zoocrew

Could be a call on the west side of the county that would need to be routed to Floyd. No sense in starting rumors.

I'm not understanding your post. What I said was that Christians are supposed to be "peace makers" and the idea of a justified war is not found in the Scripture at all. That's the point - there is no Biblical "justified" war outside of direct communication with God and His miracles to prove his Will. Christians are supposed to be peace makers and when they go to war (as in the Crusades) they are not fulfilling the Biblical exhortation. War can be a moral imperative but it cannot be justified by the Bible.

And that is found in what verse? How do we know God commands a war?

Then I greatly misunderstood you post and I owe you an apology. I do agree that there is not much diversity on here due to a small group running off most everyone that disagrees with them, but that's just my observation.

You mean like Paulding Voice or The Highway? No thanks. Those people didn't allow for another view and discussion was stifled and that is why those have, or will, die off.

My DH is going to be really happy when he hears about this! Yuengling, Oldest U.S. Beer Maker, Eyes Expansion

The Falcons are kicking ass and taking names! Makes me want to find that short skirt and start the high kicks again.

There is no "Biblical View" of a "Just War." The idea of "Just War" is a Church teaching that was postulated by Aquinas, et.al., to bring into line the idea of a patriotic citizen, a Christian citizen and a moral cause. There are many Christian theologians who argue against the idea of a "Just War." What I'm saying is that there is no "Biblical View" of war, except that of being peace makers. The idea of war on moral grounds is not a "Biblical View" as much as an ethical consideration. Your criteria are that of Catholic teaching that may or may not have Biblical principles, but those princ

What penalty is on the same level as these low lifes.

That's not giving special treatment to their religion but allowing their free exercise since they believe it is entirely sinful to be have their body viewed like that. Just as the conscientioius objector in the Navy should be given the honorable discharge for his religious convictions is not getting special treatment but allowed to follow his religious dictates without government interference; or the Jehovah's Witnesses being exempted from swearing an oath; etc. BTW, Muslims have been saying it was sinful to be subjected to the scans since early 2010; it is nothing new. No one should have

And those people who carry guns illegally are banned from doing so. If they do it anyway, they are breaking the law. If a company wants to continue to market the product, they can do so illegally. So what's the problem? No one is saying PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is not in play here. What is in play is public safety and that means making it illegal for the mfg of a product that is dangerous TO PEOPLE THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE AND DON'T USE THAT PRODUCT. Kinda like smoking bans in buildings. Public safety means we make choices. If you want to mix and drink, knock yourself out. But I don't want

I really don't have any opinion on it since I think everyone should be exempt from it and no one should be singled out for its use or an exemption.

And they don't have a Constitution that says there won't be any warrantless search or seizures without probable cause, either.

What about it? Didn't you understand the link? No one should have their privacy invaded like that regardless of religion or no religion.

People make meth, too, but that doesn't mean we allow companies to package it for distribution. As for tobacco, why not ban it? I'm all for it. It won't happen because of the revenue from the taxes and the jobs it gives the economy - not to mention the powerful lobby and money it produces. Public safety means choices that weighs the public's right to chose and the public's right to reasonable expectation of product safety.

Wow. I'm amazed that so many of you finally agree with the ACLU on something they have been screaming about since 2002. The scanners are an invasion of privacy since people wearing clothes have a reasonable expectation of privacy. My Link

It's a public safety issue and I can see you really mustn't understand what these drinks do. These drinks are dangerous because of the harm they can do the public at large since the consumption of the caffeine-alcohol combination can cause blackouts before they even realize what is happening. The chance of blackout with these products is large enough that it puts the rest of us at risk.

How about a small, traditional Southern Gospel church?

That label is on there because of the FDA. Remember the argument when labels were required? "We don't need the government to tell us what is in there because we can make the decision ourselves." Well, in the case of these drinks, there is no label to tell about the way the caffeine works with the alcohol. Awfully glad to know you buckle up but many others don't and need that reminder to protect everyone, including themselves. Same with speed limits. Those drinks don't just harm "you" but everyone that drinks one and doesn't realize the intoxication and harm others after blacking out. Come on.

"Unsafe." The products are unsafe. I suppose you have no problem with DDT or fen-phen either.

We talked about these caffeine-loaded alcoholic drinks last week, and now the FDA has labeled them "unsafe" and says they can no longer stay on the market. Washington is the latest of four states to have banned the product due to the heavy caffeine that masks the alcoholic content until the consumption leads to an almost blackout condition. My Link

The FDA has now stepped up the effort to ban the drinks My Link

You are deciding what the Word of God is for him. He believes differently. If the government is a bystander, then he should be honorably discharged and allowed to continue his faith as he pleases. If he works in those areas that is supporting the effort, he is engaging in the effort to take another life. That is the view of many religions.

Government speaks for god? Why did god tell this guy (and many others) something completely different?

I'm not getting into the Bible thing. Their view is different. Do you want the federal government to start interpreting the Bible and decide what beliefs are OK and which ones are not? My Link