| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Timothy Sutter" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2004 07:21:48 AM |
| Object: |
to honor God in your body |
two things two consider;
"the flesh profits nothing, it is
the Spirit which makes alive," and,
"you are the temple of the Holy Spirit."
these ideas are not in opposition
one to the other, but you should
see how they complement each other.
so, sure, the flesh itself is
not and never the be all end all.
in fact, if you listen to Jesus, he'll
tell you that the flesh -profits- nothing.
so, you -could- convince yourself that it's
not -as- important to tend to the flesh as it
is to tend to the Spirit-=-spirit, and rightly so.
but, coupled with the acknowledgement that
you are a temple of God and God's own Spirit
has taken up residence with you and yours,
the discipline of the flesh becomes an
appropriate spiritual oblation with
which to honor God in your body.
so, the flesh is not the end product, but
the perfecting of your Spirit-=-spirit and
the unity of Christ.
that stature of Christ, which is not
defined by the outward appearance,
nor can be, but, the outward reflection
of the inner being will show forth in some manner.
and, interminable struggling -with-
the flesh is a toil in the brick pits.
there are other examplars of such toiling,
but certainly that would be among them.
anyway, to paraphrase dear Paul;
"let's not argue about food"
but, let's do honor God in our bodies.
---
John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing
The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone defiles the temple of God,
God will destroy him. For the temple
of God is holy, which temple you are.
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is
the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you,
whom you have from God, and you
are not your own?
---
.
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: ...to do |
30 Sep 2004 06:12:12 PM |
|
|
"i know how to fly a rocketship
to the moon, but just knowin'
about it isn't gunna
get me there"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: non-issue |
01 Oct 2004 09:50:13 AM |
|
|
one little thing,
the following statement represents
a self defeating argument;
"i wouldn't have gone to war in the first place,
but seeing as how it's underway, i would go
ahead and finish what has been started."
if a clear choice was to be presented,
one one suggest something like this;
"i wouldn't have gone to war in the first place,
and i plan to shut this thing down immediately
if given the chance"
as it is in the first case,
you can't go back and mend the onset,
and if you plan to maintain a certain status quo,
statements about the onset become irrelevant.
if you were to say;
"when it becomes my decision, i pack it all
up and we're out of there in 60 days"
that would be a clear choice.
as it is, 'stay and finish' is what
will happen, antidisirregardless of
anything that happens in november.
non-issue
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: non-issue |
01 Oct 2004 10:42:17 PM |
|
|
this is sort of odd
if you pick at it a bit,
considering the statement that the
president intentionally 'mislead the public'
in going to war with iraq,
in short;
the statements about 'misleading the public'
provide a fallback crutch to cover up the fact
that many in congress voted with
the president to go to war.
but, if they were so duped by this president,
they paint themselves as people who are
-easily- duped into doing things that they
claim to intently disfavor.
i'm not saying the president did dupe anyone,
only that some say that he did dupe the public.
additionally; wait, there's more...
you who voted in congress for going to war,
supported the president in going to war,
but you would now claim that he mislead
-you- into voting along with his case for war.
in this case, you define yourself as one being
mislead by a president whom you may not
consider a personal ally, and so, one whom
you may already have a dubious
attitude towards.
and so, one may consider that if you
were 'duped' so easily by a person you
know you don't consider a personal ally,
what is the likelihood of your being 'duped'
by people who have gained your trust?
say, what is the likelihood of your
being 'duped' by some 'coalition'
member who only 'pretends' to be
your ally when they may, in fact, be
opposed to all american leadership.
after all, you're so easily duped,
they like you because they see one
who is easily duped and easily manipulated
to do what -they- want and not what
may be best for the american public.
also, and no one seems to harp on
this much, but that is the bit about
the break-up of the USSR.
as has been mentioned, there was an
actual concern that some rogue SSR
might sell nuclear bomb components
on the so-called 'black market,'
the funny thing is, that mention has been
made that a suitcase with such materials
was seized.
i, personally, wouldn't have believed anyone
would do such an irresponsible thing as selling
an actual nuclear device to a mad dictator,
but apparently, the possibility was there.
as an example concerning seizures
and interdictions; in drug interdictions,
the estimate is that 10% of contraband
is seized and 90% get thru.
so, one -could- suggest that if someone
actually did seize a suitcase with bomb
components in it, that it may be -possible-
that one got thru.
and how easy is it to find a suitcase
in a large country like iraq?
and there's all that cash
in iraq, just laying around.
and hussein kept winking
like he had become so armed.
see, admission is made that it may take a decade
to shore up the SSR's nuclear weapons -possibly-
sieving out of the country, but admission is not
made that a concern was that some may have
gotten out, and into the hands of our mad dictator.
the bad thing about the suitcase sized
components bit is that it always
remains uncertain.
sounds so totally far-fetched,
but a very dangerous prospect anyway.
easy for -me- to recognize but downplay,
but then, no one will point fingers at me if
an A-bomb gets thru and say,
"tim, why didn't you stop it?"
a trainload of uranium you can
see moving across the landscape.
a nuclear power facility you can monitor,
but as we all know, the israelis bombed
the iraqi nuclear facillity before it
opened for business.
a suitcase holding a weapon,
where is it?
and what about a delivery mechanism
you need a missile so you can shoot
it far away from where you are.
presumably.
saddam had 'scuds' and he was firing
them at israel during the kuwait war.
so, people had good reason to examine
his arsenal after 92, to see if he had actually
armed a scud with the suitcase bomb,
if he had one.
what always will remain uncertain is the suitcase.
or suitcases.
as in; "there -could- be a bullet in
that haystack and we know
he had a gun."
but, apparently, we're all so easily duped
that the guy who wrote a book on the
possibility of SSR leakage of A-bomb
components does not recognize the
nature of the actual concern.
"""there is a possibility that A-bomb
components leak from the SSRs but none
could have possibly leaked into iraq, which
just happens to have a border very near an SSR."""
sounds odd.
that's all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: non-issue |
02 Oct 2004 06:52:06 AM |
|
|
you who voted in congress for going to war,
supported the president in going to war,
but you would now claim that he mislead
-you- into voting along with his case for war.
here's a problem;
if one of your candidates for public office
appears to be taking two distinctly different
sides of the same so-called 'issue'
this speaks of a fracture of ideologies/beliefs
on the part of the -constituency- [he] purports
to represent, or would like to represent.
here's why this can be a problem,
if a fractured constituency lays aside its
differences for the sole purpose of electing
a particular candidate,
chances are high that they will disband -that-
'coalition' as soon as the person takes office,
and then all the infighting and internal squabbling
takes place at a time when such internal
indecisiveness could have lethal consequences.
this may not matter much in the case of
social issues like what to watch on television,
but if you have people who believe that military force
is never an option siding with people who say that
military force is sometimes an option,
for the sole purpose of electing a person who
likes the same television programs as they do,
you could see trouble when that constituency
inherits a problem that they disagree entirely on.
so, playing party politics with this sort
of thing is, in itself, just plain dangerous.
'should we paddle junior or reason with junior?'
'oh, Dr. Myron says never paddle'
fine, that's not a problem for me, but you're
already committed to military action and neither
is promising an immediate pull-out.
but getting elected saying 'i won't pull out'
and then having some important part of your
constituency pipe up with;
"now let's discuss an immediate pull-out"
after January 20th -could- bring with it
the sort of situation where you get two generals
giving a private diametrically opposing orders.
one general says "atten-hut"
and the other general says "at ease"
and the poor private falls over dead because
he must disobey a direct order from a general.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: issue |
02 Oct 2004 07:58:09 AM |
|
|
oh, by the way;
if you really want to do
something for the en-vI-roh-ment
try to convince 150 million people
-not- to toss their used batteries
in the trash.
when people used to change their own motor
oil many used to just throw it away in the
trash or dump it down the sewer.
and the estimate was that all the motor oil
that went down the drain was equivalent to
10-15 exxon valdez oil spills =every year=.
problem is, used motor oil is far more toxic
than crude oil that has just been pumped
from the ground.
but, if only 10% of the people that use
batteries toss them in the trash can,
you are talking about a huge pollution problem.
but the chances are that upwards of 50%
of people who buy and use batteries simply
toss the used batteries in the trash can and
they end up in a landfill somewhere and
these things are very toxic.
probably more like 80%, but who cares anyway?
anyway, that right there is a huge pollution
problem that is not going to go away when
you don't -see- it anymore.
those batteries aren't going anywhere.
i'm not in to giving free rein to dumpers
of noxious substances whomever they may be.
but how can you point your finger at America Inc.
all the while tossing your batteries in the trash?
it starts to look like just another scam
to extract money from easy targets
like heavy industry.
when toxic pollution is a real problem.
but you don't help matters any when
you toss your batteries in the trash.
not even considering used motor oil.
and plain old inefficient use
of the throw away society.
big deal
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
