Jesus saves, fsu student!

[GrandizerII]

Also, what books of God? One book is about Wyclif and the other book is unidentified.

And it took two books "of God" to stop the bullet? Why not just one?

[Drich]

...books about God taking bullets.. Did you read the artical? If yes did you read and comprehend the OP? Or did you stop reading once you read the title?

Any thick book can do that. By the way, them being stashed together in a bag helps block bullets. This has nothing to do with God.

Watch this:

What is the op about?

[GrandizerII]

Any thick book can do that. By the way, them being stashed together in a bag helps block bullets. This has nothing to do with God.

Watch this:

youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg

What is the op about?

That's your response? Really?

[Drich]

youtu.be/K8E_zMLCRNg

What is the op about?

That's your response? Really?

Yes... If you can't stay on topic out of the gate, or rather speak to anything topical then what would be the point of me going any deeper with you?

[GrandizerII]

That's your response? Really?

Yes... If you can't stay on topic out of the gate, or rather speak to anything topical then what would be the point of me going any deeper with you?

The topic, or the point you're trying to make, is that God is the reason he was saved, right?

I've addressed that, didn't I?

[Drich]

Sorry fucker, you don't get to run away from the implications of what you were saying just because they're unpleasant.

I'm not running from anything. I saw an opportunity to hold your feet to the fire and I did. I have no qualms in discussing the artificial sanctity we put on human life, when we believe this is the only life we get to lead.

Min asked why your god didn't just stop the attack from happening, and your response was "where in the bible does it say that god cares about preserving lives?" It's not his "highest priority" according to you, which means that he's okay with people dying, when he could easily prevent it.

who besides the gunman died?
This is what I mean by artifical sanctity. Life is all precious, until you break the wrong soceitial rule then one forfeits his own life. Not a bad thing, just show that the sanctity of life goes out the window when one breaks the wrong rule.

I'm sorry your beliefs are so deeply unpleasant, but that doesn't make what I said a strawman no matter how hard you guffaw like a braying fucking donkey.

what makes what you said a straw man is the fact that you literally quoted something I did not say. You took a principle based in what I said and put your own spin to it then had the Gaul to put quote tags around it. Then demanded that I answer or defend your version of my position. Don't look now e-lax but that is the defination of a straw man.

Perhaps it says that you didn't think through what you yourself said, that the fact that it's got some moral subtext you didn't intend came as such a surprise?

nuuupe. What it says is if your going to quote me then Do it Right. Where is your intellectual integrity? Do you not understand what quote marks signify? Do you not understand that you intentionally miss used those tags to artificially recreate my position to make it easier for you to attack, and subsequently harder for me to defend?

What I said is scripturally based, in that life rather this life is not God's priority. It is our eternal life that God is looking to preserve. Would it not be better to loose out on 50 years here if it meant an eternity of life on the other side? We have been told in the bible several times that we are not promised tomorrow, that our lives here are little more than a vapor of steam, here one second and gone the next when compared to the rest of eternity.

If this life is viewed as a vapor by God, then why would He expend a tremendous effort in preserving it? No, God's concern is to help us transform into something much more long lasting and far reaching than a vapor. It is only in the company of other vapors, that a vapor's existence becomes sacred.

What makes this story worth discussing is the boy who was saved last night, wanted to attribute his salvation to God, and the major networks cut that out.

---

Yes... If you can't stay on topic out of the gate, or rather speak to anything topical then what would be the point of me going any deeper with you?

The topic, or the point you're trying to make, is that God is the reason he was saved, right?

I've addressed that, didn't I?

No.

That is what I lead you to believe in the title only. If you took the time to read the op, I broke it down and said a book stoped the bullet.

What was the only point of real intrest here was that it was a religious book, and the boy who was saved by it wanted to attribute his salvation to God. In a local interview that was picked up and edited for the national viewing audience, the boy got to tell his whole story and give thanks to God. Again when the national new got ahold of the interview they would not even let it be known that the books were on theology, let alone allow the boy to give thanks.

[GrandizerII]

Just curious, what was the second book? You seem to know the answer.

The article is clear the boy gave credit to God. Not sure what exactly is your issue ...

[Thumpalumpacus]

What is the op about?

"He who made kittens / put snakes in the grass"

[Alex K]

May I just remark how much safer the guy had been, studying general relativity?

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Physic...ne+wheeler

At least four times safer, actually.

[Drich]

Just curious, what was the second book? You seem to know the answer.

The article is clear the boy gave credit to God. Not sure what exactly is your issue ...

This one specific artical did yes... Again if you read the op I clearly say that local news was will to include the tribute to God. However national news sources left out the tribute.

Before you respond again go back and read the op.