Hmm, okay, i'll explain, I said I would die for my Family than Country, but that was a Typo, I would never sacrifice myself for and Nation of this world.
It's a very good thing that you live in America where you don't have to join the Army if you don't want to, rather than Finland, Switzerland or Israel.
At the height of Qaddafi's Libya it had 0% loans, housing was a right, free world class healthcare, free education to all people, government assisted loans, free water (In a desert nation), free electricity. How does South Africa and Egypt fare against that? And don't tell me its just cause they have oil. South Africa has massive reserves of Gold, diamonds and platinum. And Algeria is very poor and they have twice as much oil as Libya. You may criticize my opinion and I respect that. However my position on these issues is pretty firm, I have seen what has happened in Russia and know people from Libya who long for the days of Qaddafi.
I honestly don't believe Libya was actually that prosperous for a second, or everybody would have been living there.
Its the same as Iraq, Hussein (Originally installed by America) and Qhadaffi both were horrible dictators but they took care of their countries, after the Arab spring and the Iraq wars, things got much worse and people wished they were being ruled by the dictators again.
KJV, NIV, NIRV, NKJV are the most widely used, I believe. But it doesn't really matter as long as they were accurately translated.
There is too much debate over which is best. They're all annoyingly... subtly different. Some of the more recent versions seem to exaggerate parts as an excuse to hate. It's quite sad really. Churches should be inclusive.
As long as the subtle differences still mean the same thing, it's okay. If any version changes the meaning of a phrase with the way they chose to translate it, that's not okay.
praise him with resounding cymbals. - Psalm 150: 3-5
Instruments are not wrong.
Also, substituting grape juice for wine is not wrong, either.
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” - Matthew 26: 27-29
Nowhere does it say what was in the cup. The symbolism works no matter what beverage it is.
That's from the Old Testament, we don't need that in the New Covenant, plus it says Wine, and Jesus drank Wine.
Just because we don't need it doesn't make it not wrong. I don't need to be on LMBE right now, but I am, and it's not a sin.
It does say "fruit of the vine," but that could mean grape juice. I'm sure it's not what Jesus was drinking, but it still works for communion. Maybe it does say wine in Greek, I don't know, but my point is that communion is symbolic and grape juice does not change the meaning.
When you say officially... no. Everything isn't owned by the government. We just have large government companies. Many people still wish the ussr didn't fall apart that's definite.
Well, I assume the millions of people who suffered from the USSR, which was arguably the most evil country of all time, are happy it is gone
I think you're forgetting about the many ancient nations who had no goals except more power, and would use any means to get it, from slavery to genocide to constant war.
Technically, there were plenty of polytheistic religions before Judaism.
Eh... as far as I can tell, making that claim alone debunks the Abrahamic religions. I'm extending Judaism to "Adam's conversational relationship with God."
That could be called a completely different thing, like "Adamianism" or something ( ), but that makes sense.
Martin Luther's idea, though, was that the Catholic Church was adding things to the Gospel and we should just accept God's Word as it is written in the Bible.
True. Even if I personally find that ironic since the books of Jude and Revelation were added by Martin Luther to the original Bible.
That's not entirely true, they were in some Bibles but no one could agree on whether or not they should be there. I trust Revelation as it was written by John the apostle.
The Orthodox church has not changed in the past 2000 years. Research into their mode of worship then and now will prove this. They also did not "leave the original faith" -- while the Roman and Eastern churches split, they both had claims to being more or less the original faith. This changed as the Roman church began adapting their ideals as both an incentive for pagans and as a corruption of ever-powerful Roman hierarchy.
No, we don't "worship Mary." For the record, the Catholic church doesn't, either.
The earliest fathers didn't have special clothes because they were literally bankrupt, door-to-door evangelists. That changed by the year 300.
So you believe that if something is not mentioned in the Bible, it's evil? Very... interesting outlook on life. You must really hate the internet.
Instruments are wrong yet King David was a musician.
You think it's wrong to suppress Christmas even though you disagree with it? Congratulations! You're finally coming around to religious freedom.
Well both Catholic and Orthodox say they kept the original faith. Okay, I meant Theotokis. Yes by 300 bad practices entered the church. I said I was a bible Christian, the Bible and what is says are holy, nothing here is, Tradition doesn't matter,God tells us what we need to worship, so you want to add to the Bible? Christmas isn't in the bible, neither is Easter, both are wrong. King David was in the Old Testamant, things changed since then. Actually I already have, plus Its not are business as Christians to make laws for nations.
Earlier you said it was wrong to make Christmas illegal, now you're saying it's wrong to celebrate Christmas at all? And why would it be wrong to celebrate Jesus' birth, or his Resurrection?
most evil country? Congratulations to Hitler's Germany, Mao's china, Musolini's Italy, imperial japan, Taliban, isis, North Korea, Khmer rouge you are no longer the most evil countries in the world. The sad thing is... you probably have no idea how people lived in most places in the ussr post the 1930's. You probably also don't know much about the worst leader in Russian history: Boris Yeltsin.
As evil as those countries were, let's examine this.
Twelve million people can be attributed to Hitler. Anywhere between 34-49 million can be attributed to Stalin alone. In addition, Nazi Germany lasted only twelve years to the Soviet Union's seventy-four.
While Mao did inadvertently cause many more people to starve from famine, this was by accident and was a matter of stupidity more than evil.
Mussolini's Italy... is completely irrelevant next to the above two.
Imperial Japan, while also committing awful atrocities, is nothing like the USSR or Nazi Germany.
The Taliban and ISIS are incredibly immoral, evil organizations, but their scope was control over small regions and the Taliban were in power for five years while ISIS still doesn't really hold power.
North Korea is horrible, and I'd say in many ways worse than the USSR, but I'd hardly call it more evil.
The Khmer Rouge regime was brutal, but only two million compared to the dozens of millions under the USSR.
Please educate us?
Yeltsin was an idiot, to be sure, but he hardly compares to Soviet Premiers in terms of being the worst in Russian history. When you add the old tsars to that...
I still wouldn't go so far as to call it the most evil country in history. Evilness can't really be measured, and there's no way to satisfactorily defend that statement.
Eh... as far as I can tell, making that claim alone debunks the Abrahamic religions. I'm extending Judaism to "Adam's conversational relationship with God."
Except there were a lot of religions before it, e.g. the Sumerian religion.
Adam was the first man, so there were no religions before his.
Yeah, but he's a Founding Father who's always glorified as an amazing person.
Jefferson is hard to deal with, because he did have some moral issues, but also was beautifully eloquent in basically summing up America He was a mixed bag
Cutting and pasting the Bible to suit your own opinions qualifies as a bit more than a "moral issue" in my opinion.
There may be no evidence for the dates of Christmas and Easter. But should we not celebrate them just because we don't know the exact date? It doesn't really matter when we celebrate them. It might be odd, but it wouldn't be 'wrong' to celebrate Christmas in July. It would probably be inacurate, but it wouldn't matter that much.
If people want to celebrate an important religious occasion, why shouldn't they? One doesn't have to, but it's not wrong.
Were to celebrate those days everyday, we don't need a holiday, besides that's church and state again, but We are to celebrate Christ's Resurrection everyday.
Yes, but there's nothing wrong with having a day set apart once a year to celebrate with your friends and family in a special way.
However my position on these issues is pretty firm, I have seen what has happened in Russia and know people from Libya who long for the days of Qaddafi.
