|
|
USER COMMENTS BY SAN JOSE JOHN |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 7 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
12/12/12 12:30 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Christopher000 wrote: Since it was covered within and without with pitch, the ark could very well still exist, unless, Noah and his family broke much of it apart for building and firewood. But then, would they have been able to carry the pieces down high mountain tops? Well, on second thought, all of the animals, big and small, would have had to be able to get out safely and spread out so the ark must have rested fairly close to ground lever...no? There's is so much evidence for a world wide flood anyway, not to mention around 300 ancient flood stories from around the planet. Another interesting possibility is that Noah's ark may simply have suffered the same fate as that of the brazen serpent. Demolished at the hands of one of Noah's more Godly descendants in an effort to stop people from worshiping it (the ark) rather than God.If nothing else, modern militant atheists now have yet another target to fire their salvos at, but Ballard is a "big boy" and can take care of himself, so I'm not too worried about him. |
|
|
12/11/12 2:50 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: Hi John In the UK at present, the word guy is used for both male and female. So if someone turned up at a meeting involving both, he might say, "Hi Guys." But if he related a story where he'd spotted a male friend of his, he might say, "I saw the guy walking down the road." Hope this makes sense. It does. Thanks. |
|
|
12/11/12 2:45 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote: This somewhat answers the thread of why so many people are on food stamps, because of the destructive policies of the Clinton (I thought it was highly amusing how Wild Bill out Repub the GOP--but no more ) - Bush Administrations. Lets' make both Presidents for a day so they can be impeached. I'm still amazed at how much damage our government has done to our economy by trying to "help" so many people obtain houses by forcing the relaxing of lending standards. The result being many thousands of people in financial hock for being encouraged to try to purchase something they had no business even thinking about "buying". Disgusting beyond belief. |
|
|
12/11/12 2:35 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: jpw, I didn't know that, so thanks for the info, and please accept my apologies. "Guy" must be used for people you're familiar with, right? I work with a guy from the UK who often uses the word "bloke" instead of "guy" when describing a man he's not so familiar with. |
|
|
12/6/12 2:02 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Angela Wittman wrote: Yes! By all means remove your children from the public schools... The local district will lose state aid for each child removed and you will have more parental control over what your child is exposed to on a daily basis. Yes. Break, or at least help to break this terrible government-citizen co-dependency cycle so people will be more responsible and government won't have to be so awful huge to accommodate the people's increasing lack thereof. |
|
|
12/6/12 1:49 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Furth wrote: Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. Why should the Lord reward the nations? I was in my late 20s when I first heard this psalm quoted by a preacher I happened to be listening to on the radio one day. It blew me away because I was raised in a Christian Bible church (moderate-to-liberal American Baptist denomination) my whole life and was never once taught this. Maybe they thought the whole "be fruitful and multiply" aspect of God's plan was old-hat (Old Testament). That and, being the 1970s, they didn't want to "offend" so many people who at the time likely favored and were using the birth control pill. People back then were scared of the (mostly perceived) "population explosion" as well as the (again, mostly perceived) wealth-consuming nature of having to care for "so many kids". More mouths to feed supposedly meant more "strain" on planet earth and its resources when it more likely meant less wealth for parents of the time and what few kids they decided to have to lavish upon themselves. |
|
|
12/3/12 5:37 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Angela Wittman wrote: I remember the controversy when West Point first admitted women in the late 1970's (?)... Well, we can see the rotten fruit that decision produced. Ugh! West Point at one time was respectable and produced men of the finest character... Sorry to see it snowballing its way to Sodom. My heart truly weeps at this terrible news. It was mid-1970s and there was even a powerfully sympathetic made-for-TV movie about the first female class. I was a liberal back then so I loved it, and thought Linda Purl did a good job playing the story's protagonist. Had no idea then how bad the slippery slope of paternal abdication and role diffusion could or would be on our future culture. |
|
|
11/30/12 6:15 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, there would be no complaints if Obama nominated a rich, white, Republican oh, and lesbian judge to the bench? He just didn't pick the right poison. [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/resources/booklets/homosexuality-a-biblical-perspective]]]Homosexuality[/URL] If that were true Romney (rich, white, republican) would be president now. |
|
|
11/29/12 2:50 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote: ...Doctors say abortions do sometimes save women's lives[/URL]. Not if the "fetus" being aborted also happens to be a woman. |
|
|
11/27/12 7:44 PM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Jim Lincoln wrote: ...to the throne naturally. I think Americans have quite a bit of liking for her. The same can't be said the same of Chucky, he should be thrown off the throne, if he should ever get there -- As far as the British's American cousins are concerned. At any rate, Liz is well on her way to breaking Vickie's record as longest reigning British monarch. I hope she makes it. Since her mum lived past 100 she just might. |
|
|
11/21/12 11:54 AM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Remit at gate wrote: Snowballing sin requires more punishment to 'pay' for your iniquity when you're older than if you're an unborn child? How would a fetus 'pay' for their sins? I don't know the specifics, and will likely never know until it actually happens. All I know is (at least logically and Biblically) they must pay less since they sinned less.If I'm on the right track here, it would mean God's 10 to 1 reduction in the pre-flood human lifespan was also an act of mercy, of sorts. Less time to accumulate sin. The Bible does say something about some being beaten with "many strips" while others will be beaten with "few stripes". Also the older men who wanted to stone the woman Jesus defended became convicted first, then the younger ones. Best I can do for you now. Still learning about this difficult issue myself. Sorry. |
|
|
11/21/12 11:20 AM |
San Jose John | | San Jose, CA | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
For what it's worth, and whatever comfort it may bring, people who perish as infants obviously have far, far less time and opportunity to accumulate the unbelievably huge amount of sin that all of us older folk acquire. Since the unregenerate are punished for their sins, these little ones who die unredeemed probably aren't going to have to "pay" very much for their corruption.Not trying to sound Pelagian here, as I believe and know that ALL babies (save Christ Himself, of course) are born sinful and WILL sin so long as they continue to live. I still struggle with the double-predest position too, but seeing how God is not above allowing "innocent" babies to suffer as much as many do on earth today, it's really not too much of a stretch to expect the same God to send even these to Hell if He so wishes. I don't want to sound cruel, but I also don't want to be sentimental (which is incredibly easy when "kids" are involved) about this subject either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|