Bob

lol cant believe what are you talking about : Kanye worse than the fake gangsta s### ?!? nahh .. i like "Good Morning "ppl :wiggle: ;) so just easy mathematic- one good song > 50's album :)) phah ;) Believe me, i'm not talking his previous efforts. This current incarnation of Mr. West has completely alienated me.

Wow, Kanye full-out sucks. ^I never thought I could say such things. And AJ is right, 50 cent even sounds more appealing.

I sympathize with what you say. Why? Because when T.O. blew up in San Fran, we thought he changed. He hasn't. He's the same guy, and his attitude is only a tempered notch down because your owner loves jerks. What does that mean? It only takes time for your owner to get over T.O. and bring in some new 'prize' and that will only lead to T.O. imploding.

If win means cash a paycheck, then sure. History reminder: 2005 Eagles go to Super Bowl and lose. T.0 want's contract renegotiation. He goes public and makes training camp a live rendition of Jerry Springer. Fast-forward to the season, Eagles start hot, even with T.0 mad about his contract. Under your mindset, T.O would be fine with the wins. Except he wasn't. We were blowing out teams, and T.O was going on National TV questioning his quarterback's loyalty and his team. So no, T.O could care less about winning if he doesn't have 80% of the throws in his direction and a paycheck the size of Texas.

Oh yeah, because T.O is a man of his word and such a selfless teammate....

You are way off, especially since you got beat last night! We are up 2-0 (not saying we'll sweep LA, but we definitely have the advantage).

I'm hoping (and will not be comfortable until) the Phils are in the Series and then we can bring back the "BOSTON IS DEAD" chants! GO PHILS!

As you all know, I am all Philly, all the time. So, you know where I stand. I was at Game 1 of the NLDS vs the Brewers and last night I was at Game 2 NLCS vs the Dodgers... Of course, I'm gearing up to buy some World Series tickets... So who's your pick for the Series and the winner?

WHY IS THIS TOPIC STILL GOING?

It's a lost cause dealing with :ignore: Oh well, I tried. :shrug:

FUNNY. they shoulda kept it in the film.

You see it as futile because I gave you a whole history, with 3 separate instances where Jesus affirms Peter as the rock. You agree to the concept, and then have a blatant disconnect in recognizing the connection. We affirm the rock of the Church as Peter and then every successive heir to St. Peter's throne. It's straightforward, it's backed by biblical quotes, and it's frustrating to hear you heave old, worn, broken accusations against credibility in text.

And the first Pope, in St. Peter, is defined in the Bible. The concept of the Pope is not a result, directly or indirectly of the Paganism present. The concept of the physical living Church was present before the Bible was compiled. The system was set by Jesus, as I previously quoted. The Church Magesterium was pivotal in defining many of the things upon which Protestants and Catholics to this day agree. For instance, the Nicene Creed spells out the concept of the Trinity, a word/term never spoken in the Bible. Yet only the Jehova Witnesses and Church of Latter Day Saints refute the perfect trinity concept.

Well first to the Pope vs Peter, it really is the Heir of St. Peter's Throne, or the Vicar of Christ, so in best ways understood, the man form of Jesus' voice on earth. The concept of the Pope, the leader of the Church, the head Apostle, the man to be consulted on issues of faith and morality, is first defined in the Bible. The word specifically "Pope" or its direct translation, no, the very definition: yes. I concede the word "Pope" comes from "father" as St. Peter became the representative in man form after Jesus died. And we consider Jesus/God/Holy Spirit as father. The reason for Rome rather than any other place is due to Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome. For Schnazz: The idea is this: Jesus of course is the leader in totality. He came to Earth and had a finite time here in human form. So, while on earth, he is the leader, the rock. Since Jesus eventually ascended into heaven, and since he established Peter as the head of the Church, then what happens next? If he went out of his way to establish Peter as the foundation of the visible, physical living Church, and Peter will eventually die, what happens? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans (known as Episcopalians in the U.S), etc all claim "Apostolic Succession" to the original Apostles. So we believe, along with many other forms of Christianity, that we have elected individuals to the role of Peter since Jesus left this earth. The Pope as a father of values, morals and leader of the Church represents the same role Peter took as the lead Apostle. We have counted 265 Popes, including Peter (one Pope died 3 days into the papacy), and we claim to have the succession correctly from the original apostles. The reason why we have succession is we believe that Jesus left, as he said, a Church to be visible atop a mountain (Church in the sense of the people, not neccessarily, but including the actual structures). And he gave a human the role of leading the Church since Jesus would leave Earth. So we see the precedence to elect a leader of the Church in the human form.

happy (belated) bday!

The first picture has Will looking like a cartoon. And yes, Jada got some interesting hair. Ha.

Letter to the King Game, Nas

The Slick Rick tribute is a MUST SEE.

Go to the original language, and you'll see "Kephas" (sorry about the spelling). Peter was the first Pope. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, as the other Apostles are Bishops as well. Peter is consulted in issues of faith in the New Testament. Peter, Petros, Kephas, Pope all are under the root idea that Jesus left the keys to the Kingdom (in the next verse) to Peter. I do Catholic Apologetics, so I'm very well aquainted with the history of the question you raise. If you see Matthew 16:18-19, you first see Jesus make Peter the rock. (Some question translations, trying to say a gender difference in the translation of rock, but it really is an issue of Jesus masculinizing the word rock in the original written language, as to not call Peter a female rock...but that's deep into the discussion, not neccessarily what you raise) Then you can look later in John 21:15-17 where Jesus reaffirms Peter as the leader of his sheep. And then finally, so to not confuse the power granted to Peter with the positions of the other Apostles, Jesus affirmed the faith of the other Apostles in him as the leader of the visible Church (Luke 22:32). So when all said and done, yes, there is the Pope, the leader of the Church directly in the New Testament. This is all an aside when recognizing the Bible doesn't constitute all of Christianity, considering it's compilation happened long after Jesus died and Christianity began. That's the oral tradition that many miss. Yet the scriptures didn't come until decades after the death of Jesus, and his Apostles were already practicing the sacraments (like reconciliation John 20:23) that were later affirmed in the written portion of the faith. So I hope that cleared up any confusion.

Chapter and verse please? :sipread: Matthew 16:18 The very reason why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (Petros, Pope, Rock) was to establish a man who would hold the keys to the Church and lead the visible Church on earth.

And that comes right back around to the root of what Kasparov questioned...How do you know? How can you say people in a historically oppressed police state ever honestly supported the leaders? Polls won't tell you. I mean look at U.S. sentiment some 5 years ago towards Putin: the majority of our Congress and of course our President took him as an 'ok' guy who has finally 'saw the light.' What this tells us is that international thought is also fickle. The most bare understanding of internal sentiment of the people in Russia is through the opposition party. It's the case in Zimbabwe, and almost any other turmoil filled place. Oh come on, are you trying to say that Peter The Great and Catherine The Great aren't beloved figures in Russian history? Please. :shakehead: What about what Catherine did to Radishchev? Or her conveinently not doing anything regarding her husband's murderers? Or the fact she was ignorant to all the problems around her in the highest structures of that government?

And that comes right back around to the root of what Kasparov questioned...How do you know? How can you say people in a historically oppressed police state ever honestly supported the leaders? Polls won't tell you. I mean look at U.S. sentiment some 5 years ago towards Putin: the majority of our Congress and of course our President took him as an 'ok' guy who has finally 'saw the light.' What this tells us is that international thought is also fickle. The most bare understanding of internal sentiment of the people in Russia is through the opposition party. It's the case in Zimbabwe, and almost any other turmoil filled place.

History doesn't lie. But oppressive regimes do. Russia's oppressive history includes the strongmen of which you speak. Their power isn't a representation of the people in that country, rather a representation of the corrupt hording power from the people.

Well we agree we weren't morally better. We have to agree to disagree on NATO because I think it is the definition of peacefully, yet forcefully working to provide international contempt for Russia's actions. I think Kasparov explained it well. You can't take Russian polling seriously in a police state. Also, I believe Kasparov would better understand his country than we could ever as U.S. citizens. Also, regarding the argument about "former": France calls themselves a superpower and us a hyper-power. Regardless, there is a difference in influence, per capita GDP, and overall perception of the two countries. Russia is a former superpower. Or they are a current superpower and we are a hyper-power. In any case, there is quite a difference in its former status to the current one it holds.

Schnazz and Ashtrey are just saying, "hey, you have an opinion, religion is an opinion. And you live your life off of that opinion. That includes voting or acting off of that opinion and affecting others. So, what if I disagree with your opinion? Should I be adversely affected by your opinion?" We have freedom of speech, except when it comes to religion. That's absurd. Someone who has not taken the leap of faith to accept something that is illogical (I'm willing to admit it. It's faith, which is the absence of the most basic reason) should be able to be as LOUD or influential as the faithful. If we silence one group, or try to discredit that group because they are speaking against the majority's opinion, are we really promoting a democratic view of the world? And Visqo, it got personal when AJ said those without a religion should shut up because they don't have any reason to stand up for anything. To accuse someone of having nothing for which to stand, and then telling that person he/she shouldn't have a say, THAT is personal. If I told you, "You're a Christian, so shut up", how would you react?