Jesus was born? (did she have sex AFTER he was born? if so, did this not “compromise” her purity in the eyes of some?)

I mean if someone made that claim today, would you believe them? Why should we believe it back then? It seems to me that a SHIT TON of that religion is pinned to (in MY mind) a rather dubious “fact”…

By the way, I think Jesus was a cool guy and don’t take anything away from him - he showed GREAT courage. I would follow his example even if his mom and dad had sex…

I mean, all this stuff is based on shit that NO ONE CAN PROVE, yet many of you argue about it like it happened right in front of you and you witnessed it personally…

Please, ENLIGHTEN me…[/quote]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp[/quote]

OK, so I read the fisheaters.com and it proved absolutely nothing. The catholic.com link states that according to the Protoevangelium (could someone elaborate on how we are SURE the Catholic Church didn’t alter those records in the same spirit with which they transfer pedophile priests around?) Mary’s birth was “prophesied” (imagine that) and her mother, St. Anne (who apparently DID have sex) “vowed she would devote the child to the service of the Lord”. So in order to “guard her ceremonial cleanliness”, she was to have a “guardian” and Joseph (a widower who had children already) was chosen to be her spouse.

And when it was discovered that Mary was pregnant, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities for “violating a virgin” and Mary had to answer to them for “breaking her vow”.

So let’s come back to planet earth for a moment. What is a FAR more probably scenario:

A, Joseph’s wife died so he hadn’t had sex in a LONG time, so when he had “access” to a young, nubile girl, through MARRIAGE, he did what MOST red blooded men would do and took full advantage of the situation. Fearing the consequences when her resulting pregnancy was sure to reveal his indiscretion to the temple authorities (who for all we know may have cut off his wiener for "violating the Lord’s property or other such nonsense), he LIED and convinced Mary, a young and impressionable girl, to LIE and say it was the Holy Spirit so that they would both not get into trouble. They had OPPORTUNITY and MOTIVE to conceal the truth about their sexual relationship.

OR is it MORE LIKELY that:

B, Joseph, Mary’s HUSBAND, didn’t have sex with her and the “Holy Spirit” did (which, by definition, defiled her and knocked her up in the process, but I digress).

What does COMMON FUCKING SENSE tell you?

If I am missing any facts, please point them out.[/quote]

I am on my BlackBerry Storm2! So, I don’t have anything with me to really explain this more, but Jewish tradition and costume, if Mary and Joseph were actually married then Jewish tradition (back then) is that after the wedding feast, the man and wife go into the tent and consummate the marriage while the rest of the party goers keep partying outside the tent. As well, the word they use for “marriage” is mistranslated, they weren’t engaged.

As I learned what Joseph and Mary were, were something stronger than engagement, and something less than Marriage. However, this is a very conservative time. So, to think they would have carnal relations is a little much. However, they basically were together for a year before the actual marriage. This is in which time the Holy Ghost came down.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Virgin Birth of Christ Here is another good link to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

85

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
How the fuck did we go from Immigration and crime to the Bible …A Fucking-GAIN!

Might as well argue about abortion![/quote]

I think it had to do with someone being upset that it came from a Catholic site and not being able to hold his water.

I wanted to hear people’s opinion on Immigration and crime, but some how it turned into pedophile priests and praying to the saints.

86

Brother Chris,

When you started this thread, you posted a link from the Catholic Key Blog, that might have something to do with it…

Had you posted something from a news source which was, let’s just say, “religion neutral”, it might not have gone down this road. There is a clear link between the church’s need for money, and the few remaining people to donate who are easily-duped immigrants. Take a pro-amnesty position, and they will believe anything you tell them.

Also, the link you provided did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, something the church also loves to blur, they sure need that money badly don’t they.

87

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
OK, since no one can dispute THAT one, I have another question about Deuteronomy 23:1. Here are a few translations:

New International Version (�?�©1984)
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
New Living Translation (�?�©2007)
"If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

English Standard Version (�?�©2001)
�¢??No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (�?�©1995)
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

GOD’S WORDÃ??Ã?® Translation (Ã??Ã?©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

King James Bible
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American King James Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American Standard Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No man whose private parts have been wounded or cut off may come into the meeting of the Lord’s people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

Webster’s Bible Translation
He that is wounded or mutilated in his secrets, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

World English Bible
He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

Young’s Literal Translation
'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah;

So BASICALLY what it’s saying is that if you somehow manage to damage or lose your penis or testicles, you are unfit to go to heaven, BUT, if you should actually sin and USE your “privy member” LOL you are bad and are a SINNER, right?

Also, what about circumcision? Isn’t that “cutting” the penis intentionally by another person? I do believe it meets the definition above… So does than mean the EVERY MAN who has been circumcised is UNFIT to enter the kingdom of heaven? OR is it just OK to cut off PART of the penis? How much is too much? Let’s say the Moil got sloppy and nicked the tip?

OR for a modern day example, let’s say a DEVOUT catholic/christian is a soldier in what many would say are the modern day crusades in Iraq. What if an IED blew his junk off? Can he say ten hail mary’s and still get into heaven, or is he just FUCKED?
[/quote]

Kind of a weird passage, I know. If you look a this passage:

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

eunuch, in the spiritual sense is one that is barren (testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off) in good works. Has nothing to do with being castrated or your cock cut off physically. Has to do with spiritual matters of not producing good works.[/quote]

I figured you’d say that, which is why I included so many translations. I think PENIS and TESTICLES are pretty specific in the overwhelming majority of these translations… A eunuch was a fairly common phenomenon back then. If them meant “spiritually bankrupt” I’m sure they would have written that. But they wrote Eunuch. They wrote Penis. They wrote Testicles. They mean to say that if you are missing your “package” you don’t go to heaven. It seems very clear to me. So I assert that since circumcision removes part of your penis, then all men who are circumcised WILL NOT enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. According to the bible.

Please point to a passage where it says that even if your penis and testicles are cut or removed, you can still go to heaven.

88

And why should we NOT talk about the loss of 49.5 million souls?! Because you can’t simply define the unborn??

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
How the fuck did we go from Immigration and crime to the Bible …A Fucking-GAIN!

Might as well argue about abortion![/quote]

89

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Brother Chris,

When you started this thread, you posted a link from the Catholic Key Blog, that might have something to do with it…

Had you posted something from a news source which was, let’s just say, “religion neutral”, it might not have gone down this road. There is a clear link between the church’s need for money, and the few remaining people to donate who are easily-duped immigrants. Take a pro-amnesty position, and they will believe anything you tell them.

Also, the link you provided did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, something the church also loves to blur, they sure need that money badly don’t they. [/quote]

You could have not taken it down this road. But, your hatred for the Catholic Church wouldn’t allow you to do that. Church’s need for money? You mean so we can take care of the poor?

I go to a college Newman Center, and about 80% of the members donate. We only have four immigrants. And, where is your source that only immigrants tithe? Can you show me this clear link between need for money and immigrants. And, the Church holds strong that a country has a right to secure their boarders.

Show us a link that shows that the church loves to blur between illegal and legal immigrants.

90

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I figured you’d say that, which is why I included so many translations. I think PENIS and TESTICLES are pretty specific in the overwhelming majority of these translations… A eunuch was a fairly common phenomenon back then. If them meant “spiritually bankrupt” I’m sure they would have written that. But they wrote Eunuch. They wrote Penis. They wrote Testicles. They mean to say that if you are missing your “package” you don’t go to heaven. It seems very clear to me. So I assert that since circumcision removes part of your penis, then all men who are circumcised WILL NOT enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. According to the bible.

Please point to a passage where it says that even if your penis and testicles are cut or removed, you can still go to heaven.[/quote]

  1. Douay-Rheims Bible is the first official (that is considered without faith or moral error) translation into English from Latin.
  2. I’m not a fundamentalist, so I do not take the everything as it comes. Otherwise, I would have to take your interpretation as key.
  3. The text is 4,000-6,000 years old, and was translated five hundred years ago. And, Holy Scripture is not the easiest thing to understand by just reading it.
  4. Having a good authority through a commentary is good to have when reading through and studying scripture.
  5. Heaven isn’t in any of those translations.
  6. Obviously from your circumcision comparison you are not using the same terminology or understanding as the Jewish people.

Yes, I think penis and testicles are specific, and that is how the Jews identified if a man was barren.

They didn’t have scientific tests to test the sperm of a man to see if he was barren or infertile. The woman was always assumed to be the barren one, if a couple could not get pregnant, not the man. The talliwacker comment was to emphasize that a eunuch has no good fruit.

However, nothing talks about Heaven, church of the Lord is the people of Israel. From DRBO itself: “Into the church”… That is, into the assembly or congregation of Israel, so as to have the privilege of an Israelite, or to be capable of any place or office among the people of God.

Nothing about Heaven.

91

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
And why should we NOT talk about the loss of 49.5 million souls?! Because you can’t simply define the unborn??

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
How the fuck did we go from Immigration and crime to the Bible …A Fucking-GAIN!

Might as well argue about abortion![/quote]
[/quote]

No, I’m against it so your premise is wrong…

The point that went over the knuckledraggers head is that it’s a pointless discussion for the most part. But…that;'s what we do around here…me included. I just wanted to call the kettle black.

92

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
And why should we NOT talk about the loss of 49.5 million souls?! Because you can’t simply define the unborn??

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
How the fuck did we go from Immigration and crime to the Bible …A Fucking-GAIN!

Might as well argue about abortion![/quote]
[/quote]

No, I’m against it so your premise is wrong…

The point that went over the knuckledraggers head is that it’s a pointless discussion for the most part. But…that;'s what we do around here…me included. I just wanted to call the kettle black.[/quote]

Wanna hug?

93

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

I figured you’d say that, which is why I included so many translations. I think PENIS and TESTICLES are pretty specific in the overwhelming majority of these translations… A eunuch was a fairly common phenomenon back then. If them meant “spiritually bankrupt” I’m sure they would have written that. But they wrote Eunuch. They wrote Penis. They wrote Testicles.

They mean to say that if you are missing your “package” you don’t go to heaven.[/quote]

No, they didn’t. The assembly or congregtion isn’t heaven.

How did this not make you realize you’re understanding is incorrect? Obviously you’re NOT using their understanding.

Isiah 56:4-5

Acts 8: 26-38

Matthew 19: 11-12

94

From another Commentary on the RSV, Catholic Edition.

19:12 eunuchs: i.e., royal servants in charge of a king’s wives. To safeguard against sexual temptations, eunuchs in the ancient Near East were either impotent or physically castrated. Jesus speaks metaphorically: those who have made themselves eunuchs are those who voluntarily embrace celibacy in imitation of Jesus and for the service in his kingdom. These men are leaders entrusted with the care of the Christ’s bride, the Church on earth; embracing consecrated virginity, they live by anticipation the life of heaven (22:30). The Council of Trent (Sess. 24, can. 10) teaches in accord with Scripture that the objective state of celibacy is higher than the married state, although both vocations are important for the Church’s life (1 Cor 7:1-8, 32-35; Rev 14:4; CCC 1618-20).

95

Here you go Chris…

"In June 2005, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times in which he defended and even encouraged illegal aliens to enter this country. Of course, Mexicans and other Latin Americans are overwhelmingly devout Catholics. Mahony along with the rest of the churchâ??s hierarchy is undoubtedly anxious to tap this potential source of income.

In 2006, Cardinal Mahony directed all priests in his 288 parish archdiocese to simply ignore any federal law which requires anyone working on behalf of the church to inquire into the citizenship of anyone seeking help (The Catholic church offers assistance to illegal aliens applying for various welfare programs). The directive was given by Mahony in response to the immigration bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2005, which declared all illegal aliens and mandated the prosecution to anyone who knowingly aided an illegal alien."

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/mormon-latinos-want-church-denounce-illegal-immigrant-crackdown

http://www.kmbc.com/r/14207212/detail.html

If the church was so interested in helping people with their immigration status, why don’t they pay (with all those donations of course) to help them come here legally? Ya know, follow the law and shit.

96

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Here you go Chris…

"In June 2005, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times in which he defended and even encouraged illegal aliens to enter this country. Of course, Mexicans and other Latin Americans are overwhelmingly devout Catholics. Mahony along with the rest of the churchâ??s hierarchy is undoubtedly anxious to tap this potential source of income.

In 2006, Cardinal Mahony directed all priests in his 288 parish archdiocese to simply ignore any federal law which requires anyone working on behalf of the church to inquire into the citizenship of anyone seeking help (The Catholic church offers assistance to illegal aliens applying for various welfare programs). The directive was given by Mahony in response to the immigration bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2005, which declared all illegal aliens and mandated the prosecution to anyone who knowingly aided an illegal alien."

http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/mormon-latinos-want-church-denounce-illegal-immigrant-crackdown

http://www.kmbc.com/r/14207212/detail.html

If the church was so interested in helping people with their immigration status, why don’t they pay (with all those donations of course) to help them come here legally? Ya know, follow the law and shit.

[/quote]

Sounds like they are asking for immigration reform. And, you have a problem with that. Welcome to America, you have an opinion. Your evidence for your link between money and immigration is an op-ed piece?

That is not a clear link, that is someone’s opinion. You didn’t show that immigrants are the only one duped to donate money, or that they Catholic Church blurs illegal and legal immigrants.

Some of those articles aren’t even about the Catholic Church, they are about other Church’s with comments about the Catholic Church.

And, almost all those articles are Op-Ed and I love this quote, “Is it any wonder that this church has become irrelevant to most Americans?” First the guy has no evidence of his claims, he just makes claims, very controversial comments at that. But if the Church is really irrelevant to most Americans, why do people keep talking about her. If it was irrelevant, no one would care.

And, the sheltering of illegal immigrants it to protect families…hmm, an institution that is pro-family protecting families…what a novel idea. Your own articles states this. These illegal immigrants that they are protecting, have American-born children. Which last time I checked meant that they had an anchor baby and were allowed to stay and were protecting them from illegally being deported.

97

For the most part, define the unborn shrug

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

No, I’m against it so your premise is wrong…

The point that went over the knuckledraggers head is that it’s a pointless discussion for the most part. But…that;'s what we do around here…me included. I just wanted to call the kettle black.[/quote]

98

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
For the most part, define the unborn shrug

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

No, I’m against it so your premise is wrong…

The point that went over the knuckledraggers head is that it’s a pointless discussion for the most part. But…that;'s what we do around here…me included. I just wanted to call the kettle black.[/quote]
[/quote]

Dude, what happened?

99

Simple, girls can’t drive!! twas a joke Actually I don’t remember the day of the wreck. I was in a coma for 6 weeks and here I am still. A rash comes to mind lol ; ) It would be cool to get a T-shirt, but I don’t even know how I can from roun’ these here parts jajaja

shot me a PM if you want the details -

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

Dude, what happened?
[/quote]

100

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
<<< Please point to a passage where it says that even if your penis and testicles are cut or removed, you can still go to heaven.[/quote]It means exactly what it says and in the covenant of law was pretty much black and white as far as we’re told. Also, entering the assembly of the Lord is a type (illustration) of going to heaven. Once you understand the theology of divine covenants that runs through all of scripture most questions like this aren’t that tough. (The whole book of Hebrews)

In short the letter of the old testament law does not always reflect the intended eternal spirit of the eternal covenant by which all men of all ages have always been saved going all the way back to Abraham himself. Jesus Himself said so and there are abundant NT principles to illustrate this.

Every thing in the OT law was intended then to be carried out as given no matter how horrific they may seem to us. HOWEVER. I can give conclusive evidence that even back then some understood the spirit of the law and “lawfully” violated the letter of the law while fully upholding it’s spiritual intent. All of the law and the prophets are fulfilled in Christ. His obedience is all mine by grace. If you are actually interested I can give more of this my view which happens to be correct =] (and not actually mine at all God forbid).