As for past sins of Christians (? that is a question that remains open since we cannot really judge whether they were genuine believers or not), often in the name of the faith, I suppose we can only appeal to the biblical teaching of man’s depravity and his (our) capacity to mess up royally and commit great evil. Which, of course, leads us back to the need for God’s grace and mercy.

Report comment to moderator

I appreciate your reply. Many of the exchanges here consist of stereotypes and labels (”socialist,” “leftist” “Conservative Christian Republicans,” etc.), exchanges of insults (condescending, etc.) and mock combat. I am not sure what purpose these exchanges serve. I don’t regard your messages as partaking very much of this type of communication.

I’ve said that I feel that useful communication here should serve to make each other uneasy. My point is generally misunderstood and misinterpreted. For example, it is very unlikely that messages here are going to convert atheists to Christians or Christians to atheists. It is even more unlikely that Christians here will accept gay marriage or that homosexuals here will suddenly adopt a “straight” life style.

Two examples of arguments that I advance that I feel should make make people uneasy are the participation of many (not all) Christians in genocidal behavior as document in the book Blood and Soil, and my argument that the term “sin” has little useful meaning to me.

On the other side, I am uneasy about the problem of ethics not based on absolute values and I am uneasy about the problem of abortion. This does not mean that I am a “convert” to your side of the argument any more than my genocide examples causes you or Adios or Klasko to become a radical agnostic. But I do believe you are taking the issue seriously.

I think quite a few other people here just spout rigid replies without much thought. Mileage varies.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

If you refer to the docket MIM linked to, we see that Berg filed the petition but that the response has not yet come.

Report comment to moderator

The writ of certiorari means the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. That has NOT been issue. What has happened is:

Berg lost in the lower court.

He filed a PETITION for the writ in October. The Court’s response is due by Dec. 1. That Dec. 1 date has nothing to do with Obama producing anything.

Berg also filed a motion for an injunction against the election outcome pending a decision on the writ. The Supreme Court denied that motion.

By December 1, the Court will either issue a writ of certiorari, meaning they will hear the case, or they will deny the petition, meaning they will not.

Obama’s people at this point are not involved at all. Berg is trying to get the SCOTUS to hear his case and is awaiting their decision. That is all.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

There really is nothing there.

Report comment to moderator

More likely, you’ll just conclude that Souter is indeed a fool who was taken in by the obviously forged birth certificate.

Look, if this rumor had any truth to it at all, the Republicans would have blown Obama out of the water two years ago. The fact that the party itself, which stood to lose the White House, couldn’t make the case is proof enough that there’s nothing there.

I have no idea what Souter’s reasoning is (if the claim is even true, as that docket that was linked to earlier says nothing about it), but I am quite sure nothing will come of it.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator