An invitation to Old Guy on the subject of Noah's Flood.

[LittleNipper]

I dont have a need or desire to discredit such tales and fables. The stories discredit themselves.

I do think it's a shame that people will exploit the fears and superstitions of those who have a willingness to believe such tales and fables as literal fact.

You're familiar with the "saying" attributed to P.T. Barnum?

The bible stories do not discredit themselves. Each is filled with details that would be meaningless if they were fiction and yet make perfect sense in the context of the unfolding biblical narritive. It is the details and interconnections that sets the Bible apart from fiction.

I suppose with creative interpretation, you can make the tales and fables mean whatever you wish them to mean. One reason that religions splinter into so many sects and subdivisions is because there is rarely agreement on those interpretations.

As to Arks, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, believe all or part of it. You will find, however, that even in these threads, there is disagreement as to what is literal and what is to be taken as allegory.

The gods have spoken and I will be the final arbiter.

The splinter groups you speak of are mostly Protestants who broke away from the Roman Catholic church in various countries under the leadership of various dissenters. They held to the same basic belief that the Bible is the only authority, and Jesus was/is the Christ.

 

[Hollie]

The bible stories do not discredit themselves. Each is filled with details that would be meaningless if they were fiction and yet make perfect sense in the context of the unfolding biblical narritive. It is the details and interconnections that sets the Bible apart from fiction.

I suppose with creative interpretation, you can make the tales and fables mean whatever you wish them to mean. One reason that religions splinter into so many sects and subdivisions is because there is rarely agreement on those interpretations.

As to Arks, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, believe all or part of it. You will find, however, that even in these threads, there is disagreement as to what is literal and what is to be taken as allegory.

The gods have spoken and I will be the final arbiter.

The splinter groups you speak of are mostly Protestants who broke away from the Roman Catholic church in various countries under the leadership of various dissenters. They held to the same basic belief that the Bible is the only authority, and Jesus was/is the Christ.

That was some stumbling shuffle. How many sects/subdivisions of christianity are there?

Which one is the ' correct" version?

 

[Oldguy]

You're familiar with the "saying" attributed to P.T. Barnum?

Yes, and every time I hear it, I think of the Republican Party platform.

 

[Oldguy]

I dont have a need or desire to discredit such tales and fables. The stories discredit themselves.

I do think it's a shame that people will exploit the fears and superstitions of those who have a willingness to believe such tales and fables as literal fact.

You're familiar with the "saying" attributed to P.T. Barnum?

The bible stories do not discredit themselves. Each is filled with details that would be meaningless if they were fiction and yet make perfect sense in the context of the unfolding biblical narritive. It is the details and interconnections that sets the Bible apart from fiction.

I suppose with creative interpretation, you can make the tales and fables mean whatever you wish them to mean. One reason that religions splinter into so many sects and subdivisions is because there is rarely agreement on those interpretations.

As to Arks, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, believe all or part of it. You will find, however, that even in these threads, there is disagreement as to what is literal and what is to be taken as allegory.

The gods have spoken and I will be the final arbiter.

How do you account for the Bible being the only book (that I know of), written by about 40 different authors, from different countries, ages and stations of life (most of whom did not know each other), over a period of about 2000 years in all or scraps of 4 different languages...and yet, it teaches the same message consistently from beginning to end?

 

[Foxfyre]

The bible stories do not discredit themselves. Each is filled with details that would be meaningless if they were fiction and yet make perfect sense in the context of the unfolding biblical narritive. It is the details and interconnections that sets the Bible apart from fiction.

I suppose with creative interpretation, you can make the tales and fables mean whatever you wish them to mean. One reason that religions splinter into so many sects and subdivisions is because there is rarely agreement on those interpretations.

As to Arks, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, believe all or part of it. You will find, however, that even in these threads, there is disagreement as to what is literal and what is to be taken as allegory.

The gods have spoken and I will be the final arbiter.

How do you account for the Bible being the only book (that I know of), written by about 40 different authors, from different countries, ages and stations of life (most of whom did not know each other), over a period of about 2000 years in all or scraps of 4 different languages...and yet, it teaches the same message consistently from beginning to end?

The editing of the Bible texts as they appear in the modern Bible can be pretty confusing because they grouped them by category rather than put them in chronological order as they were dated. Sometimes what was obviously the same teaching, but probably penned on separate scrolls got separated and appear separated in the final edited texts. This explains why there are so many incidences of deja vu for the Bible scholar who is reading along and asks himself/herself, "Didn't I just read this earlier?"

The ancient Hebrew was certainly an adaption of the Phoenician writing invented roughly 1000 to 1200 B.C. and until the Hebrews developed a means to write down their language, their stories and understandings were handed down through the generations via oral tradition, something they were very good at. But what they wrote was written with their understanding and they didn't expect to have to explain stuff that they took for granted to people like us who are in a very different time and culture. Just as modern writers don't bother to explain a light bulb or a fountain pen or an automobile when they refer to them today.

The time line can be confusing because the first chapter of Genesis, the first account of creation, is most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament while the second chapter and the second creation story was likely one of the earliest manuscripts included.

The serious Bible scholar gradually sorts out the time lines and is better able to assess the dating, purpose, and intended message of the text though I believe a scholar can spend a lifetime sorting it all out and still understand some things imperfectly.

So what did Noah and the flood mean to those who wrote it? We can only make educated guesses. But one thing is for sure. The whole of the Bible, Old and New Testament, is unified on one concept: nothing that exists does so without God calling it into existence, and while we have complete freedom to screw things up, God ultimately decides what the outcome will be.

 

[Oldguy]

I suppose with creative interpretation, you can make the tales and fables mean whatever you wish them to mean. One reason that religions splinter into so many sects and subdivisions is because there is rarely agreement on those interpretations.

As to Arks, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, believe all or part of it. You will find, however, that even in these threads, there is disagreement as to what is literal and what is to be taken as allegory.

The gods have spoken and I will be the final arbiter.

How do you account for the Bible being the only book (that I know of), written by about 40 different authors, from different countries, ages and stations of life (most of whom did not know each other), over a period of about 2000 years in all or scraps of 4 different languages...and yet, it teaches the same message consistently from beginning to end?

The editing of the Bible texts as they appear in the modern Bible can be pretty confusing because they grouped them by category rather than put them in chronological order as they were dated. Sometimes what was obviously the same teaching, but probably penned on separate scrolls got separated and appear separated in the final edited texts. This explains why there are so many incidences of deja vu for the Bible scholar who is reading along and asks himself/herself, "Didn't I just read this earlier?"

The ancient Hebrew was certainly an adaption of the Phoenician writing invented roughly 1000 to 1200 B.C. and until the Hebrews developed a means to write down their language, their stories and understandings were handed down through the generations via oral tradition, something they were very good at. But what they wrote was written with their understanding and they didn't expect to have to explain stuff that they took for granted to people like us who are in a very different time and culture. Just as modern writers don't bother to explain a light bulb or a fountain pen or an automobile when they refer to them today.

The time line can be confusing because the first chapter of Genesis, the first account of creation, is most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament while the second chapter and the second creation story was likely one of the earliest manuscripts included.

The serious Bible scholar gradually sorts out the time lines and is better able to assess the dating, purpose, and intended message of the text though I believe a scholar can spend a lifetime sorting it all out and still understand some things imperfectly.

So what did Noah and the flood mean to those who wrote it? We can only make educated guesses. But one thing is for sure. The whole of the Bible, Old and New Testament, is unified on one concept: nothing that exists does so without God calling it into existence, and while we have complete freedom to screw things up, God ultimately decides what the outcome will be.

Yes, all that's true. In fact, I believe Job is the oldest book in terms of when it was written and the first 5 books were written by Moses and, obviously, someone else because it records the death of Moses.

But, in point of fact, you're exactly right when you point out that the Bible, taken as a whole, is unified in its teachings. In spite of the fact that we may not know who wrote what, or in many cases exactly when, there's no doubt that it was written by multiple personalities, in multiple places, times and circumstance and it does not disagree with itself. It does, indeed, tell a single, unified story of God's relationship with mankind.

I can't think of any other text, religious or otherwise, that does that. That it all transpired by happenstance would force one to believe that somebody, somewhere and at some time, sat down to write a story and subsequent authors in different times and different places, added to that story without having any idea the original story had been told and they would all agree with each other in the most intimate of details.

What's the likelihood of that?

 

[BreezeWood]

why then would the chronology of a religious book whose context is for mankind's Remission as a path to the Everlasting end with the crucifixion of an innocent man - when of the two religions that support it have a difference in its meaning - and are both "waiting" for a contradictory outcome.

a true religion is not a story but a map - to be properly abridged till the goal is reached.

the History of the Judea / Christian Bible has been for its infallibility without reason rather than its purpose - the purpose to find the truth yet to be foretold.

 

[Oldguy]

why then would the chronology of a religious book whose context is for mankind's Remission as a path to the Everlasting end with the crucifixion of an innocent man - when of the two religions that support it have a difference in its meaning - and are both "waiting" for a contradictory outcome.

a true religion is not a story but a map - to be properly abridged till the goal is reached.

the History of the Judea / Christian Bible has been for its infallibility without reason rather than its purpose - the purpose to find the truth yet to be foretold.

It doesn't end with the crucifixion. In fact, it begins with the resurrection! The end of all things will find Christian's and Jew's united in worship of Jesus Christ and living eternally with Him. We don't have contradictory outcomes.

 

[Foxfyre]

why then would the chronology of a religious book whose context is for mankind's Remission as a path to the Everlasting end with the crucifixion of an innocent man - when of the two religions that support it have a difference in its meaning - and are both "waiting" for a contradictory outcome.

a true religion is not a story but a map - to be properly abridged till the goal is reached.

the History of the Judea / Christian Bible has been for its infallibility without reason rather than its purpose - the purpose to find the truth yet to be foretold.

It is true that humandkind, through its entire history, in an attempt to reach the sense of the Divine that they all had, have assigned special importance or privilege to objects. Some made graven images or assigned special powers to birds and animals or sacred mountains. Others, most especially the Jews and then the Christians, have sometimes tried to make the scriptures themselves the mind and dictates of God and therefore not to be questioned nor dismissed.

But that closes off the activity of the Holy Spirit, of which they all seemed to have glimpses. In 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul described the phenomenon as 'looking through a glass darkly" or in more modern translation: "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

All this is to say that the Scriptures are the accounts of the activity of all those generations who encountered God, who sought to obey Him, who feared him, who loved him, who misinterpreted things as His work, who assigned responsibility to God that belonged to them, sometimes they got it right and just as many I believe get it wrong and assigned responsibility in the wrong places just as had always been and will probably continue to be far beyond this generation.

Nevertheless, it is my belief that those willing to listen, to be taught, to follow sometimes the most implausible directions, can be blessed and/or be a blessing beyond their wildest imagination. And sometimes those directions and teachings come from the Scriptures. Sometimes not. But those who continue to assign the wrong things to God and/or presume to know more or know God better than He knows himself are going to continue to get it wrong and many will miss out on many blessings.

 

[Wicked Jester]

You're familiar with the "saying" attributed to P.T. Barnum?

Yes, and every time I hear it, I think of the Republican Party platform.

Speaking of Barnum, and since you appear to be a fan of said Barnum....can I get ya' to sign the official petition that advocates, "Only until President Barack H. Obama officially leaves office, the official protocol of playing the stirring rendition of ''Hail To the Chief" at official state functions, will be changed to playing the stirring rendition of "Send In The Clowns," and that it shall be Nancy Pelosi exclusively, who is authorized to perform the rendition on her Kazoo".....Whatta ya' say, can we get your signature?

 

[Oldguy]

You're familiar with the "saying" attributed to P.T. Barnum?

Yes, and every time I hear it, I think of the Republican Party platform.

Speaking of Barnum, and since you appear to be a fan of said Barnum....can I get ya' to sign the official petition that advocates, "Only until President Barack H. Obama officially leaves office, the official protocol of playing the stirring rendition of ''Hail To the Chief" at official state functions, will be changed to playing the stirring rendition of "Send In The Clowns," and that it shall be Nancy Pelosi exclusively, who is authorized to perform the rendition on her Kazoo".....Whatta ya' say, can we get your signature?

Hmmmmm. Let me think about that. I'll get back to you on Jan. 21, 2017, ok?

 

[uscitizen]

When God takes a life, it is His for the taking. He founded it, established it, fomulated it, designed it, created it. That said, I feel strongly that God is a God of unmearsurable love. As the creator, God and only God has the divine right to take away what belongs to Him and Him alone. Man has been empowered to take another human life to safeguard others and his own life.

Now coupled with this is the reality of eternity. If one believes in God one is faced with the belief that God is eternal and man, though finite (having a point of origin) continues to exist in some form forever. An innocent baby can all to soon grow into a spoiled brat and an ungrateful creep of an adult.

Now, the Lord of the Flood has revealed that He knows all our paths. There are no surprises with God. He unconditionally knows if a person will ultimately become a saved individual or die and spend an eternity separated from God.

So, back to any innocent babies. I firmly believe God is totally aware of their possible choices and their ultimate future given the opportunity to fully develope. I also believe that God has to do some things or the result would be that everyone would become pagan and end up in hell with any intervention. Now, I have two possible stances on this issue from a BIBLICAL standpoint. Either GOD saw that this baby allowed to mature would have become as evil or worse than the parents, and so God allowed the drowning and mercifully took the innocent baby to Heaven. OR, God allowed the drowning and the baby went to hell but its eternal punishment was insignificant conpared to what it would have been otherwise.

My take is that God mercifully took the innocent babies to be with Him, and cast the souls of the unredeemed sinful parents (who never begged to God for forgiveness but rather cursed God) to an eternity in hell.

I take this stance because of the verses surrounding the death of Bathsheba's illegitimate baby by King David. The indication seems to be that David will go to be with the Baby someday. If the Baby is in hell, such would seem very unlikely.

Nuke em all and let god sort em out?

 

[LittleNipper]

I suppose with creative interpretation, you can make the tales and fables mean whatever you wish them to mean. One reason that religions splinter into so many sects and subdivisions is because there is rarely agreement on those interpretations.

As to Arks, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, believe all or part of it. You will find, however, that even in these threads, there is disagreement as to what is literal and what is to be taken as allegory.

The gods have spoken and I will be the final arbiter.

The splinter groups you speak of are mostly Protestants who broke away from the Roman Catholic church in various countries under the leadership of various dissenters. They held to the same basic belief that the Bible is the only authority, and Jesus was/is the Christ.

That was some stumbling shuffle. How many sects/subdivisions of christianity are there?

Which one is the ' correct" version?

Not really. If one investigates the earliest writings of the various sects, most hold to the very same truth. NOW, over time some of these groups watered down the original beliefs and this did cause splits, but the founding beliefs are/were what made Protestantism a throw back to the very early church.
Inerrancy of the Holy Bible
The Lord Jesus is the Christ, God in the flesh --- born to a virgin, one person of a TRIUNE GODHEAD.
Jesus came to be the ultimate, final sacrafice for the remission of sin, and arose from the grave.
There is no other way to be saved except through the precious blood atonement of Christ Himself.
Salvation is a Gift of Faith from God through Christ and not of human labor of any kind.
Works are a sign of the Holy Spirit motivating the saved indivdual to be an example and a witness of Christ to a dying and condemned world.

The Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Brethern, Assembly of God, Moravians, Pentecostals, Bible Churches, Independent Fundamentalist, Community Churches, Mennonite, Amish...

There are others but these all started with very biblical fundamentalist aspirations, as stated above. Some started in the german regions, Scotland, England, France, etc., under different leaders who mostly left the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Foxfyre]

why then would the chronology of a religious book whose context is for mankind's Remission as a path to the Everlasting end with the crucifixion of an innocent man - when of the two religions that support it have a difference in its meaning - and are both "waiting" for a contradictory outcome.

a true religion is not a story but a map - to be properly abridged till the goal is reached.

the History of the Judea / Christian Bible has been for its infallibility without reason rather than its purpose - the purpose to find the truth yet to be foretold.

Well first, the story line by no means ended with the Crucifixion. And in the orthodox Christian faith, Jesus was fully human but he was also God incarnate. In the Old Testament, the people atoned for their sins through ritual sacrifice of an unblemished--i.e. absolutely perfect and flawless--lamb. Jesus, the only sinless human that ever walked the Earth, was that unblemished lamb who willingly gave his own life--it was not taken from him without his permission--as that symbolic unblemished lamb. It was a symbolism that the people of that time were capable of understanding even if it took them awhile to do so.

It was like a modern story of a woman who felt compassion for the hungry birds outside in the snow. But when she put out a pan of seed for them, they were afraid of the unfamiliar container. And she thought, "If I could just become one of you, I could show you. . . ." In the Christian belief, that was what God did for us by becoming a human and enduring what humans endure. . .to show us.

He also explained that confined in human body, he could only be one place at a time. But once he resumed his existence in spirit, he would send the Counselor/Comforter (Holy Spirit) to lead us into all truth.

John 14:26
26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:7
7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

So after the accounts of the Crucifixion in the Four Gospels of the New Testament, the narrative continued. The Disciples received the Holy Spirit and the Church of Jesus Christ began to spread throughout the Roman Empire. In my opinion Scripture continues to be written, though it won't make its way into the Book.

The principle of Noah is still with us though. No matter how bad it gets or how badly we screw things up, God will provide a rescue for at least a remmant of the righteous to be his voice and example to others in the world. "Righteous" in this context does not mean saintly or perfect, but rather those willing to risk everything to obey and follow God's direction.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Yes, and every time I hear it, I think of the Republican Party platform.

Speaking of Barnum, and since you appear to be a fan of said Barnum....can I get ya' to sign the official petition that advocates, "Only until President Barack H. Obama officially leaves office, the official protocol of playing the stirring rendition of ''Hail To the Chief" at official state functions, will be changed to playing the stirring rendition of "Send In The Clowns," and that it shall be Nancy Pelosi exclusively, who is authorized to perform the rendition on her Kazoo".....Whatta ya' say, can we get your signature?

Hmmmmm. Let me think about that. I'll get back to you on Jan. 21, 2017, ok?

No worries....We got William Jethro Clinton to sign on, we've met our quota....And the great thing is, he volunteered to use his Saxaphone skills on the Kazoo, and is available anytime the playing of the tune is necessary......Man, he must really like Obama to do such a generous thing with his time, and pay the type of respect due to Obama.

 

[Gadawg73]

I suppose with creative interpretation, you can make the tales and fables mean whatever you wish them to mean. One reason that religions splinter into so many sects and subdivisions is because there is rarely agreement on those interpretations.

As to Arks, men walking on water, men rising from the dead, believe all or part of it. You will find, however, that even in these threads, there is disagreement as to what is literal and what is to be taken as allegory.

The gods have spoken and I will be the final arbiter.

How do you account for the Bible being the only book (that I know of), written by about 40 different authors, from different countries, ages and stations of life (most of whom did not know each other), over a period of about 2000 years in all or scraps of 4 different languages...and yet, it teaches the same message consistently from beginning to end?

The editing of the Bible texts as they appear in the modern Bible can be pretty confusing because they grouped them by category rather than put them in chronological order as they were dated. Sometimes what was obviously the same teaching, but probably penned on separate scrolls got separated and appear separated in the final edited texts. This explains why there are so many incidences of deja vu for the Bible scholar who is reading along and asks himself/herself, "Didn't I just read this earlier?"

The ancient Hebrew was certainly an adaption of the Phoenician writing invented roughly 1000 to 1200 B.C. and until the Hebrews developed a means to write down their language, their stories and understandings were handed down through the generations via oral tradition, something they were very good at. But what they wrote was written with their understanding and they didn't expect to have to explain stuff that they took for granted to people like us who are in a very different time and culture. Just as modern writers don't bother to explain a light bulb or a fountain pen or an automobile when they refer to them today.

The time line can be confusing because the first chapter of Genesis, the first account of creation, is most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament while the second chapter and the second creation story was likely one of the earliest manuscripts included.

The serious Bible scholar gradually sorts out the time lines and is better able to assess the dating, purpose, and intended message of the text though I believe a scholar can spend a lifetime sorting it all out and still understand some things imperfectly.

So what did Noah and the flood mean to those who wrote it? We can only make educated guesses. But one thing is for sure. The whole of the Bible, Old and New Testament, is unified on one concept: nothing that exists does so without God calling it into existence, and while we have complete freedom to screw things up, God ultimately decides what the outcome will be.

Very good. I agree with the last paragraph in theory only. How one interprets it is another matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

How do you account for the Bible being the only book (that I know of), written by about 40 different authors, from different countries, ages and stations of life (most of whom did not know each other), over a period of about 2000 years in all or scraps of 4 different languages...and yet, it teaches the same message consistently from beginning to end?

The editing of the Bible texts as they appear in the modern Bible can be pretty confusing because they grouped them by category rather than put them in chronological order as they were dated. Sometimes what was obviously the same teaching, but probably penned on separate scrolls got separated and appear separated in the final edited texts. This explains why there are so many incidences of deja vu for the Bible scholar who is reading along and asks himself/herself, "Didn't I just read this earlier?"

The ancient Hebrew was certainly an adaption of the Phoenician writing invented roughly 1000 to 1200 B.C. and until the Hebrews developed a means to write down their language, their stories and understandings were handed down through the generations via oral tradition, something they were very good at. But what they wrote was written with their understanding and they didn't expect to have to explain stuff that they took for granted to people like us who are in a very different time and culture. Just as modern writers don't bother to explain a light bulb or a fountain pen or an automobile when they refer to them today.

The time line can be confusing because the first chapter of Genesis, the first account of creation, is most likely one of the most recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament while the second chapter and the second creation story was likely one of the earliest manuscripts included.

The serious Bible scholar gradually sorts out the time lines and is better able to assess the dating, purpose, and intended message of the text though I believe a scholar can spend a lifetime sorting it all out and still understand some things imperfectly.

So what did Noah and the flood mean to those who wrote it? We can only make educated guesses. But one thing is for sure. The whole of the Bible, Old and New Testament, is unified on one concept: nothing that exists does so without God calling it into existence, and while we have complete freedom to screw things up, God ultimately decides what the outcome will be.

Very good. I agree with the last paragraph in theory only. How one interprets it is another matter.

That's true. Some people of faith don't believe anything happens that is against God's will as God's will causes everything to be. Some people of faith, like me, see it as God allowing us the ability to screw up his perfect creation because otherwise we would have no free will, no ability to experience, love, joy, compassion, or any of the other pure delights of being human as well as spiritual beings. We would instead be mere puppets with no choice in what we think, what we do, who we are.

I doubt those two concepts will be resolved in my lifetime, but I don't think God expects us to be perfect or get everything right and I don't think he much cares what sort of religion we adopt in order to worship Him. In my belief He is more concerned with our relationship with Him than he is in the rules and rituals that we develop trying to perfect that relationship. And I know he is able to use us imperfect beings for His purposes whenever we allow Him to do so. Just as He used Noah who the scriptures make very clear was no perfect person.

 

[Oldguy]

Speaking of Barnum, and since you appear to be a fan of said Barnum....can I get ya' to sign the official petition that advocates, "Only until President Barack H. Obama officially leaves office, the official protocol of playing the stirring rendition of ''Hail To the Chief" at official state functions, will be changed to playing the stirring rendition of "Send In The Clowns," and that it shall be Nancy Pelosi exclusively, who is authorized to perform the rendition on her Kazoo".....Whatta ya' say, can we get your signature?

Hmmmmm. Let me think about that. I'll get back to you on Jan. 21, 2017, ok?

No worries....We got William Jethro Clinton to sign on, we've met our quota....And the great thing is, he volunteered to use his Saxaphone skills on the Kazoo, and is available anytime the playing of the tune is necessary......Man, he must really like Obama to do such a generous thing with his time, and pay the type of respect due to Obama.

Horse hockey. The Clinton's despise Obama because he beat Hillary and because he's not on board with their Neo-Conservative, corporate aristocracy goals. (Yes, there is no difference between a Clinton Democrat and a Bush Republican).

Since the primary race was so close, the price for Obama of the Clinton's public support was to let them into his administration. He's finally pretty much pushed them out of his inner circle of confidential advisors, but he still needs them.

 

[Oldguy]

Where did JoeB131 go? It's his thread and he's now absent.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Where did JoeB131 go? It's his thread and he's now absent.

On the phone, in a panic, desperately trying to find somebody, ANYBODY, to post the 10% of his 400 dollar bail?