Lurker > darkphoenix181

Damn_Underscore posted...

Should isn't necessarily a conditional word and shall doesn't necessarily mean definitely.

I don't know what to say about this. Shall most definitely means there is nothing else. It shall be done means only that it without dispute will be. Should also has no other meaning than the possibly of correctness is what is expected, but not necessarily what will happen.

It isn't an argument of semantics anyways, but one of innovation. Consider the texts that have shall there and date them. The oldest one was made in about the 50s. The translations with should predate it by quite a lot. Makes you wonder why this happened, especially when there was a large movement to patent or that is to make profits off of translations by purposely changing words and phrases such that the text was no longer considered public domain.

Damn_Underscore posted...

With the "Lord, Lord" thing, I think he's talking about hypocrites who appear good on the outside but are really evil in their hearts.

And yet he doesn't talk about what is in the heart being the clincher, but what they DID.

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

fyi, fruits while are inward are outwardly exposed as found in Galatians 5
love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance
ex: if a man is not temperant, the eye knows this, it is seen

Interestingly enough we have a companion set of verses that proceed with the same central theme:
Matthew 25
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Should we read this and believe only the hypocrites shall be condemned for these things? Do you believe some of these people are Christians?
Note that is wasn't hidden things of the heart condemning them here, but inaction. The heart might have caused the inaction, but it was inaction.

It ties back to Matt 7:21
he that doeth the will of my Father

Damn_Underscore posted...

Originally, were you trying to say that conservatives are bad or liberals are good because Jesus also said if you aren't with me you're against me? If not then good, I really don't have anything more to argue about. I already told you what I think.

All I was saying is Jesus said the phrase. I had no intent. Not sure why it bothered you or what context was lost by suggesting he said that.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

_OujiDoza_ posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

I am asking you how he would be stopped from DWI.
You claim that this is the heart of the matter. How then can you stop someone from DWI?

That's a tough one - I honestly don't know.

So here is the thing. To stop DWI means implementing some basically big brother tactics. Either you have the cops constantly stop cars to check intoxication or at the bar level you do checks.
How viable is this in light of this country's freedoms?

Stopping the man from coming back into the US however, it is costly, but can it not be done? Adding more patrols, more enforcement and surveilance, it wouldn't work? This doesn't contend with the freedoms either since these are foreign invaders. They don't have the right to not be searched when invading across the border.

So why say the real problem is DWI where it is super hard to enforce other than when someone gets caught?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

When it was going up, it was said that this wasn't the economy.
DOW =/= economy

So why did your post start with Trump's economy?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

In my college it was probably mostly latino descent.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

_OujiDoza_ posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

How would you have stopped this man from DWI?

There in lies the issue - notice you just said "this man" not this illegal, this immigrant, etc....it's more than an illegal problem not the first nor the last, either.

Him repeatedly getting into the country could be solved by simply locking him away in our prisons for the rest of his life considering the crime.

I am asking you how he would be stopped from DWI.
You claim that this is the heart of the matter. How then can you stop someone from DWI?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Damn_Underscore posted...

A very simple and famous verse: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Most translations actually render this as "should not" and not "shall not".
And that is the better translation because Jesus himself said many will call him lord lord and say they worked in his name and he will send them to hell.
If anyone who believes shall not perish, this would be impossible. If you contend with this, explain how any believer SHALL not perish and yet Jesus sends people claiming he is their lord to eternal damnation?
If anyone who believes SHOULD not perish, then Jesus' words make sense. That man shouldn't have perished, and yet he did, because as Jesus says in the section of scripture "he who doeth the will" of his father is saved, not just he who believes and by the belief calls him lord and claims to do some sort of works. Notice the distinction between doing works they thought please God to him saying there is a specific will he wishes for the Christian.
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

As a note, this is not legalism. There is a work of God that a man must do to be saved that is not counted as his works. I can quote you that belief itself is a WORK of God. That is, there is a prerequisite to salvation that is not of man's credit, and these people didn't do that. They did believe however. Can you argue a man calling him lord and attempting to work for him didn't believe in him? So then, they had belief and yet were still damned. What did they lack?

http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%203:16
This has a list of all the translations. Note the ones that put should instead of shall.
I noted 9 saying shall and about 20 saying should. Nevertheless, as discussed only one makes sense in terms with other scripture and that is the kicker.

Now, all that said, what does it have to do with our discussion? His love and acceptance, why do you need to point that out in reference to a simple statement by Jesus?
It makes me wonder what your goal is here?
Are you trying to take away from the power of "he who is not with me, is against me" somehow? I generally don't understand why you think it needs to be said that you don't need to live as a monk with no possessions.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

_OujiDoza_ posted...

You building a bigger wall? they'll build a taller ladder - the wall doesn't make the border more secure if there is no plan/personnel in place.

The bigger problem here is DWI - has been for decades.

So the man is unstoppable?
There is no way to ensure from his first deportation that he would not return?

How would you have stopped this man from DWI?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

SlashmanSG posted...

This gimmick sucks.

idk

pretty entertaining to see you guys so upset over old news

but this has to be considered trolling

he is obviously baiting your anger
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Everyone in NK on the other hand loves glorious leader.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

To suppliment the idea found here, consider these verses:

Matthew 10
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Matthew 8
19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Luke 9
61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

What is the central theme of these verse? What do you think?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Damn_Underscore posted...

I think it means that there is some "essence" (in other words the Holy Spirit) that you can blaspheme against. But what is the Holy Spirit? And how do you blaspheme against it? have no idea. In any case, these sentences are directly connected. They are connected grammatically by "And so I tell you".

I really don't care about the liberal vs. conservative thing. I just though that was a funny observation about modern politics. I care about Jesus' word, and that verse has always puzzled me. It seems like you're trying to oversimplify Jesus' words, and I'm indignant to that.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is super simple. Go back to the context of the verse and you will see it.

He was condemning the pharisees and warning them that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be forgiven.
Why would he tell them that?

They were saying his miracles were done because Satan gave him power. How did Jesus do miracles? Every biblical figure who did miracles has the Holy Spirit. Look back to David whom it was claimed the spirit of God rested mightily upon.

So Jesus was performing miracles by the Holy Spirit and the pharisees said that it wasn't the Holy Spirit but Satan that was doing said mircales.

This is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I didn't simplify anything. His sentence is already simple. Do you think he only intends that ONLY the Pharisees who aren't with him are against him? Or does he mean that anyone who is not with him is against him?

It is very obvious. Jesus demands the Christian to be in his camp. You can't be a spiritual atheist or pagan christian. Your spirituality cannot be compromised. You cannot serve God and mammon or that is, be heavily involved in worldly pleasures for self gain and say you are a zealous Christian.
"he who doesn't gather with me, scatters."
What does that mean? You understand that the work of saving souls is referred to as reaping or that is gathering up the fruits of the harvest correct?

I find it ironic that the verse puzzles you when you argue that it needs to be contextually considered. This isn't to slight you but to say the reason most don't understand this verse is because they remove the context. In context, what else could the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit be other than what the Pharisees jsut did by calling the miracles of God the work of the devil?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

@_OujiDoza_ posted...

What the idiot Fox n Friend lovers fail to realize is the the guy has already been deported twice, so the whole "close the border" narrative doesn't apply here because this dude was already shipped back and still made it back in.

How would he make it back in with a giant wall in the way? If anything, a man deported for crimes multiple time because he keeps coming back is huge for the argument of tightening up the border.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

EvalAngell posted...

surprine back to 10K by tomorrow

prob down to $6000
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Damn_Underscore posted...

That entire verse is clearly not just to be taken on the surface. It's full of deep meaning, perhaps more than any other verse in the Bible

I mean, just read the next two sentences. "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." It's impossible to take a simple meaning from that.

"we just can't understand it"

or can you? Tell me what you think it means.

I mean, why do you not like that Jesus meant what he said here?
Because then he said what liberal's said according to you?

Are you that shallow?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Tezlok posted...

And I bet there is some long hidden sexual tension between Goku and Bulma

Goku is asexual. Chi Chi literally wrestles him for his man juice and he only married her because he promised to do so when he was a child. According to Super he never kissed her which is a poor retcon.

Bulma might have some naughty thoughts about him though. Infact, she probably dreams about him and vegeta wrestling naked as do many fans.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

The Great Muta 22 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

You are aware that the funds being broke before the election is what lead to Bernie being snubbed in the election yes?

That has nothing to do with national committees not being relevant in off election years

You believe the national committee wasn't the one plotting ways to put Bernie on the backseat? They weren't the one considering hammering the fact that he is an atheist? Who did that then?
And all because of a debt required to HRC.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Damn_Underscore posted...

The context of that quote is pretty important. It's from Matthew 12:22-37 where the Pharisees say Jesus is of Satan.

Anyway, some of the responses ITT really tell you who has their ideological clubs figured out

And what context do you believe is left out?

He said "he who is not with me, is against me."

In what way would you like to twist this to mean something other than what it literally says?

He also corroborates this same idea through the rest of the bible.
"a man cannot serve two masters"
"Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness?"
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

So in what way can you not be for Jesus but not against him?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

your expression of being offended offends me and thus my right to not be offended supercedes your right to utter that your are offended
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

Jesus also said "he who is not with me, is against me"

Source?

the bible

look it up
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

What is your take on FBI involvement with MLK and the Black Panthers and other attempts to squash such black voices tc?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

He hated America and so people who felt the same thought he was a good guy.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Fairly clear that people that care about how the NC's are doing post an election year don't know jack shit about politics. The DNC =/= the Democratic party itself

You are aware that the funds being broke before the election is what lead to Bernie being snubbed in the election yes?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Isn't Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau a full on SJW?

Pretty sure he would think it racist to bar or deport these people.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Antifar posted...

Wasn't "if you aren't with us, you're against us" W.'s outlook?

Jesus also said "he who is not with me, is against me"
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Tadamoto38 posted...

Agreed. Chichi is the worse female in the whole series. She's just the epitome of a bitch. I don't know why Goku just doesn't leave her now. There's a whole planet of female saiyans in universe 6. Go there and pick one.

Cause saiyans aren't good.

It would end up with the mom fighting the kid and almost or possibly killing him just for the thrill of battle.

Heh, even Goku does this. Infact, if it wasn't for Chi Chi "nagging" Goku, he might have killed Gohan via training.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Goku literally died and was gone awhile.

So she has legitimate concerns.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

non-affiliated center: everyone is against us
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

wow1
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

r4X0r posted...

Go figure that when you tell everyone they're racists and favor illegal aliens over American citizens, nobody wants to give you money.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

it's amazing what Russian mob money can do

Squall28 posted...

That's what happens when one party takes bribes from rich people and the other uses money to support the poor.

lmao

You guys are hilarious.

So you think there isn't rich donors for the DNC?
Remind me again which candidate had more spending money during the election.

If anything, this shows that at a micro level, the republicans do actually know how to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible.
Maybe that doesn't exactly translate to they know how to do this for the country better, but it is pretty damning for the Democrats.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Unfortunate.

And wow that guy must love the USA. I wonder if he waves the USA flag loud and proud at his house.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

sports > justice

I think we can all agree. White, black, brown, etc, you love sports. Prove me wrong.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Kinda hard to complain about her bringing up God when the conclusion from a godless point of view is the whole purpose of life is to reproduce and advance via evolution.
The godless counter to this is that having too many people is bad for human evolution and will destroy us, but then who is the person unworthy to make the advancement of the species via sex? No one wants to be that person.

But essentially that is what it is. In that view, if you aren't having sex, then you are evolutionarily selected as not worthy to continue the species or advance them by that mechanism.

Perhaps it doesn't have to come from the bible, but it must come from spirituality beyond basic scientific logic to say that yes indeed being a virgin is a good and moral thing.
I mean, even the argument that there is too many people doesn't say you need to not have sex since you just abort as needed.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Foppe posted...

That every universe only got one Supreme Kai is your headcanon.
Nowhere is it stated that those other universes have never had more than one Supreme Kai in the past.
Nowhere is it stated that the universes destroyed long before the tournament only had one Supreme Kai.
We know two things.
1: Universe 7 had multiple Supreme Kais. Some of them died in the past and Beerus is still alive.
2: The other still existing universes each got one Supreme Kai representing at the tournament.

To claim that those universes have never had more than one Supreme Kai in the past is your headcanon.

Did you not watch the arc with Goku black?

Sadly, Scotty is right this time. It is a plothole.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

FLUFFYGERM posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

I wonder if this is intended to prep transition into those walk-in stores.

It sounds like Amazon is trying to see if humans could achieve the same results as the walk-in store they have. Or if automation is truly going to be so superior to human labor that it's pointless to even try their OTS system with humans.

Or maybe find a way to fire employees without actually firing them. Imposing strict rules that causes them to quit so they don't get the bad press of layoffs when it comes time to put the machines into their stores that replace them.
Yes, this would be a conspiracy theory.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

UrCa1988 posted...

If 25% of the intel was false, 25% verifiably true, and 50% was unverified, should we act on the verifiable 25% or not?

What if 25% of the memo is false, 25% is verifiable and 50% is inconclusive. Do you believe the memo being released is a mistake then?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

darkjedilink posted...

UrCa1988 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

UrCa1988 posted...

It is inaccurate and misleading in that it's cherrypicking 5% of information from a document and publishing it as "facts."

You put facts in quotations. Are you saying what is said in the memo that apparently we already knew is not true?
These are lies?

Intentionally omitting a large amount of information integral for context can turn truth into lies. Imagine that. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together to notice that condensing a 50-60 page document to 4 pages is going to leave out a tremendous amount of context.

Sort of like not telling a judge that you're going for a FISA warrant on a member of a Presidential campaign team based on fake info from said campaign's political rival, who is also a member of the current President's Cabinet...

when you put it that way...
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

I wonder if this is intended to prep transition into those walk-in stores.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

KazumaKiryu posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

KazumaKiryu posted...

I can't wait for them all to be fired and go to jail, including fucking Mueller.

Lmao why would Mueller be going to jail?

Because the entire investigation is a farce.

You believe that Micheal Flynn did nothing wrong?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

ThanksUglyGod posted...

But I was saying you were being close-minded because of this:

darkphoenix181 posted...

The difference can be illustrated:

Trump supporting blue collar worker: upset and angry that he cannot find work

Liberal SJW: completely unable to think for the day because a celebrity didn't acknowledge more than two genders

or maybe a more poignant example:

rage - guy who for the third night in a row has his illegal mexican neighbors play loud music very late and the police do nothing about it

outrage - that guy posts about loud music and mexicans online and liberal is shocked and calls him a racist scumbag

Which is a pretty biased comparison to make.

Perhaps I went to far trying to rationalize what the author was saying.
That said, the SJW side exerts more power on the democratic party than certain users here give it credit for.

Also,
Mr_Biscuit posted...

-if were talking extremes, the toxic ragers on the other side are literal neo nazis

A fair point. I can agree that you can see some similarities in the craziness of the extremes of both parties. Nazis ofc actually kill people however.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

UrCa1988 posted...

It is inaccurate and misleading in that it's cherrypicking 5% of information from a document and publishing it as "facts."

You put facts in quotations. Are you saying what is said in the memo that apparently we already knew is not true?
These are lies?
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Doom_Art posted...

lilORANG posted...

LOL

so it's a summary of publicly available information?

More or less

It restates info that's been available in a somewhat angry tone

I thought the FBI director said it was inaccurate and misleading. If it is just info we already known, how could that statement be possible?


---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

ThanksUglyGod posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

ThanksUglyGod posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Funny how I not only know people like this in real life, one of them is very good friend of mine. You probably are now really confused. How can someone like me who posts what I just posted be friends with a leftist who hates Trump and constantly puts SJW stuff on facebook? He is also not a citizen. He isn't illegal though.
The answer is very simple, but if you keep that outrage mindset, you won't be able to understand.

The old "i can't be racist, one of my neighbors is black". smh

What you just said doesn't even make sense.
Read my post again and attempt to understand the message.

I knew you'd take me literally, so let me rephrase:
The old "i can't be close-minded against x, one of my neighbors is x". smh

That is also contextually nonsensical. You totally couldn't comprehend the message that two people with varied views can get along and be friends. Hmm...why would that be? hmm. Because you can't get along with people that think differently that you?

And what are you saying I am closeminded against? SJWs?

That would be an odd argument to make when I in the same post explaining that SJWism can even be good and do good.

But hey, if you can't demonize me, someone might think my message is good and actually consider it. Try again for attempt #3. God forbid anyone attempt to logically consider a message.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

ThanksUglyGod posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Funny how I not only know people like this in real life, one of them is very good friend of mine. You probably are now really confused. How can someone like me who posts what I just posted be friends with a leftist who hates Trump and constantly puts SJW stuff on facebook? He is also not a citizen. He isn't illegal though.
The answer is very simple, but if you keep that outrage mindset, you won't be able to understand.

The old "i can't be racist, one of my neighbors is black". smh

What you just said doesn't even make sense.
Read my post again and attempt to understand the message.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

idk man, depends on what happens in the next 2 years and whether he is found guilty of collusion or not
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Anteaterking posted...

Even if we pretend such people exist, it still wouldn't be a good representation of the difference that the author is trying to draw.

Funny how I not only know people like this in real life, one of them is very good friend of mine. You probably are now really confused. How can someone like me who posts what I just posted be friends with a leftist who hates Trump and constantly puts SJW stuff on facebook? He is also not a citizen. He isn't illegal though.
The answer is very simple, but if you keep that outrage mindset, you won't be able to understand.

hollow_shrine posted...

Anteaterking posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

The old "real people don't think like that, that is only on the internet". smh

Even if we pretend such people exist, it still wouldn't be a good representation of the difference that the author is trying to draw.

You're wasting your time. He chose his bubble.

The true irony is when the people in the bubble tell others they are in a bubble. Of course you wouldn't think SJW is representative of anything when you refuse to think they exist or that the people you are around are them. In truth, there is nothing bad about being a SJW, it can be a noble cause, the main problem is when they believe they are on the absolute moral high ground and any viewpoint that differs, even slightly, is evil. You know, being in a bubble basically.

smh
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Anteaterking posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

The difference can be illustrated:

Trump supporting blue collar worker: upset and angry that he cannot find work

Liberal SJW: completely unable to think for the day because a celebrity didn't acknowledge more than two genders

Do you interact with people in real life?

The old "real people don't think like that, that is only on the internet". smh
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Error1355 posted...

'the left can't meme'. 'remember [thing]'

It seems like you don't even know what a meme is.

A baled eagle just shed a tear. God bless America!
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

Perhaps instead of saying the fuel is rage or that is anger, it would have made more sense to say the fuel it outrage or that is shock.
A very small nuanced difference, but a big one nonetheless.

The difference can be illustrated:

Trump supporting blue collar worker: upset and angry that he cannot find work

Liberal SJW: completely unable to think for the day because a celebrity didn't acknowledge more than two genders

or maybe a more poignant example:

rage - guy who for the third night in a row has his illegal mexican neighbors play loud music very late and the police do nothing about it

outrage - that guy posts about loud music and mexicans online and liberal is shocked and calls him a racist scumbag

Now consider this example in relation to policy. Which is more helpful for DACA for instance? The rage of having your neighborhood transform from a quite respite to a loud hellhole because of booming music, or the outrage that someone would suggest things about a nationality (not a race) that may very well be...well true.
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful

but they got the hilarious talk show hosts!
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful