Arondale

If you look at the point value chart in the post above, the trade was the equivalent to the Bears trading Jones for 254 points (#37 pick = 530 minus #63 pick = 276). 254 points is the same as the third pick in the third round. In other words, the Bears got a very high pick in the third round for Thomas Jones. I don't think this is robbery as much as it proves that we can't expect to get any higher than a third round pick for McGahee.

You are correct in saying that we are saved through the grace of God alone, but you are cutting a key component completely out. There is no “room for interpretation” as to who God allows into heaven. If your interpretation is correct, how do you address these two verses: John 3:16 “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” and then Ephesians 2:8 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”. For your interpretation, you must completely ignore the words in bold – the key action phrases in both of these verses. You can’t simply say it is through the grace of God alone – you must include the act of faith of believing that Christ died on the cross. To ignore that is to completely misunderstand Christianity. Ephesians 2:8 is about as crystal clear as you can get – it is only through faith that we can be saved, but that saving faith is only possible because of a gift from God – grace extended to us as sinners. It absolutely must follow that all non-Christians go to Hell. Scripture is God’s Word and scripture clearly indicates a non-Christian will not get into heaven (because he doesn’t believe). If you use your argument, you are arguing something that is in direct contrast to the teachings of Christ. No one is questioning God’s motive - the theology of saving grace through faith is direct from scripture. Finally, the new covenant which was brought about through Christ’s death on the cross was not made only with the Jews, as you indicate here. Read the New Testament – the new covenant is open to Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) – God’s saving grace is open to anyone – as long as they have faith in Christ’s death on the cross. Just thought I should clarify these points, because your initial statement was not a true description of Christianity and the theology of grace and faith according to scripture.

This argument is ridiculous. Obviously, this book is fiction as has been clearly stated. That is fact and can’t be denied. It is advertised as fiction; it is found in the fiction section of the bookstore; the story and characters are not real. However, those that are so ardently defending the book as fiction seem to be overlooking beausox’s underlying point. While this book is fiction, it is very clear that Brown wrote it with the intent to further advance the theories he believes to be true regarding Catholicism and Christ’s life. Brown has stated that he believes the theories in his book are true; he did extensive (shoddy) research as shown in the bibliography. Brown wrote the book with these theories as a prominent theme, using a fictional story to dress it up and make it more appealing to the masses. If Brown just wrote a book detailing his research and expounding on the many theories, without the fictional writing, obviously it would not sell well. I don’t see why that is so difficult to understand. Brown obviously has an agenda and uses a fictional story to push it through to the readers and he does it very well. But to explain away the seriousness of Brown’s theories and charges, just because the book is “fiction” is missing the point. It is precisely because the book is fiction that Catholics and others are taking it seriously – because it appeals to the average joe and is selling like crazy,yet it is advancing theories as fact that mock and question the foundation of the Catholic faith. Fictional works can be very powerful social commentaries, they can (along with the media) lend credibility to growing causes, they can persuade, anger and enlighten. Just because you find a book in the “fiction” section of your local bookstore doesn’t mean it has no truth to it and can’t influence the reader.

As was stated in a post by another member, it is not so clear cut. To call her a "madwoman" and make blind assumptions, without knowing her or experiencing a similar case, is cold and ignorant. Maybe you have experienced a similar situation, I don't know, but from your comments it would appear not. When I was younger, my cousin was born as what you would call a "vegetable". She was blind, required a feeding tube and when she died at the age of 8 she was still no bigger than a 1 year old child. She couldn't talk, nothing. She could breathe on her own however and I would say she was in a very similar state as that of Terri Schiavo. I hope you are watching who you say such opinions to. My uncle would never let anyone say anything like that about his daughter - when she was alive or even now. I have never met Terri and I don't know her personal situation, but my guess is she is much more than a vegetable. If I walked in and talked to her, I very much doubt she would react in any meaningful way. If her parents walked in and talked to her or read to her, my guess is her reaction would be drastically different. From what I have been told, that is clearly documented in videos. My cousin knew her parents - she laughed and reacted to them and her older sister much differently than anyone else. She was much more than a madwoman laughing because her body reacted to stimulus. Under that theory, the same stimulus would produce the same result - that is completely false in my cousins case and from everything I have read about Terri, it is also false in her case as well. To be honest, I still can't believe you said that - it really is sickening. According to your theory, my cousin should have been killed at birth. And that is what it is, murder.

I agree. How many games did Bledsoe win for us last year? I'm not going to put all the blame on Bledsoe for the losses and for missing the playoffs, but I am also not going to give him credit for the wins. There was not a single game last year where Bledsoe pulled out the victory for us; where after the game you were thankful that we had a talented, veteran QB at the helm. On the other hand, there were definitely games where a lot of the blame for a loss was correctly put on Bledsoe. Baltimore and Oakland come to mind, some say the Pittsburgh game although I blame that as much on our top five defense disappearing. What exactly are we losing by releasing Bledsoe and starting Losman? I don't think it is very likely that Losman will win us many games next year all by himself, but neither did Bledsoe. I think it is likely that Losman may be to blame for a couple losses next year, but so was Bledsoe. We put the pressure on McGahee, the defense and the special teams to win next year and add some creativity to the offense. We bring Losman along slowly during the season and be careful not to pressure him too much. This has been done before, very recently. Last year with the Steelers. Two years ago with the Carolina Panthers and Delhomme. I want to see the defense get better with Vincent and McGee more comfortable. I want to see McGahee get 1600 yards and go to the Pro Bowl. I can't wait to see teams try to figure out coverage for both Moulds and Evans while worrying about Losman scrambling and McGahee taking a swing pass. I can't wait to see McNally improve the OL even more. There is a LOT to look forward to next year; more importantly, I think there is more to look forward to with Losman than with Bledsoe.

Exactly. I'm not going to comment on who is right or wrong here because I haven't seen the video and I haven't seen Sponge Bob Squarepants. But the point here is that this is being sent to over 60,000 public schools. This isn't a matter of choosing to not let your children watch Sponge Bob, it is being shown to all these school children and the message is being sent that this is fact and a way of life. This is a cartoon character widely accepted as being gay or associated with the gay lifestyle teaching kids to be tolerant of everyone and every sexual orientation. All you need to do is look at the possibilities from another perspective. If Veggie Tales (a Christian cartoon for kids) sent a special video to 60,000 public schools depicting a student preaching the Bible to his friends in support of religous tolerance, don't you think there would be similar reactions? It is ridiculous that we put so much faith into the public school system. As if Sponge Bob and education is going to cure all bigotry and hatred. This is stuff that should be left to the family and this is just another example of why my kids will never enter the public school system.

Find for me where I "discount" what your links are saying. I never said I discounted anything, I merely made the point that every single one of your "references" were from an extremely one-sided, pro-evolution website. If you read only that site, then you come out with only one side of the argument. It would help your arguments some if you at least tried to represent both sides. For instance, in reference to Meyers article, it didn't take me long to find this: http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04 It is a good discussion of the article that quotes people from both sides and has several good references at the bottom linking to scientists on both sides of the issue. If you simply use the strategy of quoting that website all the time, then I'll simply use the same strategy and quote one-sided websites that support my view. What is the point of that?

Mickey, I could go to a website supporting creationism and find all the evidence I want to support my arguments. Every single link you have is to the same pro-evolution website. I could also find where each of those men have been reviewed by their peers. You can say that Meyers' paper has been debunked and quote your good old website, but it was also reviewed by three of his peers, approved and published in the journal. I'm sure if I did some research I could find several scientists that support Meyers' paper. To be honest, I could care less what they do in public schools, I'm not sending my kids to public school. I could care less if they choose to teach about ID or not. What I do care about is the fact that school kids are being taught evolution as 100% fact, without any reference to the many questions and unknowns that exist within that theory. Unless kids pursue a scientific field or choose to do more research on their own, it is very likely that they will never doubt or question evolution simply because most school districts teach it as fact and leave it at that. I would be happy if school districts followed Dover's lead and simply began pointing out the many questions and issues with evolution. Leave it at that and encourage kids to look into it.

I just thought it might be useful for Dover area school district's curriculum to be examined, to see what is actually happening. http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=261852 This is a statement made by the Dover area school district, in regards to their Biology curriculum. In case you don't want to read the whole link, here is the main point: The Biology curriculum also was updated to include the following preliminary statement: Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught. In coordination with the science department teachers, the District solicitor, and the School Board, Mr. Michael Baksa, the Assistant Superintendent in charge of curriculum, developed the following procedural statement that will be read to all students as the new Biology curriculum is implemented beginning in January 2005: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments. The foregoing statements were developed to provide a balanced view, and not to teach or present religious beliefs. The Superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen, has directed that no teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs. The Dover Area School District supports, and does not discriminate against, students and parents who have competing beliefs, especially in the area of the Origin of Life debate. The School Board has noted that there are opinions other than Darwin’s on the Origin of Life. School districts are forums for inquiry and critical discussions. The above statement and the District’s revised Biology curriculum together provide an opportunity for open critical discussion--the real heart of scientific practice. So we are getting all worked up because evolution is being presented as theory and an optional reference book is being offered? The school district continues to prepare students for Standards-based assessments. It seems like both sides are blowing this thing way out of proportion. Creationists saying it is a huge victory and evolutionists saying it is teaching religion. From the looks of this statement, about all that is happening is that evolution is no longer being treated as the one and only answer. The science community has been openly discussing the issues of evolution, but for some reason high school kids only learn that evoluion is fact. Investigate these few names: Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski. They have articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications discussing ID and arguments against evolution. If the scientific community is allowing discussion of ID and arguments against evolution, why are those very arguments not allowed in the public school system? I don't care if you attack these men or think they are wackos (many have already done so). Their viewpoints and others like them are being published in national scientific publications. There are numerous other respected scientists that have problems with evolution and there are many evolutionist scientists that acknowledge there are questions that have not been answered. Unless you enter into a scientific field and deal with the evolution/creation debate, your normal everyday student will never know the issues and questions surrounding evolution. Why is it wrong for students to be shown the holes and the unknowns and then be told that there is another viewpoint out there? We have found no forces that produce complex organization, we have not been able to reproduce the origin of life and there are many serious questions behind evolution, yet it is taught as the only valid theory and taken as fact. It looks like this school district is merely following the scientific community's lead.

Yes, and the Dover school district in York, PA, which you refer to in your other thread and are obviously referring to in this thread, is the only school district in the entire country to mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design. Yet somehow your conclusions make sense, Mickey?

This has nothing to do with "party rules" or GW, this has to do with Specter being a complete moron. The only reason Specter even got out of the primaries was because conservative senator Rick Santorum and GW endorsed him and stated publicly that Specter was key to possible judicial nominees. They were both very vocal and visible in campaigns (I know, I live in PA). He would have lost to Pat Thume in the primaries if not for this, without a doubt. So when he comes out immediately after his re-election and says pretty much the opposite, going against the very reason Santorum and GW endorsed him, what did you expect to happen? I don't care about Republicans or Democrats, when a man owes his election to promises he made, if he doesn't come through on those promises he doesn't deserve anything. This isn't just about Specter either. How do you think Santorum looked to his supporters (a majority who are pro-life) after the very man he endorsed threatened to turn against the very reasons he endorsed him? I would like to know how many angry phone calls Santorum got; it certainly threatened to make him look bad. Rightfully so, the only way Specter was going to get the judicial committee chairman position is if he pledged to keep the very promises that got him elected. If Specter is such a moron that he thought he could lie and make phony promises to Santorum and GW, he got what he deserved.

So basically, they have no evidence this behavior can be translated to humans. They also can't claim that a single gene makes a person homosexual. They believe homosexuality has genetic origins, but it only influences sexual orientation. I'm sure you can find a lot more of these studies but they prove nothing about homosexuality being genetically pre-determined. They prove nothing that would equate homosexuality with genetics that determine whether we are male, female, black, white, short, tall, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc. These are genetic traits that cannot be changed. You can't be born white and then choose to become black. You can't be born 5'-6" and choose to change your height to 6'-2". You can be born heterosexual and choose to be homosexual and there is no scientific study that supports anything but that. Anger has genetic origins, but you can choose to control it and change it. Just because some gene may predispose someone to display more anger, does that excuse him from any consequences of that anger? A person may be born with a gene giving them homosexual tendencies, but just as in anger management they have the choice of whether to follow that tendency or to work to control it and eliminate its effect.

But what are your ethics based on? If ethics change with society, who determines which ethics are acceptable? How do you know with certainty that you aren't discriminating against pedophiles? I know that issue is being harped on and getting old, but if ethics change and are different each moment, who are you to say that you know what is right? More importantly maybe, who are you to say that the majority is right? Just as you pointed out, the majority once believed in slavery and they were wrong. Who is to say that the majority is not wrong about the current state of gay marriage? Great figures of the Bible did own slaves and many also had multiple wives. Not everything the Bible says should be taken as a moral mandate. It is a historical document as much as it is God's Word. Just because the Bible contains historical accounts of slaves and polygamy does not mean that God is saying these are okay. Your translation issues are extremely general and I really can't address them without more details. I stand by my assertion that you will find no significant translational differences over the years. That is of course in reference to Bible translations that adhere to the original text, not these newer contemporary versions that want to be gender neutral and politically correct. Lunch break is over, which stinks because as others have said I am enjoying the debate.

And there aren't any born homosexuals either. If there was credible, scientific proof that a person is genetically determined to be a homosexual, in the same way a person is genetically determined to be black, white, male or female then this discussion would not be happening. Period. Instead we are debating whether morals are absolute or relative and how to define a minority. If the scientific world could prove that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, then this issue would be the same as slavery and women's rights. But they can't. Everyone here who supports gay marriage and equal rights can end this thread right now by giving myself and other irrefutable scientific proof that homosexuals have no choice. And I'm not talking about genetic tendencies. I'm not talking about a genetic trait that might make a man have homosexual tendencies. That is not an argument. People are born with tendencies towards different behaviors, but people can change and alter those tendencies. People can't do anything about their sex or race - you can't change that. There is no proof that places homosexuality in the same class as sex or race.

That doesn't make my point any less true. Just as society can go down the wrong path and view something morally wrong as okay (gay marriage), it can also change for the good and correct a previously wrong practice (slavery). Show me in the Bible where it states that it is okay to degrade any person based on their race or sex. The Bible supports the freedom and equality of all men as they are created, in the cases you mention society returned to Biblical principles as opposed to straying from Biblical principles which is happening with gay marriage. Just because morals in our society change, that does not mean that there is no moral absolute. It just means society is straying from and returning to those moral absolutes. First off, how people interpret the Bible does not in any way reflect on the validity of the Bible itself. Just as today we have judges and others interpreting the constitution in different ways. Does their different interpretation reflect in any way on the accuracy, and validity of the Constitution itself? This only shows that man is imperfect and unable to fully undestand and agree on the Bible or other documents for that matter. If you are concerned about the translation, then you must have knowledge of serious translational differences that exist between the current Bible and the original scripture written thousands of years ago. I could go into detail and refute this charge, but even before I do that don't you think you should provide some evidence of the supposed subjectivity? The fact remains that the Bible is historically accurate. No piece of historical information in the bible has been disproven. Prophetic verses in the Old Testament, foretelling of historic events, have been proven 100% accurate. While the Bible does not claim to be a science, math or any type of textbook, the areas covered in the Bible are 100% accurate. A question I have for you is this: if God does not exist, where did morals come from? I guess I don't know whether you believe in God, maybe you do and just don't want to adhere to any particular belief. Regardless, evolution from nothing can't explain how man differentiates between right and wrong. Creation and God does explain where morals come from and if God gave us morals, it is common sense to conclude that they were absolute morals, as the Bible teaches. This is a huge subject so obviously I can't say everything, but that is a start.

Who cares? Just because a group is listed as a minority in some hate crime legislation, that makes them eligible for equal rights? You still can't defend OnTheRocks question. Under your theory any group that wants equal rights should just get together and seek to be referred to as a minority - then they will get equal rights. You'll support this?

Your intitial post was in regards to Republicans becoming big government and overstepping the constitution. After I posted you then asked me if the gay marriage issue was big government. I merely pointed out that this is not just a Republican issue and it is not viewed by the majority as being big government. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that really started it all and the country as a whole is passing gay marriage amendments like crazy. I was trying to make the point that I don't think this is big government - it is a necessary step and it is obvious that the majority feel it is a necessary step, Republicans and Democrats.

Why does it compromise my moral values if I don't fight against my neighbors? Why can't we co-exist? Just because I believe their lifestyle is wrong does not mean I should hate them. It doesn't mean we can't talk to each other and be friends. When you disagree with someone on something, do you stop talking to them and fight with them? In fact, my wife and I try to keep an open dialogue about their gay lifestyle so perhaps we can share our views more in depth - if we fight with them and refuse to co-exist with them then that opportunity would be wasted. The consequences are as I just stated. We are all good friends. They know where we stand on the issue and we are always looking for opportunities to talk to them if they are willing. Otherwise, it is the same as any other friendship I have. What does what happened in my life have anything to do with the subject? I have lived a very blessed life, with very little problems. I don't know if you are trying to find some reason why I am against gay marriage or if you are trying to find a reason why I believe in God, but you aren't going to find any hidden secrets or anything. What exactly are you getting at?

Help me out then and tell me what your reasons are. In all seriousness, I would like to know why my stance makes you so focused. How do you defend abortion? Do you defend it in every case? Etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it validates his relationship". To be honest, I don't want it called a marriage or a civil union. I believe civil unions are wrong as well. J.C., you have stated in a past post that as long as society agrees with something then you are fine with it and will fight for the corresponding rights. That is moral relativism at its best and it is very dangerous. Do you have no moral standards that you consider sacred? I do not believe we can go around changing moral values based on what society thinks is okay. A lot of this you guys just won't agree with or even understand so I'm not going to go too in depth. Basically, my faith as a Christian leads me to believe that God did not just create the world and all of its detail, but He also created man and then set forth morals to live by. Just as in creation there are absolute, physical laws of nature (gravity, etc.), I believe there are also absolute moral laws. You can't violate the physical laws without consequences (try jumping off a cliff) and you can't violate the moral laws without consequences. This gets into an entirely new subject, so I'll just leave it at that. That is where I am coming from - feel free to ask questions. I believe marriage is given to man to be between a man and woman. I believe homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is wrong, so I will fight against it. It is not an issue of validating my relationship or being a bigot. I won't compromise moral values just because society is pressuring me. Again, it comes down to an issue of morals - I posted in more detail on this in a previous post.

I don't feel superior to any of them. They are all very close friends of my wife and myself. My wife's roomate did not "realize" she was gay until a few years ago and we were some of the last people she told because she mistakenly thought we would somehow disown her or end our friendship. We simply told her that we do not agree with her lifestyle, but that does not in any way mean we suddenly hate her. Let me give a simple analogy. If my brother or someone close in my family committed adultery, I would certainly speak out against the act and make my position clear, but the relationship that was there would not change. This may be slightly off as an example since adultery can be very difficult to deal with, but I think you get the picture.

Exactly. So I support pro-life groups and work to persuade potential abortion candidates that there are other alternatives. I work against and support others who work against groups like Planned Parenthood. I support abstinence education and adoption programs. I educate myself on abortion issues. But, I also support continuing to fight in the legal system. There is no reason not to do both. In fact the more we concentrate on both, the better the chance that if abortion is ever made illegal in the courts, society will be better prepared. Current events indicate society shifting slowly towards the pro-life movement. Partial birth abortion has been exposed. Science continues to advance and give us supporting data. Issues such as gay marriage and stem cell research actually help because they are bringing moral implications to the forefront. I will do whatever it takes (within the law) to make abortion illegal, but I will also continue the daily fight to reduce abortions. That is all I would ask of anyone who is pro-life.

I don't know about 70%, but last I heard there were at least 38 states that passed gay marriage amendments, many by wide margins. Two that I remember - I know Louisiana passed their amendment by almost 80% and Ohio passed one in this past election by around 60%. It is very hard to ignore those numbers and when amendments are passed that is an indication that this is an important issue, not just some passing trend that will fade in a few years. People are taking it very seriously and the facts show much of the country is against gay marriage. Just because I do not condone homosexuality and I am against gay marriage, that does not prove ignorancy or bigotry. My next door neighbors are gay and we are very good friends with both of them. My wife's best friend from college is gay. All three of these individuals know full well where my wife and I stand, but come over and ask any of these people if I am a bigot or KzooMike and I think they will tell you quite the opposite.

Obviously you are willing to wantonly ignore the fact that your little "unwanted" argument makes no sense, since you have yet to defend any of the questions I posed to you. And as far as balancing the rights of the individual while being anti-abortion, I guess the rights of the unborn baby don't count? I can't believe you can say with a straight face that you are "vehemently anti-abortion". Anyone with opinions that strong would not be afraid of the consequences. If you are "vehemently anti-abortion" you are pro-life and you believe abortion is killing innocent babies. But basically you are saying you don't care if we continue to murder because right now society isn't able to take care of all those babies. Not every unwanted child ends up on welfare, drugs or in crime, yet you don't even want to give any of them a chance because you are afraid of the consequences. I will let you know where to send your charitable donation. I'm willing to fight for my belief and fight for what I "vehemently" oppose. I can't say the same for you. My "ideological crusade" is simply taking my beliefs into action. I'd rather do that than have strong beliefs and no action.

But you can't use an argument and a line of reason that has no basis in reality. You can't use the "unwanted" argument if it is not a consistent argument. I would think that if you are really vehemently anti-abortion then you would rather save the lives of 1.3 million children every year and deal with the social consequences rather than just let the status quo continue. You can't say that I am not consistent either. I realize there will be issues if abortion is legalized, but I am fully willing to do my part to address those issues. As I said above, I would rather save the lives of millions of innocent babies and deal with social consequence as opposed to sitting back and letting all those babies die.