I "just" tore my coat sleeve catching on a sharp object while going too close around a corner. Rather than it being "just," the preferential semantical words should of course instead be: "very recently."
I felt like saying: 'Damn it!' but rumor has it that inanimate and "them"selves-benign objects created by whoever creator created the sharp object should rationally not be "damned" which word would either figuratively or literally infer that such can burn in 'Hell' forever for retributional punishment.
'Darn" seems a less flagrant and substitutionary-appropriate expletive, although that word would be in "line" with stitching, knitting, and hardanger.
Remember that next time you ask someone to euphemistically "step on the gas" but not "flick his Bic" nor uplift his middle digit when overwhelmed with impatient consternation.
On to the subject title of: "For God Rule? (#2).
"Right" (not 'wrong' nor 'left') at the start and to begin with, I sort of wish I could apologize to all atheistic readership viewing what you the reader are now perusing, because the subject title above assumes the existence of "God."
One of the reasons I took the liberty to utilize the term: "God" within the subject title is purely scientific, in that of all the entities both you and I have encountered and probably investigated to various extents within our environment since we have become aware of such from childbirth is: "The Holy Bible" (with reference to the 66-canonical-books Judeo-Christian [Old-&-New-Testament] Holy Bible . . . and the word "God" (associated with the concept of 'Creator') - is (as you might knowledgeably contemplate) contained therein.
Now, if by mentioning the words: 'Holy Bible,' you the reader are so offended, perturbed, and disgusted that you choose to read no further than the end of this sentence, it is amazing that you even started to read the title of this piece in the first place, and even stranger that you have continued on to this point as you obviously have.
However, if you continue to read on, despite your antagonism against even the mention of Holy Scripture, it shows either that (1) you are a walking oxymoron, perhaps dishonestly self-distressed in the beleagered bowels of self-contradiction as to your hatred against mention of the sacred while continuing to delve into exploration of the sacred, or (2) it reveals your insatiable curiosity, regardless of your impossible-to-credibly-rationalize anti-religious bias and prejudice.
Whatever the case, you are still reading this, despite the importunity of the non-solicited, and so we can continue on in intimate literary communion together.
It has been said, in the Holy Bible, that the Builder and Owner of planet Earth (i.e. Jesus Christ, according to the first chapters of the gospel of John, Colossians and Hebrews in "the New Testament") is someday going to physically return in power and glory, and cause all who have ever lived on our phenomenally-unique globe (both resurrected dead throughout all human history plus those "still" [i.e. yet] alive at His coming again, to be consigned to either an almost-indescribable eternal bliss in forever-pain-free Heaven or instead an almost-indescribable everlasting torment in Outer-Darkness Hellfire.
Logically, it almost goes without saying that among those so consigned will be Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul . . . and I could continue on with Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and myriad others - but, "why would you?" Is it now expected that you - being put under needless obligation to respond to such intimidating query by me posing such a asinine and inane question - would, in understandable rebuff and retort - simply and quickly throw that question back to me, with a: "So why would you?
A detailed answer of "why?" would require an exhaustive complex neuro-physiological dissertation on the microbiological compilations of succinctly-synchronized minute electrical synapsing within the human brain in complicated association and interactions with sundry tissues and blood integrated in minute myriad connections within the cranial cavity relating to detections of a preponderant plethoria of sensual stimuli from the five known human senses.
Because of that, a "why?" or a "how?" answer is to be bypassed in favor of a simple: "that" statement of actual fact.
We humans have a deep inner craving to choose what we think is "the best" in contrast to what is not "the best," and one application of that is to decide if we should vote to re-elect Barack Obama or instead take a chance electing one of the present four less-experienced-but-potentially-more-competent GOP candidates in competition against each other and ultimately against Barack.
Whether such is justifiable is perhaps irrelevant, and is done anyway. Indeed, pertaining to our present system of only one chief ruler in supreme authority (instead of a rotating group) in this country, comparison and evaluation of candidates must be done under conventional circumstances.
What grounds or conditions should we - in all fairness - observe, become informed about, evaluate, and judiciously decide as to who to vote for in early November of 2012?
The diverse national population has differing and similar opinions about that. Certain candidates-expressed ideologies, platform platitudes, voting records on sundry issues, reiterated intentions and attitudes with copious explanations exhibited during televised debates, internet-based YouTube-sourced videoclips (such as those currently available at http://videoclips12.tripod.com and http://bareflash.tripod.com/who_to_vote_for), newsprint reports, and so forth, are what voters-to-be employ to determine who they plan to vote for on Election Day 2012.
It is both normal and understandable for them to do so using those mechanisms, but should that include a religious test on the part of would-be voters, both regarding or concerning the religious-denominational/sectarian affiliation of each of the candidates considered and their stances on hot-button controversial social issues (especially sexually-oriented ones) relating to their own personal religious beliefs (in connection with their chosen and disclosed church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever religious grouping such are affiliated with)?
Some theologically-related speech and actions of candidates is relatively easy to accrue from all candidates, and all candidate presently running in competition share a common agreement to basic common-denominator "religious" beliefs.
For example they all agree that motor vehicles should stop at red stoplights instead of going through at busy intersections. They agree that drinking water and air should be pure and not polluted; that malicious murder in contrast to law-enforcement execution is criminal misbehavior (and not "behavior"); that exclusively lusting at porno images with resultant masturbational self-sodomy, murdering womb-babes by abortion homicide, committing (and not "performing") homogay sodomy, plus legalizing suicide, would result in the human species becoming extinct.
They furthermore all agree that toilets should flush and not overflow; that cars within America should generally be driven on the right and not left side of two-lane highways; that left means left and not right, and that right means right and not left; that backwards does not mean forward, and forward does not mean backward.
I could, of course, go on and on giving example after example, but when the candidates themselves and/or the voters who plan to vote for some of them express contradictory-to-reason exemptions and exceptions to utter what is not rational common-sense, there is consequential confusion concerning what criteria of value candidates should be evaluated and chosen.
Even applying a Biblical Standard correctly necessitates that the applier of such Sacred Writ have an accommodating, compliant, and positively-favorable mindset overall toward the totality of that Biblical Standard . . . rather than cultically pick and choose, add or subtract, distort or omit or exaggerate outside and beyond the actual Text of Scripture.
For example, Barack Obama (during his 2008 debate against McCain with moderator Rick Warren) was not willing and thus not able to relate the New-Testament passages of Romans 1:26-28 to homosexuality, which - as he termed it - was: "vague" (and thus to him was a perplexing mystery beyond comprehension). McCain himself, when interrogated, at first denied that homosexuality is a "sin" (proven by a YouTube-based videoclip).
With apparent awareness that their denominational churches concordant with Holy Scripture deem homosexuality wicked, Romney and Santorum and Ron Paul yet (as of this writing) state that their church's belief about that will not influence their public policy decisions if they get elected.
Is that possible? Is it instead an absurd blatant promise of internal-contradiction hypocrisy? Is it a compromising attempt to please completely-discrepant-against-each-other voters to get as many "big-tent" votes as necessary to comprise a winning majority?
Again, their attitude of whether they regard the Lord and His Biblical Directives as superior in authority and importance over personal-power idolatry and selfish ambition is to seriously be discerned by potential voters in determining who to monetarily support, campaign with, and finally vote for.
How can their inner attitude toward God, as to whether they are basically for or instead against Him and His doctrines-in-practical-civil-law-applications, be ascertained - when even Scripture itself contains paradoxical contrasts?
Pr 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Pr 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Pr 28:1 The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.
Isa 26:20 Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until the wrath is past.
Ec 7:16 Be not righteous overmuch, and do not make yourself overwise; why should you destroy yourself?
Ec 7:17 Be not wicked overmuch, neither be a fool; why should you die before your time?
Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Re 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.
Nu 22:12 God said to Balaam, "You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they are blessed."
Nu 22:20 And God came to Balaam at night and said to him, "If the men have come to call you, rise, go with them; but only what I bid you, that shall you do."
2Sa 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
1Ch 21:1 Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to number Israel.
Mt 7:6 Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
Mt 5:42 Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.
Joh 7:8 Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."
Joh 7:10 But after His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He also went up, not publicly but in private.
Ro 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Ga 2:16 . . . who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ . . . in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.
Ga 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Jas 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Isa 42:19 Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger whom I send? Who is blind as my dedicated one, or blind as the servant of the LORD?
2Pe 1:9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
So should Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and Obama advocate saying and doing things one way at times (depending upon the circumstances), then saying and doing things the opposite way at other times (depending upon different circumstances)?
How are we to determine which circumstances merit them rhetorically proclaiming postulations supporting certain things at some times, then seeming to waffle with changed-minded flipfloppiness and saying the complete opposite at other times?
We , as do the candidates, all need to "pee or get off the pot" (if you pardon my gutteral euphemisticness), make up our minds and declare whether the Sun is brighter than the Moon, 2 + 2 = 4, elephants are larger than cockroaches, gravity attracts things rather than repel them, oxygen and radioactivity are invisible like God himself, toilet paper should be situated next to toilets in case of the need to defecate, and those languishing in hospices need not be told to get off their lazy entitlements-supplied butts to then go out and get a job or becoming millionaire entrepreneurs overnite to pay recurrent monthly bills and timed medical expenses.
Why should we get into the subjects of wrangling about candidate positions on "reproductive" women's "health" which consists of mangling the pregnant and murdering womb-babes with abortion-homicide? Is it not obvious that species reproduction can only occur by that and by same-gender sexual connections? Is it that hard to understand that apes magically evolve into humans by themselves in a zillion years or a few seconds as much as car parts which have created themselves, and, while lying in autopart stores, randomly assemble themselves together by themselves into fully-working automobiles in a trillion years and/or a few minutes? Should the candidates not concur in loving-and-forgiving, homoqueer-reconciliative, non-argumentative, cooperative compliance with such sanity?