God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by Don Kirkma » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:50:16


Quote:




>> >says...


>> >> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), BobM


>> >> > >A Pew Research Center survey on the religious beliefs of Christians in the United States, shows that about half believe Jesus will either definitely or probably return in the next 40 years.

>> >> > Other returns were expected in the 1840s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have

>> >> > expected several returns since their beginnings in the 1870s, and in

>> >> > the 1940s one small group was expecting "eight years, maybe ten."

>> >> > They all tend to go back and correct (sic!) their math while they

>> >> > should be correcting their assumptions and interpretations of their

>> >> > Bibles.

>> >> > >http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/US-Christians-Views-on-the-Return-o...

>> >> > --

>> >> > Don Kirkman


>> >> The Catholic Church holds that Jesus will come again to
>> >> judge everybody. I want to ask my parish priest what Jesus
>> >> can do on earth that he can't do in heaven or wherever he is,
>> >> but I haven't gotten up the nerve. I mean, doesn't he already
>> >> judge us? I thought that was why we went to confession.

>> >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

>> >"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will
>> >reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works,
>> >and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace."

>> Apparently you've learned your catechism, which is a reasonable but a
>> bit flowery paraphrase of what the Bible itself says.

>Why don't you stick to pushing the King James version.

I think I've explained why at least once already here, but maybe I can
simplify enough you can catch it this time.

1>  Few readers understand Elizabethan (i.e., Shakespearean) English
very well these days.
2>  Some of the words in the KJV no longer connote what they did when
it was translated.
3>  Scholars of the Middle Eastern languages (like the ones used in
the Bible) know more now about the grammar and vocabulary of those
languages.
4> Hundreds of partial or complete copies of ancient manuscripts that
the KJV translators knew nothing about have been discovered,
preserved, and translated, some showing alternate versions from what
the KJV was based on.
5> Any translation is bound to have ambiguities because no two
languages reflect the same culture and mind set.
6> Literalist readers of the KJV have interpreted in ways serious
religious scholars think do not believe reflect the original meaning
of the biblical texts.
7> Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims have cooperated in
translating and publishing a number of newer Bibles since the KJV came
out in the 17th century.

Now, how about your reasons for continuing to use the KJV?  Or do you
use the Douay?
--
Don Kirkman

 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by Horvath1.. » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:37:30


wrote this crap:

Quote:
>>Why don't you stick to pushing the King James version.

>I think I've explained why at least once already here, but maybe I can
>simplify enough you can catch it this time.

>1>  Few readers understand Elizabethan (i.e., Shakespearean) English
>very well these days.

True.  Education is not what it used to be.  Shakespeare is no longer
taught in schools these days.

Quote:
>2>  Some of the words in the KJV no longer connote what they did when
>it was translated.

Not some.  Very few.

Quote:
>3>  Scholars of the Middle Eastern languages (like the ones used in
>the Bible) know more now about the grammar and vocabulary of those
>languages.
>4> Hundreds of partial or complete copies of ancient manuscripts that
>the KJV translators knew nothing about have been discovered,
>preserved, and translated, some showing alternate versions from what
>the KJV was based on.

So what?  They weren't included because the makers of the KJV didn't
want them in there.

Quote:
>5> Any translation is bound to have ambiguities because no two
>languages reflect the same culture and mind set.

Very true.

Quote:
>6> Literalist readers of the KJV have interpreted in ways serious
>religious scholars think do not believe reflect the original meaning
>of the biblical texts.

Very true.  Here's an example.  In the Vulgate Bible, in the Lord's
prayer, for, "Forgive us our trespasses,"  it says, "et dimitte nobis
debita nostra."  Which clearly says "Forgive us our debts."

Quote:
>7> Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims have cooperated in
>translating and publishing a number of newer Bibles since the KJV came
>out in the 17th century.

That does not diminish the value of the KJV. The scholars who put it
together used their version of their translations.  Just because
someone misinterprets now doesn't mean their version is right.  In a
hundred years do you want to read a Bible written in T9 text?
"4 giv us r trspases."

Quote:
>Now, how about your reasons for continuing to use the KJV?  Or do you
>use the Douay?

For Catholics, the only Bible is the Douay-Chandler version.

Don't drink and drive.  Unless you have a good cup holder.

 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by BAR » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:13:26


Quote:





> >> >says...


> >> >> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), BobM


> >> >> > >A Pew Research Center survey on the religious beliefs of Christians in the United States, shows that about half believe Jesus will either definitely or probably return in the next 40 years.

> >> >> > Other returns were expected in the 1840s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have

> >> >> > expected several returns since their beginnings in the 1870s, and in

> >> >> > the 1940s one small group was expecting "eight years, maybe ten."

> >> >> > They all tend to go back and correct (sic!) their math while they

> >> >> > should be correcting their assumptions and interpretations of their

> >> >> > Bibles.

> >> >> > >http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/US-Christians-Views-on-the-Return-o...

> >> >> > --

> >> >> > Don Kirkman


> >> >> The Catholic Church holds that Jesus will come again to
> >> >> judge everybody. I want to ask my parish priest what Jesus
> >> >> can do on earth that he can't do in heaven or wherever he is,
> >> >> but I haven't gotten up the nerve. I mean, doesn't he already
> >> >> judge us? I thought that was why we went to confession.

> >> >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

> >> >"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will
> >> >reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works,
> >> >and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace."

> >> Apparently you've learned your catechism, which is a reasonable but a
> >> bit flowery paraphrase of what the Bible itself says.

> >Why don't you stick to pushing the King James version.

> I think I've explained why at least once already here, but maybe I can
> simplify enough you can catch it this time.

> 1>  Few readers understand Elizabethan (i.e., Shakespearean) English
> very well these days.
> 2>  Some of the words in the KJV no longer connote what they did when
> it was translated.
> 3>  Scholars of the Middle Eastern languages (like the ones used in
> the Bible) know more now about the grammar and vocabulary of those
> languages.
> 4> Hundreds of partial or complete copies of ancient manuscripts that
> the KJV translators knew nothing about have been discovered,
> preserved, and translated, some showing alternate versions from what
> the KJV was based on.
> 5> Any translation is bound to have ambiguities because no two
> languages reflect the same culture and mind set.
> 6> Literalist readers of the KJV have interpreted in ways serious
> religious scholars think do not believe reflect the original meaning
> of the biblical texts.
> 7> Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims have cooperated in
> translating and publishing a number of newer Bibles since the KJV came
> out in the 17th century.

> Now, how about your reasons for continuing to use the KJV?  Or do you
> use the Douay?

I am a Catholic, you figure it out.

 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by Don Kirkma » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 05:38:55

Quote:






>> >> >says...


>> >> >> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), BobM


>> >> >> > >A Pew Research Center survey on the religious beliefs of Christians in the United States, shows that about half believe Jesus will either definitely or probably return in the next 40 years.

>> >> >> > Other returns were expected in the 1840s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have

>> >> >> > expected several returns since their beginnings in the 1870s, and in

>> >> >> > the 1940s one small group was expecting "eight years, maybe ten."

>> >> >> > They all tend to go back and correct (sic!) their math while they

>> >> >> > should be correcting their assumptions and interpretations of their

>> >> >> > Bibles.

>> >> >> > >http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/US-Christians-Views-on-the-Return-o...

>> >> >> > --

>> >> >> > Don Kirkman


>> >> >> The Catholic Church holds that Jesus will come again to
>> >> >> judge everybody. I want to ask my parish priest what Jesus
>> >> >> can do on earth that he can't do in heaven or wherever he is,
>> >> >> but I haven't gotten up the nerve. I mean, doesn't he already
>> >> >> judge us? I thought that was why we went to confession.

>> >> >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

>> >> >"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will
>> >> >reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works,
>> >> >and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace."

>> >> Apparently you've learned your catechism, which is a reasonable but a
>> >> bit flowery paraphrase of what the Bible itself says.

>> >Why don't you stick to pushing the King James version.

>> I think I've explained why at least once already here, but maybe I can
>> simplify enough you can catch it this time.

>> 1>  Few readers understand Elizabethan (i.e., Shakespearean) English
>> very well these days.
>> 2>  Some of the words in the KJV no longer connote what they did when
>> it was translated.
>> 3>  Scholars of the Middle Eastern languages (like the ones used in
>> the Bible) know more now about the grammar and vocabulary of those
>> languages.
>> 4> Hundreds of partial or complete copies of ancient manuscripts that
>> the KJV translators knew nothing about have been discovered,
>> preserved, and translated, some showing alternate versions from what
>> the KJV was based on.
>> 5> Any translation is bound to have ambiguities because no two
>> languages reflect the same culture and mind set.
>> 6> Literalist readers of the KJV have interpreted in ways serious
>> religious scholars think do not believe reflect the original meaning
>> of the biblical texts.
>> 7> Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims have cooperated in
>> translating and publishing a number of newer Bibles since the KJV came
>> out in the 17th century.

>> Now, how about your reasons for continuing to use the KJV?  Or do you
>> use the Douay?

>I am a Catholic, you figure it out.

I figured that, but that wasn't what I asked and what you didn't
answer.  So apparently you prefer the Catholic translation which is
even older than the KJV.

The Douay translation is open to the same criticisms as the KJV; its
New Testament is 30 years older than the KJV, and the Old Testament
was done about the same time as the KJV.

One criticism of the Douay is far stronger than any of the others:  it
was translated from a *Latin* translation made by St. Jerome, not from
the original languages of the Bible texts.

BTW, I imagine many Catholics do in fact read and use newer better
translations than these two.

Now, which one do you prefer?
--
Don Kirkman

 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by BAR » Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:04:30


Quote:







> >> >> >says...


> >> >> >> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), BobM


> >> >> >> > >A Pew Research Center survey on the religious beliefs of Christians in the United States, shows that about half believe Jesus will either definitely or probably return in the next 40 years.

> >> >> >> > Other returns were expected in the 1840s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have

> >> >> >> > expected several returns since their beginnings in the 1870s, and in

> >> >> >> > the 1940s one small group was expecting "eight years, maybe ten."

> >> >> >> > They all tend to go back and correct (sic!) their math while they

> >> >> >> > should be correcting their assumptions and interpretations of their

> >> >> >> > Bibles.

> >> >> >> > >http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/US-Christians-Views-on-the-Return-o...

> >> >> >> > --

> >> >> >> > Don Kirkman


> >> >> >> The Catholic Church holds that Jesus will come again to
> >> >> >> judge everybody. I want to ask my parish priest what Jesus
> >> >> >> can do on earth that he can't do in heaven or wherever he is,
> >> >> >> but I haven't gotten up the nerve. I mean, doesn't he already
> >> >> >> judge us? I thought that was why we went to confession.

> >> >> >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

> >> >> >"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will
> >> >> >reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works,
> >> >> >and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace."

> >> >> Apparently you've learned your catechism, which is a reasonable but a
> >> >> bit flowery paraphrase of what the Bible itself says.

> >> >Why don't you stick to pushing the King James version.

> >> I think I've explained why at least once already here, but maybe I can
> >> simplify enough you can catch it this time.

> >> 1>  Few readers understand Elizabethan (i.e., Shakespearean) English
> >> very well these days.
> >> 2>  Some of the words in the KJV no longer connote what they did when
> >> it was translated.
> >> 3>  Scholars of the Middle Eastern languages (like the ones used in
> >> the Bible) know more now about the grammar and vocabulary of those
> >> languages.
> >> 4> Hundreds of partial or complete copies of ancient manuscripts that
> >> the KJV translators knew nothing about have been discovered,
> >> preserved, and translated, some showing alternate versions from what
> >> the KJV was based on.
> >> 5> Any translation is bound to have ambiguities because no two
> >> languages reflect the same culture and mind set.
> >> 6> Literalist readers of the KJV have interpreted in ways serious
> >> religious scholars think do not believe reflect the original meaning
> >> of the biblical texts.
> >> 7> Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims have cooperated in
> >> translating and publishing a number of newer Bibles since the KJV came
> >> out in the 17th century.

> >> Now, how about your reasons for continuing to use the KJV?  Or do you
> >> use the Douay?

> >I am a Catholic, you figure it out.

> I figured that, but that wasn't what I asked and what you didn't
> answer.  So apparently you prefer the Catholic translation which is
> even older than the KJV.

> The Douay translation is open to the same criticisms as the KJV; its
> New Testament is 30 years older than the KJV, and the Old Testament
> was done about the same time as the KJV.

> One criticism of the Douay is far stronger than any of the others:  it
> was translated from a *Latin* translation made by St. Jerome, not from
> the original languages of the Bible texts.

> BTW, I imagine many Catholics do in fact read and use newer better
> translations than these two.

> Now, which one do you prefer?

Preference is not at issue, I use the one in the pews at my local Catholic church.
 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by Don Kirkma » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 05:36:46

Quote:








>> >> >> >says...


>> >> >> >> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), BobM


>> >> >> >> > >A Pew Research Center survey on the religious beliefs of Christians in the United States, shows that about half believe Jesus will either definitely or probably return in the next 40 years.

>> >> >> >> > Other returns were expected in the 1840s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have

>> >> >> >> > expected several returns since their beginnings in the 1870s, and in

>> >> >> >> > the 1940s one small group was expecting "eight years, maybe ten."

>> >> >> >> > They all tend to go back and correct (sic!) their math while they

>> >> >> >> > should be correcting their assumptions and interpretations of their

>> >> >> >> > Bibles.

>> >> >> >> > >http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/US-Christians-Views-on-the-Return-o...

>> >> >> >> > --

>> >> >> >> > Don Kirkman


>> >> >> >> The Catholic Church holds that Jesus will come again to
>> >> >> >> judge everybody. I want to ask my parish priest what Jesus
>> >> >> >> can do on earth that he can't do in heaven or wherever he is,
>> >> >> >> but I haven't gotten up the nerve. I mean, doesn't he already
>> >> >> >> judge us? I thought that was why we went to confession.

>> >> >> >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

>> >> >> >"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will
>> >> >> >reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works,
>> >> >> >and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace."

>> >> >> Apparently you've learned your catechism, which is a reasonable but a
>> >> >> bit flowery paraphrase of what the Bible itself says.

>> >> >Why don't you stick to pushing the King James version.

>> >> I think I've explained why at least once already here, but maybe I can
>> >> simplify enough you can catch it this time.

>> >> 1>  Few readers understand Elizabethan (i.e., Shakespearean) English
>> >> very well these days.
>> >> 2>  Some of the words in the KJV no longer connote what they did when
>> >> it was translated.
>> >> 3>  Scholars of the Middle Eastern languages (like the ones used in
>> >> the Bible) know more now about the grammar and vocabulary of those
>> >> languages.
>> >> 4> Hundreds of partial or complete copies of ancient manuscripts that
>> >> the KJV translators knew nothing about have been discovered,
>> >> preserved, and translated, some showing alternate versions from what
>> >> the KJV was based on.
>> >> 5> Any translation is bound to have ambiguities because no two
>> >> languages reflect the same culture and mind set.
>> >> 6> Literalist readers of the KJV have interpreted in ways serious
>> >> religious scholars think do not believe reflect the original meaning
>> >> of the biblical texts.
>> >> 7> Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims have cooperated in
>> >> translating and publishing a number of newer Bibles since the KJV came
>> >> out in the 17th century.

>> >> Now, how about your reasons for continuing to use the KJV?  Or do you
>> >> use the Douay?

>> >I am a Catholic, you figure it out.

>> I figured that, but that wasn't what I asked and what you didn't
>> answer.  So apparently you prefer the Catholic translation which is
>> even older than the KJV.

>> The Douay translation is open to the same criticisms as the KJV; its
>> New Testament is 30 years older than the KJV, and the Old Testament
>> was done about the same time as the KJV.

>> One criticism of the Douay is far stronger than any of the others:  it
>> was translated from a *Latin* translation made by St. Jerome, not from
>> the original languages of the Bible texts.

>> BTW, I imagine many Catholics do in fact read and use newer better
>> translations than these two.

>> Now, which one do you prefer?

>Preference is not at issue, I use the one in the pews at my local Catholic church.

You can buy one of your own, you know.  Even a different translation.
--
Don Kirkman

 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by William Clar » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:33:20



Quote:


> >says...

. . .snip, snip . . .

Quote:

> >> >I am a Catholic, you figure it out.

> >> I figured that, but that wasn't what I asked and what you didn't
> >> answer.  So apparently you prefer the Catholic translation which is
> >> even older than the KJV.

> >> The Douay translation is open to the same criticisms as the KJV; its
> >> New Testament is 30 years older than the KJV, and the Old Testament
> >> was done about the same time as the KJV.

> >> One criticism of the Douay is far stronger than any of the others:  it
> >> was translated from a *Latin* translation made by St. Jerome, not from
> >> the original languages of the Bible texts.

> >> BTW, I imagine many Catholics do in fact read and use newer better
> >> translations than these two.

> >> Now, which one do you prefer?

> >Preference is not at issue, I use the one in the pews at my local Catholic
> >church.

> You can buy one of your own, you know.  Even a different translation.

He would rather prey on his church.
 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by BAR » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 20:35:09


Quote:









> >> >> >> >says...


> >> >> >> >> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:16:36 -0700 (PDT), BobM


> >> >> >> >> > >A Pew Research Center survey on the religious beliefs of Christians in the United States, shows that about half believe Jesus will either definitely or probably return in the next 40 years.

> >> >> >> >> > Other returns were expected in the 1840s, the Jehovah's Witnesses have

> >> >> >> >> > expected several returns since their beginnings in the 1870s, and in

> >> >> >> >> > the 1940s one small group was expecting "eight years, maybe ten."

> >> >> >> >> > They all tend to go back and correct (sic!) their math while they

> >> >> >> >> > should be correcting their assumptions and interpretations of their

> >> >> >> >> > Bibles.

> >> >> >> >> > >http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/US-Christians-Views-on-the-Return-o...

> >> >> >> >> > --

> >> >> >> >> > Don Kirkman


> >> >> >> >> The Catholic Church holds that Jesus will come again to
> >> >> >> >> judge everybody. I want to ask my parish priest what Jesus
> >> >> >> >> can do on earth that he can't do in heaven or wherever he is,
> >> >> >> >> but I haven't gotten up the nerve. I mean, doesn't he already
> >> >> >> >> judge us? I thought that was why we went to confession.

> >> >> >> >http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

> >> >> >> >"When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will
> >> >> >> >reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works,
> >> >> >> >and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace."

> >> >> >> Apparently you've learned your catechism, which is a reasonable but a
> >> >> >> bit flowery paraphrase of what the Bible itself says.

> >> >> >Why don't you stick to pushing the King James version.

> >> >> I think I've explained why at least once already here, but maybe I can
> >> >> simplify enough you can catch it this time.

> >> >> 1>  Few readers understand Elizabethan (i.e., Shakespearean) English
> >> >> very well these days.
> >> >> 2>  Some of the words in the KJV no longer connote what they did when
> >> >> it was translated.
> >> >> 3>  Scholars of the Middle Eastern languages (like the ones used in
> >> >> the Bible) know more now about the grammar and vocabulary of those
> >> >> languages.
> >> >> 4> Hundreds of partial or complete copies of ancient manuscripts that
> >> >> the KJV translators knew nothing about have been discovered,
> >> >> preserved, and translated, some showing alternate versions from what
> >> >> the KJV was based on.
> >> >> 5> Any translation is bound to have ambiguities because no two
> >> >> languages reflect the same culture and mind set.
> >> >> 6> Literalist readers of the KJV have interpreted in ways serious
> >> >> religious scholars think do not believe reflect the original meaning
> >> >> of the biblical texts.
> >> >> 7> Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims have cooperated in
> >> >> translating and publishing a number of newer Bibles since the KJV came
> >> >> out in the 17th century.

> >> >> Now, how about your reasons for continuing to use the KJV?  Or do you
> >> >> use the Douay?

> >> >I am a Catholic, you figure it out.

> >> I figured that, but that wasn't what I asked and what you didn't
> >> answer.  So apparently you prefer the Catholic translation which is
> >> even older than the KJV.

> >> The Douay translation is open to the same criticisms as the KJV; its
> >> New Testament is 30 years older than the KJV, and the Old Testament
> >> was done about the same time as the KJV.

> >> One criticism of the Douay is far stronger than any of the others:  it
> >> was translated from a *Latin* translation made by St. Jerome, not from
> >> the original languages of the Bible texts.

> >> BTW, I imagine many Catholics do in fact read and use newer better
> >> translations than these two.

> >> Now, which one do you prefer?

> >Preference is not at issue, I use the one in the pews at my local Catholic church.

> You can buy one of your own, you know.  Even a different translation.

My wife handles the religious education in our house. My values and morals don't need
constant reinforcement unlike yours.
 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by bkni.. » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:38:49

Quote:

> My values and morals don't need
>constant reinforcement unlike yours.

LOL.  Post of the decade.
 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by Don Kirkma » Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:15:47

.

Quote:
>My wife handles the religious education in our house. My values and morals don't need
>constant reinforcement unlike yours.

And you know this how?  A little ad hominem thrown in here and there
doesn't compensate for refusing to answer questions put to you.
--
Don Kirkman

 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by BAR » Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:02:14


Quote:


> .
> >My wife handles the religious education in our house. My values and morals don't need
> >constant reinforcement unlike yours.

> And you know this how?  A little ad hominem thrown in here and there
> doesn't compensate for refusing to answer questions put to you.

I am still married to my wife of 20+ years. My children are successful in their academic
pursuits, neither daughter has become pregnant before marriage. We provide for ourselves
without needing outside assistance. We donate to charities at a rate much higer than Democat
Vice Presidents.
 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by Don Kirkma » Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:10:36

Quote:



>> .
>> >My wife handles the religious education in our house. My values and morals don't need
>> >constant reinforcement unlike yours.

>> And you know this how?  A little ad hominem thrown in here and there
>> doesn't compensate for refusing to answer questions put to you.

>I am still married to my wife of 20+ years. My children are successful in their academic
>pursuits, neither daughter has become pregnant before marriage. We provide for ourselves
>without needing outside assistance. We donate to charities at a rate much higer than Democat
>Vice Presidents.

Nice summary, but it has nothing to do with the questions you've been
asked.  How do you compare vacation days of the recent presidents?  
--
Don Kirkman

 
 
 

God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science

Post by BAR » Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:25:49


Quote:




> >> .
> >> >My wife handles the religious education in our house. My values and morals don't need
> >> >constant reinforcement unlike yours.

> >> And you know this how?  A little ad hominem thrown in here and there
> >> doesn't compensate for refusing to answer questions put to you.

> >I am still married to my wife of 20+ years. My children are successful in their academic
> >pursuits, neither daughter has become pregnant before marriage. We provide for ourselves
> >without needing outside assistance. We donate to charities at a rate much higer than Democat
> >Vice Presidents.

> Nice summary, but it has nothing to do with the questions you've been
> asked.  How do you compare vacation days of the recent presidents?  

This thread isn't about vacation days, it is about God and his allocation of miracles to
"too-educated Americans."

As Bobbie says, stay on subject.