kapkomet

Because, and I hate to admit this, the Cubs today are a better team then the Sox. Will that be the case after the deadline? That remains to be seen. But, as much as the truth hurts, the Sox staff are ballwashers and can't hold a candle to the Cubs staff right now. A blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while, but pit these two teams against each other for more then 6 games, and the Cubs kill them with the teams as they are now. All I have to say about that is, I sure hope that KW can do something about that.

And I bet we don't hear a thing from anyone about this article from the "left of center" folks around here. This is one of your own, bashing this film for what it really is, and that's propaganda. This is like Rush Limbaugh making a movie about the life of Bill Clinton. Of course, it's going to be slanted. Let's call a spade a spade here and realize that this is NOTHING BUT POLITICAL DROOL.

But we have the best pitching staff in baseball. NO PROBLEMS HERE!!!

I bet Barr-riods will be his strength coach.

I haven't chimed in here, but I hate to say it, but take the damn Sox glasses off. This team does NOT have a legit #1. You put MB out there against anyone in baseball that is in first place in any of the divisions today, and he will get his ass kicked 8 out of 10 times. PERIOD. (Save the Rangers, who I cannot believe still are in first place this late ... talk about the ARod effect, first Seattle and now Texas). Anyway, I really don't care for the Cubs, although my hatred is not as bad as some here. But reality says this team goes as far as the pitching will carry it, and while it might be good enough to win the division, it won't win dick in the playoffs against the top pitching staffs in baseball.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/

What the hell is this crap? Great contribution. :headshake

And to add, it would be really cool to see a Pacers/Mavs finals. I would be at every game.

If the Mavs have Shaq, Finley, Dirk, Daniels, and insert PG here, with a defensive specialist, look out NBA. We'll be parading in downtown Dallas about this time next year because that's almost obscene.

Your idiot pic would have sufficed too.

Well hello Ms. Obvious... When I went to the Sox/Cubs series a few years back it was about 55% Sox, 45% Cubs. I hate to say it, but I bet it will be every bit of that, if not 50% 50%.

And David Stern, always eager to promote the NBA and 5th graders, guaranteed that the testicle ball would be placed in the Hall of Fame come draft day...

BOC! Pass da ... oh nevermind...

That plan has its merits. Like no VD, etc.

Agreed. All I'm saying (back to your original original question) is sometimes these issues come up, and that's why I care about gay marriage, but I don't condemn it because I'm not the one to judge. This was a long winded thread to say just that above...

See, and that's where I differ. It's not up to me. I can only present what I know, and heck yea, it's limited. But how you choose or practice your faith, once I've told you my belief, it's up to you to choose what you practice or believe, or to uncover what you believe to be the truth. It's all there, and you have the choice to accept or not accept. That's where "religion" and "denominations" have it all wrong. I think "true" Christians know what their place is, and know their limitations. Those who force it have stepped over their bounds.

Then you're going to hell! Seriously, I wish I knew. There has to be a reason why there are all these different beliefs. Sometimes, I have to question why Christianity is the "right way" compared to your beliefs, or Muslim, or Buddist, or Hindu, or whatever, you get the point. At some point, faith has to be your guide. The reason I believe what I do based on the context of the bible as a whole, is because the OT (your Torah?) foretold of the coming of a messiah, and it happened. All the accounts of historical notations lead to this, and to now what is our NT. The OT and NT taken together leads me to that conclusion, not one over the other. Lots of interesting perspectives of all this...

No, because that's why God gave us free will. We are supposed to choose the "right way". If we choose to turn away from God, we will pay the consequences. Here's where I will get the arguement that God's will is nothing but a "country club of so-called believers." There's an interesting way of breaking all this out, using one of the most famous bible versus, John 3:16. I won't go into extreme detail, but it goes something like this. God was there first. We are the world. He loves us, but we are separated from God by sin. Remember, God was there at the beginning. He gave us, the world, his son. He couldn't give until the other elements were in place. God's son is the bridge back to God - so that we may have everlasting life. That's the oversimplifaction, and there are elements starting with God and working our way through. Bottom line of all this is, again, we have to make the choice, we are not born into Christianity, we have to choose it. And that's where the whole free-will thing comes into play. God loves us all, but some of us don't love back, and that's our choice. (Waiting for cw to poke holes in all this... )

Putting aside "doctrine" and "denominations" in Christianity, the one basic premise of Christianity is to seek and save the lost. We are commanded as Christians to do so. If I go seek folks to tell them of Christianity (the belief that Jesus was/is the savior), I might meet some folks who's beliefs are totally different then mine on many issues, gay marriage, living together outside of marriage, etc etc etc. That is where I think true Christians have a say in what goes on around them. Now, if they are true Christians, they will have agape love toward those folks who are living in what is described as sin. That's how I view myself. I do care for these people, but I would never, ever think any less of them (or I try, very very hard, but I'm only human). It's because I care that I would say to them that I feel what they are doing is wrong, however, we as Chrisitans should say our piece and move on and not meddle in their lives. We, as humans, will not change people. God will, if you are true to your faith. If you plant the seed, God does the work should those people be willing to open themselves up to it. But, most importantaly, it's not up to us, and I think that's where Christians tend to get it wrong, they overstep their bounds based on "religion", and meddle in lives, which is NOT what we are supposed to do. Do you see now why I feel like it's my business to care, yet NOT my business to condemn, or judge? Therein lies the difference.

The thing is, I know you're right.

You are one sick puppy...

I4E asked a question and I answered it. Most "fundamentalists" raise heck about this because of the issues I stated. MY personal opinion is I would never condemn those that choose it, because I am not their judge. I don't agree with it, that's my moral compass. But to each his own... cw, I was generalizing when I said OT vs NT and referred to them as covenants. I was in error when I said one "replaces" the other, no, that's not totally true, but supercedes might be a better word. Otherwise, we would still be sacrificing animals at alters and all that, if OT rituals were to be practiced in modern times. There are other examples, but again, I was generalizing. Thank you, though, for pointing out what I said. And one other point. DOCTRINE is indeed a TERRIBLE word in that example. Doctrines are all man interpreted, as you are indeed correct in pointing out. My choice of words in that whole post was not good!! But you got what I was trying to say...

Yea, as in frying pan upside the face hot.

Now we get into doctrine. OT vs. NT. OT doctrine has more or less been replaced by NT doctrine. NT doctrine says in different places that marriage is between one man and one woman. I know that practice from the OT says differing things in regards to a woman. We can get into the whole impurity thing (ie a man shouldn't ever sleep with a woman during menstration, etc or he's unclean). Again, all those are OT morales, which differ from the New Testament Covenant.

I'll get flamed for this and called an insensitive Christian know-it-all, but most people are passionate about this because marriage is not supposed to be of the same sex. And I know, I know, you can interpret things all over the place differently to suit whatever you need. Anyway, that's the answer to the question - those darn fanatical Christians mucking everything up. Poster's note: I don't agree with it but I don't hate people for it either.