Posts by rusty schucklefurd

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Did Hillary Clinton destroy evidence in 'wiping clean' her email server?

    03/29/2015 8:20:33 AM PDT · 8 of 52
    rusty schucklefurd to Libloather

    Is there really such a thing as “wiping the server clean”? Short of just destroying the hard drive. Are there not ways to recover information even from a “cleaned” server? Just asking.

  • Review: Will Ferrell's 'Get Hard' Is the Antidote to Elite Media's Racial Hysteria

    03/27/2015 8:41:42 PM PDT · 89 of 89
    rusty schucklefurd to cport

    Re: “I still mourn his passing. Of all the SNL prime time players, he IMHO, was the best. . .”

    I agree. I miss Phil, too. A terrible loss

  • Review: Will Ferrell's 'Get Hard' Is the Antidote to Elite Media's Racial Hysteria

    03/27/2015 3:52:54 PM PDT · 77 of 89
    rusty schucklefurd to ponygirl

    re: “That was Wanda.”

    Actually, I believe he used both names. Miss Kitty Litter and Wanda. I had forgotten about the “Wanda” name.

  • Review: Will Ferrell's 'Get Hard' Is the Antidote to Elite Media's Racial Hysteria

    03/27/2015 3:47:55 PM PDT · 75 of 89
    rusty schucklefurd to cport

    re: “Norm MacDonald is actually great as Burt Reynolds.”

    Totally agree. MacDonald nailed it in his impersonation of Reynolds. Just like Phil Hartman and Bill Clinton.

  • Review: Will Ferrell's 'Get Hard' Is the Antidote to Elite Media's Racial Hysteria

    03/27/2015 1:17:40 PM PDT · 64 of 89
    rusty schucklefurd to Yaelle

    Yes, the Jeopardy skits with Ferrell are some of his best, along with the “more cowbell” skit.

    As far as his movies go, I thought he was brilliant in “Elf”.

    He’s also pretty funny in “Blades of Glory”. He did some spoof film of a Mexican soap opera called “Casa de mi Padre” that I thought was quirky funny. Other than that. Not too impressed.

  • Review: Will Ferrell's 'Get Hard' Is the Antidote to Elite Media's Racial Hysteria

    03/27/2015 1:12:26 PM PDT · 63 of 89
    rusty schucklefurd to ColdOne

    Agree with you about that Jamie Foxx character - “it’s” name was “Miss Kitty Litter”.

    I also liked Damon Wayans and a David Grier in the “Men of Films” spoof. NONE of that could be done today.

  • Why God Is a Moral Issue (Radical atheism)

    03/23/2015 5:08:02 PM PDT · 12 of 13
    rusty schucklefurd to Viennacon

    re: “the problem of suffering has been refuted to the point where no serious academic uses it as an argument anymore. Bogus tripe”

    Totally agree.

    But even worse, the writer goes on to say that people who continue to believe in God, after facing this “irrefutable contradiction” that there cannot be a God because suffering exists - their continuation to believe in God is what makes people of the Christian faith dangerous and the “new atheists” justified in their extreme hatred/anger toward Christians.

  • Why God Is a Moral Issue (Radical atheism)

    03/23/2015 1:27:04 PM PDT · 6 of 13
    rusty schucklefurd to NRx

    In a nutshell, the writer seems to be sort of a “deist-agnostic”. He’s open to the idea that there is “something” out there beyond our understanding and that that “something” might have something to do with our existence. But, if there is a “something”, it cannot possibly be the Christian God or the God of Judaism.

    His main argument against the Christian view of God is the existence of human suffering. The writer thinks that is the smoking gun that thwarts all belief in a “good” God.

    At least, that’s my take on the article’s main points.

  • ISIS Urges Sympathizers to Kill U.S. Service Members It Identifies on Website

    03/22/2015 4:59:21 PM PDT · 11 of 47
    rusty schucklefurd to Brad from Tennessee

    Re: “Some of the names also appear to be drawn from the Defense Department’s own official reports on the campaign against the Islamic State, also known.”

    Say that again?! Are DOD official campaign reports assessable to the public at large?

  • Pope Francis: no crime ever deserves the death penalty

    03/20/2015 1:23:48 PM PDT · 17 of 87
    rusty schucklefurd to ebb tide

    re: “However serious the crime, he says, an execution “does not bring justice to the victims, but rather encourages revenge” and denies any hope of repentence or reparation for the crime that has been committed.”

    This statement makes no logical sense. The whole point of the death penalty in God’s Law is restitution. If you steal, you not only return what you stole, but four times the value to your victims.

    With premeditated murder, there is no material restitution possible to the victim, except that the murderer has their life taken in restitution for the life of the murdered victim.

    As to “repentance”, it is still possible for someone who committed murder to receive forgiveness from God - even possibly from the family of the victim. But, the dead victim cannot forgive the crime that was committed against them - they are dead! So, even though a murderer can be forgiven, the crime in this physical world, must still be carried out for justice sake.

  • Starbucks joins the race debate as clashes in Ferguson and elsewhere escalate tension

    03/18/2015 1:23:10 PM PDT · 13 of 44
    rusty schucklefurd to 2ndDivisionVet

    re: “Starbucks joins the race debate as clashes in Ferguson and elsewhere escalate tension.”

    Yet one more reason to NOT patronize Starbucks. What a joke. I would hate to be one of the unfortunate employees who has to bring up the “race debate” conversation with customers - especially ones who haven’t had their coffee yet and all this “race conversation” just slows down the process of getting their coffee fix.

  • Elderly Woman Steals from Church Collection Plate: Palo Alto Police

    03/18/2015 1:12:24 PM PDT · 14 of 24
    rusty schucklefurd to Wiser now

    re: “The fact that she stole the money tells me she wanted no accountability for the way she chose to spend it once she had it.”

    You are likely correct. When I was full time on staff at a church several years ago, we had a food pantry that was stocked to provide emergency food for families going through hard times.

    Nearly every day we had people stopping in asking for financial help. We had to adopt a policy of never giving out cash, but helping with whatever the need was. If gasoline, we took them to get gas, if rent, we went to their landlord and paid, if groceries, we took them to the market, etc. When people found out we wouldn’t give cash, they usually left not too happy.

    The most memorable and head shaking requests I ever got was:

    1. “My color tv was broken and would the church buy them a new one?”

    2. When dropping off some groceries, the “man of the house” asked me for some extra cash for some “personal items”. When I asked what kind of personal items, - well, “you know, I could use some smokes and a six pack”. At first I thought he was joking, but then he wasn’t. I politely declined.

    3. Once had someone call me at the church and demanded that someone in our church store his Mercedes for him for several months (free of course). And, it had to be in an acceptable location and secure facility. He hung up on me when I kept asking him if he was serious.

  • CNS Statement Opposing Honors and Platforms for Proponents of Legal Redefinition of Marriage

    03/15/2015 2:24:34 PM PDT · 7 of 7
    rusty schucklefurd to tuffydoodle

    Yes, I know things are going that way, but I still mourn for the country and how far it has fallen.

  • CNS Statement Opposing Honors and Platforms for Proponents of Legal Redefinition of Marriage

    03/15/2015 8:54:26 AM PDT · 2 of 7
    rusty schucklefurd to NKP_Vet

    The moral and spiritual decay of our nation and culture fills me with complete dismay and sorrow. Lord Jesus come quickly.

  • Which Bible do you believe to be the true Bible - the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, or the Coptic?

    03/15/2015 8:29:37 AM PDT · 91 of 108
    rusty schucklefurd to one Lord one faith one baptism

    Your point that the lack of direct quotes is not a criteria against canonity would have some merit except for the fact that the Old Testament books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews—where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon, and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says:

    “”Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Rom. 3:1-2).

    A point I did not touch on in my last post to you is this:

    Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in his reference. “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.” (Luke 11:51).

    The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order—placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (Jeremiah 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr of which we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.

    This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesus was referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed—as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.

    Related to this point is also Jesus’ reference to the scriptures as a whole in Luke 24:44.

    “Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

    I have read where Catholic apologists say that the Old Testament is referred to, by the Jews, in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings - which is true, and it is also true that it is within these writings that are sometimes found books of the Apocrypha. But this designation is not used by Jesus. On the contrary, as you just read, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms—not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It looks like a deliberate omission by Jesus of any reference to the Apocyrpha.

    I think you are way too casual in glossing over the fact that many of the Church Fathers strongly objected to the Apocrypha as being scripture. Jerome only included it in his translation because he was forced to over his objections. He rejected it because he believed the Jews established and recognized the proper canon of the Old Testament.

    I disagree with you that omitting Revelation would have no bearing on the doctrine of the Bible. As to Philemon, possibly, except for the fact that we KNOW Paul wrote the letter and his writings have been considered scripture within a few years of their being written.

    Look, if Catholics want to consider the Apocyrpha as scripture, that’s your affair. Go for it.

  • Which Bible do you believe to be the true Bible - the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, or the Coptic?

    03/14/2015 11:05:41 AM PDT · 79 of 108
    rusty schucklefurd to one Lord one faith one baptism

    The Apocyrpha should not be considered scripture for at leastt some of the following reasons (there many reasons but here are five compelling ones):

    1. Though there are a couple of allusions in the NT there is no direct quote from any of the Apocyrphal books.

    2. Though the early church fathers are respected, that doesn’t mean their actions, opinions, or writings are inspired, plus not ALL the church fathers believed the Apocyrpha was inspired either - Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome all rejected the Apocyrpha as scripture.

    3. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.

    4. As previously mentioned, Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.

    5. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.

    Finally, why argue over these books? They have no direct influence or doctrinal relevance to the Christian faith. Other than for some possible historical interest, such as in the books of Maccabees, what relevance do any of these books have on the Gospel? If they never existed - what effect would that have on the Gospel? Nothing at all. If you remove Isaiah or the Psalms THAT WOULD affect the New Testament and the Gopsel. Let these irrelevant books go.

  • Which Bible do you believe to be the true Bible - the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, or the Coptic?

    03/13/2015 1:26:10 PM PDT · 17 of 108
    rusty schucklefurd to taxcontrol

    I like how you stated your position. I agree with it.

    In seminary, we had the Revised Standard Version that included the Apocrypha (though it is not recognized as Scripture by my denomination). It was included for historical reference purposes. I’ve read some of the Apocryphal books and my own take was that they always, for lack of a better word, sounded “odd” to me. Some had really bizarre creatures, sayings, etc. On the other hand, I found the books of the Maccabees interesting as they did include some historical narrative. How accurate they are I have no idea.

    I think we should focus on the books that all agree upon and leave the “controversial” books up to the other denominations to decide what they want to use.

  • I think this is the year.

    03/12/2015 7:28:39 AM PDT · 6 of 60
    rusty schucklefurd to amessenger4god

    “No man knows the day or the hour . . .”

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    03/05/2015 12:15:17 PM PST · 50 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to Zionist Conspirator

    re: “Care to continue this volleyball game?”

    I do not believe the Bible is only about “christian salvation”. I believe the Bible was written by G_d to reveal who He is - His nature, His character, His holiness, His justice, His love, His judgement, His will for all mankind - to know Him, to worship Him, to serve Him, and yes, to “save us”, Jew and Gentile from our sin nature.

    As to a volleyball game, not really. But, I have enjoyed discussing this subject with you. I admit I did not know that there your view was a common one among Orthodox Judaism. I appreciate your candor and respectful conversation. I pray all G_d’s blessings and peace on Israel and Jerusalem.

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    03/05/2015 7:24:47 AM PST · 48 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to Zionist Conspirator

    Re: “Now the point you are trying to make in objecting to the idea that the Torah/Na”KH contains all this information is your Protestant insistence that the Bible has only one purpose: to get folks “saved.” This is why you must insist on the perspicacity of Scripture and its easy apprehension by a sixteenth century German milkmaid.”

    I do believe that if G_d has given us His Word, then I would also assume that He does want it to be understood. I don’t see any reason to assume that that understanding should be limited to only a few highly educated people. Isn’t it a teaching in the Torah that G_d is not just the G_d of Israel, but of the whole world?

    The people of Israel are His chosen people, but He also created all human beings and the judgements described against the pagan peoples were because of their refusal to acknowledge Him. My point being, that I don’t believe that it is just my Christian worldview that would have me believe that G_d wants His Word to be understood by anyone who revered Him and wanted to know Him.

    Re: “But the fact is that the Bible was not written to instruct in chrstian “salvation” at all. Chrstianity has appropriated the Hebrew Bible and insisted on eisegeting chrstianity into it. As a matter of fact, the translation of the Torah into languages other than Hebrew is one of the things mourned on the fast day of `Aseret Be’Tevet.”

    Now we arrive at the crossroads - who is Jesus of Nazareth? If Jesus was who the Gospel accounts claim - not only Messiah, but also G_d in human form, who took on the sin of all mankind and died as the Lamb of G_d as a propitiation for that sin - both Jew and Gentile alike, then yes, absolutely the Torah, the Law and the Prophets, the Psalms do indeed, as you say, have a salvation message.

    However, if Jesus is not who the Gospels claim, then you are right, Christians have “appropriated the Hebrew Bible and insisted on eisegeting chrstianity into it.” But, that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it.

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    03/04/2015 1:04:31 PM PST · 46 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to Zionist Conspirator

    re: “What makes you think that a translation is “His true Word?”

    I don’t believe that a translation is “His true Word”. But, you are saying that ancient Hebrew is “untranslatable” to English (or any other language) and that it is impossible give any real understanding of the text with a translation?

    Re: “Do you believe all Bible translations are inspired?”

    I don’t believe that ANY translations are “inspired” - only the original text is inspired (which we don’t have - so we have to rely on the best manuscripts available). I do believe that some translations are more accurate than others. I have to rely on the critical reviews of the scholarship of the translation committees that produced a given translation. I understand that there are some translations that try to be more “word for word”, and others go for more flowing readability.

    I think it is unreasonable to assume that all translations are bogus. I speak and write English, but I also studied German and became quite fluent in it (many years ago). When translating from one language to another one must take into account a lot of things: time period in which it was written, grammar, the region the German text came from, idioms, colloquialisms, context, etc. One can produce a fairly accurate translation of German into English - which usually must be updated as English itself changes over the decades. Isn’t that the same with Hebrew? I realize we are talking about an ancient language, and I do understand the importance of the Oral Tradition - especially in regard to the vowel points being added centuries later after the originals were made. In addition, you have the same issues with Hebrew as with any other language - idioms, historical context, grammar, etc.

    Re: “How do you know which ones are inspired?”

    As I said, I don’t believe any of the translations are inspired, only the original manuscripts - but, that doesn’t mean that there are not reliable manuscripts (thousands of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, manuscripts with which to compare) from which accurate translations can be made.

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    03/04/2015 6:55:24 AM PST · 43 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to Ancesthntr

    So, my question would be then, if nothing we read in an English translation is reliable, and really, even if one studies Hebrew and attempts to translate it into another language that that too, is also going to be misinterpreted - how do you know if someone, including a rabbi, isn’t just making stuff up?

    What is the standard by which to identify counterfeit “messages” from G_d from His true Word? Which, by the way, He does command us to do.

    I see no difference in this from extreme Pentecostals who give supposed “revelations from G_d” to scripture passages without regard to the historical context, or to the context within the Scriptures themselves. It also sounds like Muslims who say no one can truly understand the Koran because the very letters in Arabic have meaning that we cannot understand.

  • Student, 18, 'encouraged her friend to kill himself', organized a fundraiser in his name

    03/01/2015 7:11:05 AM PST · 29 of 43
    rusty schucklefurd to Star Traveler

    Re: “But “Manslaughter by Text” is not only an IDIOTIC charge but something that sounds like it came from “The Onion” or Saturday a Night Live!”

    The question is - does encouraging a a suicidal person to go through with it make the “encourager” an accessory to the act of suicide? Is that criminal? This was not an anonymous poster on some comment section of a website. She knew the victim personally. She knew he was suicidal.

    Had this girl been there in person or talking with him directly on the phone - is there a difference from that with texting him in real time? Texting is not the issue here - it is the act of helping someone kill himself that is the issue, not the means by which they “helped”.

  • Scott Walker, God's Gift to the Democratic Party

    02/27/2015 1:04:08 PM PST · 68 of 134
    rusty schucklefurd to Cincinatus' Wife

    re: “He’s exactly the kind of politician the modern Democratic Party is set up to beat....”

    If this liberal really believed that, why say anything? Why give warning? That’s kind of stupid. Saying it after Walker is trounced (hypothetically) after the election would be the proper time to mention it.

    It’s like others have said, the left will tell you who they fear the most.

  • Justin Peters: an American Cessationist Teaching “Apologetics” to Brazilian Pentecostals

    02/26/2015 7:45:24 AM PST · 6 of 11
    rusty schucklefurd to juliosevero

    I would never say that God cannot give gifts of tongues, healings, or prophetic revelation, He can do whatever He wants - but, I also do not see these gifts, as practiced in most charismatic churches, as being practiced according to New Testament teaching. That is, with tongues for example, the Apostle Paul describes those with that gift as being able to control themselves and only speak when they know there are those who can interpret - and, that only one person at a time should speak so that the whole church may be edified. This is definitely NOT the common practice in the charismatic churches I have been to. It is a “free for all” in regard to tongue speaking.

    I also have an issue with the so-called “hearing God’s voice” thing, and this “receiving new revelation”. I understand when reading God’s Word, and when in prayer, that we can have a fresh sense of understanding the meaning and teaching of a passage and this should motivate us to greater service, gratitude, and devotion to God - I believe that is the Holy Spirit working in us.

    But, to say you are literally “hearing the voice of God” and believe that you are receiving personal messages to you from God, I do not see that taught or practiced in the New Testament. Yes, Peter and Paul did receive visions and special messages from God on occasion - but this was a departure from the ordinary and God did these things for a specific reason - not just for a personal rap time with God. If one claims they are receiving revelation from God and actually, literally hearing His voice, then this person is claiming to be a prophet, and thus falls under the warning to prophets not speak presumptuously in God’s name. If any of their prophesies do not come true, that prophet is to be put to death according to Dueteronomy 18:20. So, claiming to hear actual messages from God is a VERY serious claim. And, if you are truly receiving new revelation, it should be added to the Bible, right?

    Now, does God sometimes impress upon us to do something or do miraculous things in our lives - absolutely!

  • Get ready for the blacklisting of Vince Vaughn

    02/25/2015 1:01:31 PM PST · 20 of 39
    rusty schucklefurd to SeekAndFind

    I liked him in “Starsky and Hutch” (plays the bad guy), “Dodge Ball”, and “Fred Claus”.

  • “It’s All About the Money” – James O’Keefe Takes Down Obama Insider & Shakedown Artist Al Sharpton

    02/24/2015 7:18:41 AM PST · 30 of 65
    rusty schucklefurd to PghBaldy

    It is one thing for conservatives to point out the obvious - that Sharpton is a fraud and huckster. It is quite something else to have video footage of the family of St. Trayvon and St Michael Brown dissing Sharpton and what a fraud he has been to them - that Sharpton used them, the icons of the so-called civil rights movement today, and fleeced the Ferguson situation for his own gain.

    That it’s coming from them IS explosive for Sharpton.

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    02/24/2015 1:57:57 AM PST · 37 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to Zionist Conspirator

    Re: “You’re obviously not comfortable with knowledge confined to the original and authentic text that is inaccessible in translation . . .”

    You are correct. I am not comfortable with reading some meaning into the Scriptures with claims of “secret knowledge” or numerology or meanimgs that are “inaccessible in translation” whether the source is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or anyone else. When one does so, one can run the danger of being presumptuous with G_d’s word - of claiming a message from Him that He did not give. Maybe you are “comfortable with that, but I am not.

    Re: “BTW, the ‘Urim and Tummim was also similar to (lehavdil ‘elef ‘alfei ‘alafim havdalot!) “divination,” but G-d commanded it nevertheless.”

    But there’s the difference - G_d commanded it in the case of the Urim and Thummim.

    Re: “Are you aware that the original Biblical text has no vowels or punctuation but that these come from oral tradition?

    Yes.

    Re: “Are you aware that before the printing press Torah Scrolls and other Biblical books had to be written by hand in accordance with ancient rules that are nowhere to be found in the Bible itself?

    Yes. And I have the utmost respect for the scribes and priests that were meticulously careful in their copying of the text, from counting the number of letters, even notating repeated words that were clearly a copyist error (but notating as such) to make sure the copy was exact. If a mistake was found they started over. This is why the Dead Sea scrolls show no real differences between the Isaiah copy found in the Dead Sea caves and the much later copies of the 12th century. This is also why liberal or atheist claims that the Biblical texts we have today are unreliable or much different than the original is untenable.

    Re: “By your logic, the very transmission of the Biblical text is invalid since it involves rules not written in the Bible.”

    Good copying protocols in order to carefully preserve G_d’s written Word is not the same thing as ascribing “meaning to sizes, shapes, crowns, or to derive that the names of letters are loaded with infinite meaning”. When G_d told Moses to write down His Laws, I am assuming that He wanted Moses to do so accurately and carefully, even if He didn’t tell Moses what process to use.

    Re: “In other words, you’re a Protestant. You could have just said so.”

    Ah, but not Lutheran, Calvinist, Pentacostal, Holiness, Non-denominational, etc. You sound like a Jewish mystic or an extreme Pentacostal, but what does that matter?

    In conclusion, did you find any examples of the prophets reading meaning into the “sizes, shapes, crowns, and names of the letters”?

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    02/23/2015 1:07:05 PM PST · 22 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to Phinneous

    re: “It is 100% stock-and-trade Orthodox Judaism that Amalek (not necessarily ancient Persians...those who conquered Babylon) develops into, in part, Germany”

    Interesting, because I’ve also read that “Armenians” and “Palestinians” have also been considered descendants of Amalek by other Jewish traditions. And, in addition, there have been some rabbinical views that all enemies of Israel, who seek its annihilation, are seen as “types” of Amalek and Haman. I find it difficult to believe that all “100% Orthodox” Jews hold your view.

    As to the “sizes, shapes, crowns, etc.” of the Hebrew manuscript, I completely understand the absolute respect the ancient scribes and priests held for the text and would destroy any hand written copy if one mistake was discovered. However, what you are describing, sounds like “conjuring” or even “divination” in the use of the Holy Word of G_d. I do not know of any passage in the Hebrew scriptures where it is taught to ascribe meaning to sizes, shapes, crowns, or to derive that the names of letters are “loaded with infinite meaning” - unless G_d directly commands us to do such a thing.

    I do understand that the Hebrew letters have numerical values and that there are apocalyptic meanings given to some numbers - but, other than that, I don’t see what you are describing as ever practiced by Moses or the Prophets.

  • Sorry Robert Reich, Companies Are Not Charities

    02/23/2015 7:24:35 AM PST · 9 of 18
    rusty schucklefurd to SeekAndFind

    This is one of the most concise, easy to understand, dispassionate explanations of the relationship of wages and market forces and the disconnect from liberal ideology to the real world and unintended consequences that I have read in a long time. I think you could give this article to some, not all, but some liberal family members or friends to explain how conservatism understands basic, real world economics, then ask where they see a flaw in the logic of the concepts presented.

    Probably won’t change everyone’s mind, but at least they should get what we are saying with a better understanding. They will still hate us, but maybe some will begin to see the light. Or Not.

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    02/23/2015 6:58:11 AM PST · 17 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to Zionist Conspirator

    Re: “Chr*stianity’s concept of “inspiration” pales by comparison. “

    I agree with you there.

    I’m just curious. How widespread is this view among rabbis today, that ancient Persians are related to Germanic people’s? And, how widespread among rabbis today is this idea that “the very sizes, shapes, crowns, numerical values, and even the names of the letters are loaded with meaning.”?

  • Secrets in the Scroll of Esther

    02/23/2015 3:10:41 AM PST · 4 of 50
    rusty schucklefurd to the_Watchman

    Re: “The interpretation of this article seems strained.”

    Totally agree. There is no indication in the text that the passage has a dual prophetic meaning. This is a narrative passage giving further information in the account of the Jews being allowed to continue to defend themselves for a second day. There is no reason to read into the hanging of Haman’s sons as anything more than what it was - defending their lives against their existing deadly enemies - Haman and his family.

  • The Greatest Mayor That Ever Lived Being Excoriated Across The Country

    02/22/2015 5:32:59 PM PST · 19 of 29
    rusty schucklefurd to lbryce

    Ok, liberals want it both ways. They hate the military, yet measure every conservative, or anyone who questions Obama’s patriotism, with whether or not they served in the military? The same military whose vote the Dems do their best to not count in presidential elections?

  • Dem suggests Giuliani comments were racist

    02/20/2015 1:07:56 PM PST · 30 of 91
    rusty schucklefurd to Responsibility2nd

    “Dem suggests Giuliani comments were racist”

    Of course! How could it possibly be anything else?

  • Sharpton’s National Action Network to Protest Oscars Sunday Night

    02/20/2015 1:05:41 PM PST · 12 of 40
    rusty schucklefurd to E. Pluribus Unum

    “Sharpton’s National Action Network to Protest Oscars Sunday Night”

    Must be the lead story from “Who Cares?” magazine?

  • Evolution: 24 Myths and Misconceptions

    02/16/2015 4:30:44 PM PST · 43 of 46
    rusty schucklefurd to JimSEA

    By the way, I want you to know that I have enjoyed our cordial conversation - not always the case in this kind of topic.

    I do understand that the supernatural is not falsifiable, and so doesn’t easily fall under normal scientific examination. But, couldn’t the same also be said of a purely naturalistic explanation/theory of the origin of the universe? Is it falsifiable?

    And, with the purely naturalistic explanation, doesn’t the scientist who presupposes that view, wouldn’t that also cloud or distort their ability to be objective when viewing evidence regarding the evidence for macro-evolution on earth, and also for the evidence in the universe that might lead to the conclusion that it may be designed, and thus, leading to the possibility of a Designer?

  • Evolution: 24 Myths and Misconceptions

    02/16/2015 2:43:08 PM PST · 40 of 46
    rusty schucklefurd to JimSEA

    Re: “Among the base assumptions of science is methodological naturalism.”

    But, does science, to be science, have to be methodological naturalism? If so, does that mean Newton was not really a scientist?

    I understand what you are saying in regard to morality and possibly the origin of the universe, but again, does believing in God disqualify a person from being a “scientist”?

    If one believes that God created the universe, and created the original species of plant, animal, and insects, and human beings, as well as the various laws that seem to govern its physics - is that person incapable of being “scientific”? Does that make them incapable of doing scientific research?

  • Evolution: 24 Myths and Misconceptions

    02/16/2015 11:47:30 AM PST · 27 of 46
    rusty schucklefurd to JimSEA

    I am not a scientist. I am not a biologist nor chemist. Having said that, I don’t get why “evolution” is usually equated with explaining the origin of all life. It explains the adaptation within species. It explains why some species may have died out, but it doesn’t explain how life came to be.

    I don’t think it adequately explains or proves that evolution accounts for plant life becoming a mollusk or a fish or a mammal. Or, how a fish became a lizard, or how a lizard became a bird or a cow.

    The article states that DNA prove that all life came from a single source - if true, couldn’t that also just imply that there was a common Creator? And, doesn’t the complexity of DNA and RNA demonstrate that random, unguided selection or mutations alone cannot account for certain species to simply “evolve” themselves into existence? That certain mutations would have to happen simultaneously to create the eye or ear, for example? And, aren’t the odds of that happening astronomical?

    I am sure I will be dissed by Natural Darwinians that such questions are ignorant and my intelligence lacking - that all such things have been accounted for long ago.

    And, I do believe that naturalistic Darwinism does not account for moral absolutes and can indeed lead to amorality. Even if “survival of the fittest” was not Darwin’s term, isn’t it also true that the idea that all life can be accounted for by “natural” mechanisms CAN lead to the idea that the value of one organism is no greater or less than any other, or that “meaning” attributed to existence has any validity over “non-meaning”. Therefore, why is one morality that values “strength” over a morality that values mercy or altruism any better or more moral than the other?

  • Pope Francis gets it wrong on spanking

    02/16/2015 10:43:18 AM PST · 3 of 29
    rusty schucklefurd to Citizen Zed

    And eggheads like Freud and Thorndike are ALWAYs right - Right?

  • Doctors Having Say About Your Health Care

    02/16/2015 7:55:06 AM PST · 15 of 23
    rusty schucklefurd to yldstrk

    Re: “The doctors supported the insurance catastrophe prior to ACA because they wanted to normalize their income. Now with ACA, they get the dark side.”

    Are you saying the majority of doctors wanted ACA? I am not necessarily doubting you, but I had not heard that before. My own doctor has always been against the ACA.

    The ACA was forced down the throat of America. There has NEVER been a majority support for it prior to its passage nor since its passage. The article pointed out that only 17% of doctors are even members of the AMA. How do you know that most doctors wanted this?

  • Netanyahu urges Jews to move to Israel after Copenhagen attacks

    02/15/2015 6:49:07 PM PST · 20 of 128
    rusty schucklefurd to MeshugeMikey

    I agree with Bibi. I don’t see a full fledged government sponsored “new halocaust” but I do see rampant anti-semitism in the form of more Islamic attacks on Jews - mass murders (shootings, bombings, etc) - with the European governments impotently standing by doing nothing to stop it.

  • Answering the Evolution Question

    02/15/2015 6:24:16 PM PST · 12 of 24
    rusty schucklefurd to DWW1990

    I thought it was a good article, and the possible responses to the “gotcha” questions simple and easy to understand.

    The writer mentioned a reply by Marc Rubio that I thought was good, too:

    “What does my view on evolution got to do with the budget deficit?”

    I am nor endorsing Rubio, but I did think that was a good shut down of a stupid, irrelevant question.

  • Obama adviser John Podesta's biggest regret: Keeping America in dark about UFOs

    02/13/2015 5:27:04 PM PST · 36 of 92
    rusty schucklefurd to umgud

    Re: “I saw my first flying saucer shortly after getting married.”

    Was it an alien response to a close encounter? Just asking.

  • Hawaiian Nation may team up with China to oust U.S. military from islands

    02/11/2015 7:17:05 AM PST · 26 of 49
    rusty schucklefurd to gr8eman

    Re: “Yep...do you really think they’ll give up their welfare checks?”

    Bingo. They would want to be some kind of an “independent” U.S. Protectorate - that way they still get all our money and act like they are a separate “nation.” The best of both worlds.

  • The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech (Barf)

    02/10/2015 7:09:53 AM PST · 57 of 58
    rusty schucklefurd to Carry_Okie

    Carry_Okie,

    I want to apologize to you for being so un-Christlike in my conversation with you. After all, we are both fellow Christians, and there is plenty of room for disagreements without me getting snarky.

    I pray all the best for you and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive my prideful attitude.

    Rusty

  • The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech (Barf)

    02/10/2015 12:08:40 AM PST · 56 of 58
    rusty schucklefurd to Carry_Okie

    From the Complete Jewish Bible:

    Adonai looks out from heaven;
    he sees every human being;
    14 from the place where he lives
    he watches everyone living on earth,
    15 he who fashioned the hearts of them all
    and understands all they do.

    From the New English Translation:

    The Lord watches from heaven;
    he sees all people.
    14 From the place where he lives he looks carefully
    at all the earth’s inhabitants.
    15 He is the one who forms every human heart,
    and takes note of all their actions.

    From the New American Standard Bible:

    13 The Lord looks from heaven;
    He sees all the sons of men;
    14 From His dwelling place He looks out
    On all the inhabitants of the earth,
    15 He who fashions [c]the hearts of them all,
    He who understands all their works.

    I have checked about 15 different translations (three examples above) and not one translates “the earth” as the “land” nor implies in any way that it only is in reference to the land of Israel.

    If it is translated as “the land” and is only referring to Israel alone, then you believe this passage is saying that God only fashions the hearts of the men of Israel?? That makes no sense theologically nor contextually with the whole Psalm. The only verse in Psalm 33 which directly references Israel is verse 12. All the other verses which mention “the earth” or “nations” or “people’s” clearly refer to all mankind upon the earth.

    It appears to me that you are the only one trying to sell something with your very odd translation. I’m not buying that.

  • The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech (Barf)

    02/09/2015 4:56:31 PM PST · 54 of 58
    rusty schucklefurd to Carry_Okie

    re: “Not buying it.”

    I’m not selling it. Does God only have authority over Israel? Did God only create Israelis? Does “earth” and “nations” only refer to Israel?? Language and context are required to make accurate translations no matter what language one uses.

  • The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech (Barf)

    02/09/2015 1:02:29 PM PST · 50 of 58
    rusty schucklefurd to Carry_Okie

    re: “I suggest spending more time with the Hebrew.”

    I suggest you need to spend time not only with Hebrew and translation, but also with context. You can’t just translate a word literally - it has context. The context of Psalm 33 is not Israel alone. God created the whole universe, the whole earth, all people that exist. You are correct that Israel’s role was to point the rest of the world to faith in God, but even the pagan nations were under God’s authority or protection, whether they acknowledged Him or not. The pagan nations were judged by God for not responding - why? Because God is God of all the earth.

    Jonah for example. He was sent by God to preach to the city of Nineveh - they repented and God relented the judgement He was going to bring on them. They acknowledged their sin against God. They did not become Israeli.

    God’s moral law applies to all nations - that’s why He judged Nineveh. Many of the Old Testament prophets spoke to the kings of surrounding nations of God’s messages to them.

    Yes, often God’s message was only to Israel, but in the case of Psalm 33, that is NOT the case. I don’t care if you read Hebrew or not, context of that Psalm says the Psalmist is speaking of all nations and peoples.

    I read English quite well, but that doesn’t mean I can always read and interpret Shakespearean English with expertise.

    Re: “There really is a difference between Israel and the world.”

    I absolutely agree, but that’s not the subject of Psalm 33.

  • The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech (Barf)

    02/09/2015 8:58:04 AM PST · 45 of 58
    rusty schucklefurd to Carry_Okie

    Re: “For that verse in its temporal context to denote the entire planet instead is unlikely.”

    I’m afraid I must disagree. The entire context of Psalm 33 is looking at all the peoples and nations of all the earth. For example, in verse 5 - “the earth is full of His unfailing love”, vs 8 - “let all the earth fear the Lord”, vs 10 “the Lord foils the plans of the nations”, vs 12 - “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”.

    God doesn’t show love to Israel alone, it is not just Israel that is to fear the Lord, rather “all the earth” should also. The Lord foils the plans of “nations”. It is not just Israel that would be blessed by making God their God, but ANY nation that did so. That is the message of the Psalm. God is God over all the earth, not just Israel.

    So, I still believe when it says that God has made the hearts of all - it really means ALL peoples everywhere in all the earth.

  • The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech (Barf)

    02/09/2015 6:20:55 AM PST · 40 of 58
    rusty schucklefurd to Pontiac

    Actually, the Year of Jubilee only applied to Israelites who had sold themselves into servitude because they had no other recourse in paying their debts or taking care of themselves financially. It did not apply to foreign born slaves.

    Most slaves were people taken in warfare, and, slaves did have some rights to protect them from gross mistreatment. Slavery was a common part of the ancient world. I don’t totally understand why God allowed the practice in Isreal, but I do get that it was a practical reality. Also, there was no racial inferiority implied toward those who were slaves.