Should the US name military bases after traitors?
Seems like the incoming administration wants to.
I prefer they be named after heroes.
I prefer they be named after heroes.
46-50, M
exchrist · 31-35
I hope they dont unfortunately the incoming administration committed insurrection. On film as it was happening. Got away with it so the bar has been set pretty low. Regardless, its probably as an effort to rewrite history. Much as Trump has been doing for years. Appease traitors bc weve elected one?
To be fair to put a rest to old wounds might calm some contuing unrest. It might work out. Definetly worrisome.
Trump of penn state might know what he is doing; therefore bc trump has been exempt of consequence maybe its time to move on from the civil war?
We will see.
To be fair to put a rest to old wounds might calm some contuing unrest. It might work out. Definetly worrisome.
Trump of penn state might know what he is doing; therefore bc trump has been exempt of consequence maybe its time to move on from the civil war?
We will see.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
View 2 more replies »
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@LordShadowfire So thats around 50% as of now...😷
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
Welcome to the Benedict Arnold base! Lol
Jake966 · 56-60, M
@ElwoodBlues why are you so hung up on this point? The Old Testament is written by several different writers they all make predictions about the coming of Christ Over 300 predictions and when Jesus came to this earth, he fulfilled all 300 predictions
ElwoodBlues · M
@Jake966 You claimed:
Admit it: the Bible is being figurative or metaphoric or poetic about the "four corners." NOT literal.
And when we've dispensed with the "four corners" claim, we can move on to the many different forms of evidence for the age of the Earth. This is another case where science has disproved literal interpretations of the Bible.
I'm not saying the Bible is useless. I'm just saying 100% literal intepretations of the Bible disagree with modern science, and when the science gets strong enough, Bible believers redefine certain passages as being "figurative" or "allegorical" or "metaphorical" or whatever.
In short, I'm demonstrating that your claim
And I have my age of the Earth data lined up and ready to disprove the "biblical patriarch" timeline. Science wins again.
The more science tries to disprove the Bible, the more they prove it
I'm pointing out that 100% biblical literalism doesn't stand up to scrutiny, that science HAS disproved the "four corners" claim. Admit it: the Bible is being figurative or metaphoric or poetic about the "four corners." NOT literal.
And when we've dispensed with the "four corners" claim, we can move on to the many different forms of evidence for the age of the Earth. This is another case where science has disproved literal interpretations of the Bible.
I'm not saying the Bible is useless. I'm just saying 100% literal intepretations of the Bible disagree with modern science, and when the science gets strong enough, Bible believers redefine certain passages as being "figurative" or "allegorical" or "metaphorical" or whatever.
In short, I'm demonstrating that your claim
The more science tries to disprove the Bible, the more they prove it
isn't true.And I have my age of the Earth data lined up and ready to disprove the "biblical patriarch" timeline. Science wins again.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment