climategateFollow

Honestly Pensive? While there are a number of Biblical passages which require some interpretation and deeper cultural understanding, and which might have slightly different meanings for different readers, this really isn't one of them. What you see is pretty much what you get with this one:

People say false things about David.
David prays for them to not do this.
People continue to say false things about him.
David prays to God to smite their leader.


I suppose we could wax philosophical on the deeper message about bearing false witness, character assassination, the role of accuser, and the larger issue of horrific punishment from God if you cross one of his Kings (with perhaps some not so subtle warnings to the enemies of Israel of the day), but the question at hand wasn't about that. It was about whether or not the leader mentioned in 109:08 was on the side of the liars mentioned in 109:02 or whether the one requesting that God smite him down was.

The leader was on the side of the liars. That's the only thing I was commenting on. I frankly don't really care about relevance to anything today, and I didn't comment on such. As I've said repeatedly, you invented that connection in your own head all on your own.

And this, folks, is why we can't have nice things shouldn't base morality on the Bible.

Sounds like an exercise in futility.

Last decade was the hottest decade since records began, apparently. Take that, flat-earthers!

We're too cold apparently. We should be north, north america.

This leads me to think of two conclusions:

1. That Gore meant the most recent "scandalous" e-mails are at least a decade old, or
2. Like he said in the first paragraph, he hasn't read them all.

How did he falsify a record at all? Was this at a trial? Sounds like he had the wrong information because, as he said himself, he didn't read all the e-mails.

Edit: Hahaha, it was exactly what I said, and your article took it out of context.


Note that the writer's "proof" is that "some" of the e-mails (and not the ones in question, apparently, but others) are more recent. It seems like the scandalous ones Gore reviewed were in fact from a decade ago. Amazing!

Edited, Dec 9th 2009 11:25am by LockeColeMA

But Joph, our celebrities are everything.

Yeah, anyone else read this and think Varus actually means the blacks should be with the blacks?

Actually, most of the morality Christians are told to accept are the same morals that anyone else has. Jesus' golden rule (after loving God with all of your heart) was "treat others as you would yourself." When he was directly asked what was the most important "law" to follow that was his response. He didnt say "dont be gay," nor "call it 'Christmas' not a 'Holiday Party,'" nor "touching yourself is naughty." It was treat others with the respect that you would ask of others, and really - if you truly follow that - thats all you need.

I am a Christian. Are these Psalms in direct conflict with Jesus' teachings? Unfortunately, Jesus tells us to leave revenge to God - or, alternatively, love thy neighbor - and David is certainly not showing this in these passages. So the spirit of these passages are in direct conflict with Christian morals.

As a note though, if you read these passages I dont think its ever mentioned that this is how you should act, its an account of how David acted - which, at least in my eyes, shows the Bible wasnt written by God but inspired by God. The Bible has some revolutionary - even for today - morals, but it does have some nonsensical stories like those in Psalms.

Or people with money to donate who have influence (warranted or not) over other people to help advance his agenda.

Umm... how many? I didn't recognize 95% of the names on that list.

Although, if they were celebrities, Obama must have a deep interest in Bollywood

Varrus is just bitter that, when the conservatives need Hollywood celebrities, they have to trot out Jon Voight, Gary Sinise and pull Janine Turner out of mothballs again.

Edited, Dec 9th 2009 11:11am by Jophiel