Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Forgiving makes me feel better

peacethroughunity
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta
My website 'Peace and unity in our lives' with the address as

https://sites.google.com...

has the aim to provide inspiration and encouragement for life, and hope for people including youths and children around the globe to find courage in their life, by trusting God to be more present in their life.

Follow me on TWITTER https://twitter.com...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 4:56:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I forgive you.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Dogknox
Posts: 5,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2012 5:30:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Must forgive .. God demands it!
Forgiving does not mean... You must forget!!!
Forgiving does not mean... Payment for injury need not be accepted!
Being forgiven does not mean... We are not culpable (meriting condemnation or blame) to repay God for the sin!
We are forgiven our sins YES.. But God still insists on restitution!

David was forgiven by God but he still lost his baby!

You break your neighbors window, they might forgive you.. BUT..
But it does not mean you do not have to fix the damage!!

Jesus taught the Apostles how to pray..
Matthew 6:14
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Even the Apostles will lose salvation if they refuse to forgive... Does not bold well for those people who teach; "Can't lose salvation!"

Dogknox
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 12:14:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM, peacethroughunity wrote:
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta

Yes, in truth, your always going to be hurt by those you love and those who hate you. Your going to be insulted, lied to, mocked, attacked, abused by people who love you. It doesn't mean they don't love you, it indicates that sin and evil is controlling their soul to do what they don't want to do. According to the Torah of Moshe (Moses) and teachings of Paul, knowledge of good leads to the doing of evil, but through the grace of Jesus Christ, we find forgiveness for sins. When we forgive others, we free ourselves from the power of sin and peace and love emanates from our being. Make it a habit to intercede for those who hurt you in the atoning blood of Yeshua (Jesus). "I forgive this person in the name of Jesus Amen!"
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 12:54:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM, peacethroughunity wrote:
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta

If the God of the Bible could forgive, Jesus wouldn't have had to die. Then again, Jesus IS God in the interpretation created and adopted by the 4th century council. So with that understanding, Jesus can't forgive either.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 3:38:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 12:54:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM, peacethroughunity wrote:
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta

If the God of the Bible could forgive, Jesus wouldn't have had to die. Then again, Jesus IS God in the interpretation created and adopted by the 4th century council. So with that understanding, Jesus can't forgive either.

Jesus was claimed to be God in the flesh long before any "4th-century council". I could call a "council" today, and we could declare that the Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that we CREATED the statement, does it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 5:46:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 3:38:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 12:54:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM, peacethroughunity wrote:
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta

If the God of the Bible could forgive, Jesus wouldn't have had to die. Then again, Jesus IS God in the interpretation created and adopted by the 4th century council. So with that understanding, Jesus can't forgive either.

Jesus was claimed to be God in the flesh long before any "4th-century council".
He was also claimed to be a human messenger of God, a subordinate god to God, and a subordinate god existing only in an ethereal realm. The council of the 4th century tossed out all versions except the one they selected by a matter of vote, and then selected manuscripts which supported that vote, while intentionally discarding and disregarding manuscripts which supported the other various portrayals.

I could call a "council" today, and we could declare that the Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that we CREATED the statement, does it?
Of course not. But you have to remember that the Bible you're talking about is a collection of writings selected specifically for their adherence to what the men of the 4th century council wanted Christians to believe. The Bible doesn't follow the belief. The belief follows the Bible, which was constructed to meet the bias of the 4th century council. Christianity is the religion of the 4th century council, not a religion of Jesus, or of God (even if one is to assume that either or both actually exist).

If a council were created to dig through all of the commentary on the presidential performance of Richard Nixon, and decided by vote that Watergate was a myth, that no illegal eavesdropping or spying occurred, and that every action taken by Nixon was pure, honest and benevolent; and then, sorted through a collection of articles, documents and reports, tossing out anything connecting Nixon with guilt, and keeping only those few documents which attempt to exonerate him, you would have the modern-day equivalent to a "bible" in regard to the presidency and actions of Richard M. Nixon.

This is a fair analogy to the development of the "Holy Bible", and the beliefs formed upon it's contents.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 6:52:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 5:46:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:38:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 12:54:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM, peacethroughunity wrote:
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta

If the God of the Bible could forgive, Jesus wouldn't have had to die. Then again, Jesus IS God in the interpretation created and adopted by the 4th century council. So with that understanding, Jesus can't forgive either.

Jesus was claimed to be God in the flesh long before any "4th-century council".

He was also claimed to be a human messenger of God, a subordinate god to God, and a subordinate god existing only in an ethereal realm.

So? The view that Jesus was indeed divine was not created by any council. That was the point.

The council of the 4th century tossed out all versions except the one they selected by a matter of vote, and then selected manuscripts which supported that vote, while intentionally discarding and disregarding manuscripts which supported the other various portrayals.

More likely they reviewed the writings that they all agreed were canonical (which was by far the majority of our current NT), and then consulted the statements of very early Christians, and found that this was the more common view, not to mention the correct view. Unfortunately, your sources are sourcing popish (or Roman Catholic) sources which file the baseless claim that the Roman Catholic Church gave us the scriptures. On "Who gave us the Scriptures?", atheists and Catholics always shake hands.

I could call a "council" today, and we could declare that the Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that we CREATED the statement, does it?

Of course not. But you have to remember that the Bible you're talking about is a collection of writings selected specifically for their adherence to what the men of the 4th century council wanted Christians to believe.

That's pure nonsense, and you couldn't prove it if your life depended upon it. We can go back from the 4th ... to the 3rd ... to the 2nd ... and even back to the 1st century, and find that the vast majority of non-canonical books were rejected all down the line. The reverse is true for the canonical ones. There is a little overlap - but not much.

The Bible doesn't follow the belief. The belief follows the Bible, which was constructed to meet the bias of the 4th century council. Christianity is the religion of the 4th century council, not a religion of Jesus, or of God (even if one is to assume that either or both actually exist).

Which gospels were included in the Diatessaron harmony in AD 160?

If these are the same as the current NT gospels, why do you insist that a 4th-century council made the decision?

The Muratorian fragment (170 AD or so) contains, with little exception, the rest of the books of the NT.

If a council were created to dig through all of the commentary on the presidential performance of Richard Nixon, and decided by vote that Watergate was a myth, that no illegal eavesdropping or spying occurred, and that every action taken by Nixon was pure, honest and benevolent; and then, sorted through a collection of articles, documents and reports, tossing out anything connecting Nixon with guilt, and keeping only those few documents which attempt to exonerate him, you would have the modern-day equivalent to a "bible" in regard to the presidency and actions of Richard M. Nixon.

Do you have any evidence that the 4th-century council "tossed out" any books that were accepted by the majority of early Christians?

This is a fair analogy to the development of the "Holy Bible", and the beliefs formed upon it's contents.

Nothing is fair about it. We can take the Diattesseron coupled with the Muratorian Fragment from the 160's and 170's and reproduce the NT without any need at all of any "council." That there was dissention, I do not deny. However, I affirm that the dissention related to only a couple of books.

By the way, we now have a homily of the Book of Hebrews (as yet unpublished) that has been dated to the 2nd century. This shows that, yes, the Book of Hebrews was read in the churches, and yes, it was considered a canonical book - even way back then.

In the Nixon example, you are asking us to toss out the MAJORITY of the evidence affirmed by the MAJORITY of sane people in deference to the dubious writings of a few influential fanatics. Flip it. Let's keep the accepted evidence, and lay aside for further study, on Mr. Nixon. Then what have you got?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 7:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 6:52:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 5:46:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
He was also claimed to be a human messenger of God, a subordinate god to God, and a subordinate god existing only in an ethereal realm.

So? The view that Jesus was indeed divine was not created by any council. That was the point.
Correct, that view already existed, as one of many views held under Christianity. The council is what made it THE view of Christianity. Prior to the council many different views of who/what Jesus was, were accepted across the diversity of Christianity.

The council of the 4th century tossed out all versions except the one they selected by a matter of vote, and then selected manuscripts which supported that vote, while intentionally discarding and disregarding manuscripts which supported the other various portrayals.

More likely they reviewed the writings that they all agreed were canonical (which was by far the majority of our current NT), and then consulted the statements of very early Christians, and found that this was the more common view, not to mention the correct view.
Your belief that this is the "correct view" is because it is the view promoted by the council. The council didn't have any special insight, or any exclusive supporting information. They selected the views they personally found preferable; just as Christians continue to do today, on the issues not mandated by the council.

And no, it was not what they "all" agreed upon. It was what the majority of the council eventually agreed upon. And the forming of a majority was accomplished through politics, not by evidence either way, regarding the preference for certain manuscripts. If enough people of one view gathered a coalition against those of other views, they could manage to have them removed from their council positions, and labeled "heretics". This is exactly what happened to Marcion. Marcion recognized the problem with several of the favored gospels, as well as the contradiction of including the Old Testament (which Christians today quickly attempt to dismiss, yet proclaim readily as the source for prophecies fulfilled in the NT). So Christians today serve as a testament to the fact that Marcion was correct. Yet, in his suggestion that the Bible be composed of 11-writings of Paul, and "The Gospel of Luke", and not contain any other books, he found himself in a contrasting position to the majority of cut-throat council politicians, and has since been known as a "heretic" within Christianity.

There was no "agreement" on what should be included in the canon. That's why it took 42-years of infighting, political sabotage, character assassination, and bitter arguments before the first canon was accepted. And 30-years later, even that was altered.

Unfortunately, your sources are sourcing popish (or Roman Catholic) sources which file the baseless claim that the Roman Catholic Church gave us the scriptures. On "Who gave us the Scriptures?", atheists and Catholics always shake hands.
And yet, not once have I even mentioned Catholics in regard to the council. So you're hoping for this to be true, since you're not a Catholic. You're happy to rope Catholics and atheists together, while the correct grouping is Catholics with other Christians.


I could call a "council" today, and we could declare that the Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that we CREATED the statement, does it?

Of course not. But you have to remember that the Bible you're talking about is a collection of writings selected specifically for their adherence to what the men of the 4th century council wanted Christians to believe.

That's pure nonsense, and you couldn't prove it if your life depended upon it.
Time for your Xanax, hun. Are you willing to defend the position that if the council found writings which were completely against their beliefs, to be of valid historical and factual value, that they would have reversed their votes and included those writings? What a naive, sad, and isolated little world you've constructed for yourself. That's not reality, sweetie.

We can go back from the 4th ... to the 3rd ... to the 2nd ... and even back to the 1st century, and find that the vast majority of non-canonical books were rejected all down the line. The reverse is true for the canonical ones. There is a little overlap - but not much.
If you go backward from the 4th century, you find that many of the books which were eventually dubbed "canonical" (you have to remember that the council made them "canonical", dear); were some of the older books. So they had a strong foothold, despite the fact that they don't hold up to modern textual criticism. However, that does nothing to change the fact that they were selected primarily for the fact that they didn't contradict the selected beliefs of the members. Do you suppose it's just a coincidence that the four gospels they selected - each and everyone of them, anonymous - just happened to all come from the same non-authoritative sources, in that "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" all demonstrate unmistakable evidence of copying from "Mark"? And yet, they had over 30 gospels - commonly read by pre-council Christians - from which to choose.


The Bible doesn't follow the belief. The belief follows the Bible, which was constructed to meet the bias of the 4th century council. Christianity is the religion of the 4th century council, not a religion of Jesus, or of God (even if one is to assume that either or both actually exist).

Which gospels were included in the Diatessaron harmony in AD 160?
You don't seem to understand. No one is saying that no Christian had ever suggested these same four gospels. The problem is that Christians had suggested - and read - many other gospels as well. And while there are extant writings offering those four (such as the Diatessaron), the Diatessaron does nothing to attempt to establish their authority or factuality.

If these are the same as the current NT gospels, why do you insist that a 4th-century council made the decision?
Because history records that they did. Their own statements and writings record that they did.

The Muratorian fragment (170 AD or so) contains, with little exception, the rest of the books of the NT.
You should really do some research. The Muratorian fragment is a 7th century document, containing cues which suggest that it may have been translated from a Greek original sometime between 170AD and the 4th century.

Do you not understand the dishonesty you've perpetrated?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:31:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 7:52:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:52:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 5:46:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
He was also claimed to be a human messenger of God, a subordinate god to God, and a subordinate god existing only in an ethereal realm.

So? The view that Jesus was indeed divine was not created by any council. That was the point.
Correct, that view already existed, as one of many views held under Christianity. The council is what made it THE view of Christianity. Prior to the council many different views of who/what Jesus was, were accepted across the diversity of Christianity.

The council of the 4th century tossed out all versions except the one they selected by a matter of vote, and then selected manuscripts which supported that vote, while intentionally discarding and disregarding manuscripts which supported the other various portrayals.

More likely they reviewed the writings that they all agreed were canonical (which was by far the majority of our current NT), and then consulted the statements of very early Christians, and found that this was the more common view, not to mention the correct view.
Your belief that this is the "correct view" is because it is the view promoted by the council. The council didn't have any special insight, or any exclusive supporting information. They selected the views they personally found preferable; just as Christians continue to do today, on the issues not mandated by the council.

And no, it was not what they "all" agreed upon. It was what the majority of the council eventually agreed upon. And the forming of a majority was accomplished through politics, not by evidence either way, regarding the preference for certain manuscripts. If enough people of one view gathered a coalition against those of other views, they could manage to have them removed from their council positions, and labeled "heretics". This is exactly what happened to Marcion. Marcion recognized the problem with several of the favored gospels, as well as the contradiction of including the Old Testament (which Christians today quickly attempt to dismiss, yet proclaim readily as the source for prophecies fulfilled in the NT). So Christians today serve as a testament to the fact that Marcion was correct. Yet, in his suggestion that the Bible be composed of 11-writings of Paul, and "The Gospel of Luke", and not contain any other books, he found himself in a contrasting position to the majority of cut-throat council politicians, and has since been known as a "heretic" within Christianity.

There was no "agreement" on what should be included in the canon. That's why it took 42-years of infighting, political sabotage, character assassination, and bitter arguments before the first canon was accepted. And 30-years later, even that was altered.

Unfortunately, your sources are sourcing popish (or Roman Catholic) sources which file the baseless claim that the Roman Catholic Church gave us the scriptures. On "Who gave us the Scriptures?", atheists and Catholics always shake hands.
And yet, not once have I even mentioned Catholics in regard to the council. So you're hoping for this to be true, since you're not a Catholic. You're happy to rope Catholics and atheists together, while the correct grouping is Catholics with other Christians.


I could call a "council" today, and we could declare that the Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that we CREATED the statement, does it?

Of course not. But you have to remember that the Bible you're talking about is a collection of writings selected specifically for their adherence to what the men of the 4th century council wanted Christians to believe.

That's pure nonsense, and you couldn't prove it if your life depended upon it.
Time for your Xanax, hun. Are you willing to defend the position that if the council found writings which were completely against their beliefs, to be of valid historical and factual value, that they would have reversed their votes and included those writings? What a naive, sad, and isolated little world you've constructed for yourself. That's not reality, sweetie.

We can go back from the 4th ... to the 3rd ... to the 2nd ... and even back to the 1st century, and find that the vast majority of non-canonical books were rejected all down the line. The reverse is true for the canonical ones. There is a little overlap - but not much.
If you go backward from the 4th century, you find that many of the books which were eventually dubbed "canonical" (you have to remember that the council made them "canonical", dear); were some of the older books. So they had a strong foothold, despite the fact that they don't hold up to modern textual criticism. However, that does nothing to change the fact that they were selected primarily for the fact that they didn't contradict the selected beliefs of the members. Do you suppose it's just a coincidence that the four gospels they selected - each and everyone of them, anonymous - just happened to all come from the same non-authoritative sources, in that "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" all demonstrate unmistakable evidence of copying from "Mark"? And yet, they had over 30 gospels - commonly read by pre-council Christians - from which to choose.


The Bible doesn't follow the belief. The belief follows the Bible, which was constructed to meet the bias of the 4th century council. Christianity is the religion of the 4th century council, not a religion of Jesus, or of God (even if one is to assume that either or both actually exist).

Which gospels were included in the Diatessaron harmony in AD 160?
You don't seem to understand. No one is saying that no Christian had ever suggested these same four gospels. The problem is that Christians had suggested - and read - many other gospels as well. And while there are extant writings offering those four (such as the Diatessaron), the Diatessaron does nothing to attempt to establish their authority or factuality.

If these are the same as the current NT gospels, why do you insist that a 4th-century council made the decision?
Because history records that they did. Their own statements and writings record that they did.

The Muratorian fragment (170 AD or so) contains, with little exception, the rest of the books of the NT.
You should really do some research. The Muratorian fragment is a 7th century document, containing cues which suggest that it may have been translated from a Greek original sometime between 170AD and the 4th century.

Do you not understand the dishonesty you've perpetrated?

"The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142"157), as recent."

"A few scholars have also dated it as late as the 4th century, but their arguments have not won widespread acceptance in the scholarly community."

Explain the dishonesty that I've perpetrated. It is a 7th-8th century Latin translation of a Greek document which the majority of scholars date at around 170 AD. Thus, I said it dates to ... what? .... 170 AD. That's what practically everyone says.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 5:01:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 5:46:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:38:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 12:54:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM, peacethroughunity wrote:
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta

If the God of the Bible could forgive, Jesus wouldn't have had to die. Then again, Jesus IS God in the interpretation created and adopted by the 4th century council. So with that understanding, Jesus can't forgive either.

Jesus was claimed to be God in the flesh long before any "4th-century council".
He was also claimed to be a human messenger of God, a subordinate god to God, and a subordinate god existing only in an ethereal realm. The council of the 4th century tossed out all versions except the one they selected by a matter of vote, and then selected manuscripts which supported that vote, while intentionally discarding and disregarding manuscripts which supported the other various portrayals.

I could call a "council" today, and we could declare that the Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth. That doesn't mean that we CREATED the statement, does it?
Of course not. But you have to remember that the Bible you're talking about is a collection of writings selected specifically for their adherence to what the men of the 4th century council wanted Christians to believe. The Bible doesn't follow the belief. The belief follows the Bible, which was constructed to meet the bias of the 4th century council. Christianity is the religion of the 4th century council, not a religion of Jesus, or of God (even if one is to assume that either or both actually exist).

If a council were created to dig through all of the commentary on the presidential performance of Richard Nixon, and decided by vote that Watergate was a myth, that no illegal eavesdropping or spying occurred, and that every action taken by Nixon was pure, honest and benevolent; and then, sorted through a collection of articles, documents and reports, tossing out anything connecting Nixon with guilt, and keeping only those few documents which attempt to exonerate him, you would have the modern-day equivalent to a "bible" in regard to the presidency and actions of Richard M. Nixon.

This is a fair analogy to the development of the "Holy Bible", and the beliefs formed upon it's contents.

Meh, I could say the same thing with Bush, Obama, and Clinton.
Ashton
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2014 8:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2012 4:51:25 PM, peacethroughunity wrote:
Nearly every day I get hurt by someone. The hurt could be received from my workmates, close friends, relatives, the shopkeeper.....well the list is long!

Every time I get hurt I feel that I need to love that person more. I know that Jesus loves that person, even though that person hurts me. Through this love of His, I immediately forgive that person for any hurt caused towards me.

When I forgive it makes me feel better"""as through love, peace will reign.

In Peace,
George Calleja " Malta
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...