huskertim

love it, gonna miss me some D Adams.

Look man, I feel ya. Personal responibility is the ideal solution, but it isn't neccessarily human nature. The reason a person 50-100 years ago might be more inclined to "fix this fossil fuel problem..and be rich" is because it was more likely to happen. Our government doesn't need to inspire or subsidise inovation, it just needs to get the hell out of the way and let people benefit from thier success. Right now, much of what we gear our research toward is dependent on what the government is funding. R&D dollars spent on risky ventures while there are safe , government backed ones available don't make sense. Why spend your money reserching uses for adult stem cells (a proven technoligy) when Uncle Sam is willing to give you unlimited funds to study embrionic stem cells that have yet to produce a viable treatment for anything. Better still, researching something that has no likely end means no end of funding.

as to water, many wars have been and will be fought over water rights Desalinazation is a very costly process and btw requires a level of coordinated technilogical developement that could only have been brought about by an industrialized society which is, in itself, antithetical to the utopian society this doucebag envisions. Also, if sex ins't neccessary to the survival of a species not to mention personal fufillment, then what the hell is? Personnally, I wouldn't bother with this arguement, the guy is obviously not going to be swayed by even the most obvious of facts.

How about hot chicks willing to have sex with you. That's pretty high on the list of things that started the whole dudes hitting each other on the head with clubs bit.

As regards Roosevelt, to define him as a conservative by todays standards ignores history. He is widely recognized as the first progressive president and, for his time would have been seen as quite liberal in his policies if not in his person. Look at the way Reagan is portrayed today. To the right he's an icon to the left a hideous monster of the far right. The truth is he was active early on in the Democrat party. His hero was FDR. if you were to ask him if his politics had changed he would say no, his party changed. Conversly, look at the halcion days of JFK. An idle to the left, bane of the right. Today, his inagual address would warrant an impeachment by the Democrat party while being applauded by the GOP. If you can't see the historical relativism going on here ask your self how the party of Lincoln became tried to racism and the party of Jefferson Davis and Andrew Jackson became the "champion of equal rights".

Wow, where do I start. I have to admit I scimmed through some of this so I may be a bit repetitive. Firstly, to simply define left and right is far too limiting when discussing communism and facism. One of my professors explained to me that I could better view the political spectrum as globular rather than linear. If I travel far enough to the west, I end up in the east. Likewise far enough north equals south. By this logic, one who persues a reactionary right wing agenda ends up acting very much like one persueing a radical left wing agenda. Ultimately, when you end up with a gun barrel in your face telling you what to do, do you really give a crap what the trigger man calls himself? So, when the American intellectuals of the 1920's were in love with "Uncle Joe", social darwinism, and yes ugenics. They lent credence to ideas fostered by the National Socialists Workers' Party in Germany even though the German people themselves generally would have seen the Russians as barbarians. Ultimately, the video, while rediculosly bias is not entirely factually unsound.

To say all religions worship the same God is inconsistant with most religious teachings. That said the Abrahamic religions do all core from the same source. The jewish prophets, books and traditions are included and recognized by christianity. The Muslims recognize the jewish prophets and Christ as well, they just don't see him as living deity. After all, Christ's (son of David) ministry was largely based on correcting misunderstandings about the scriptures and the primary reason Muhammed gave for the need of the Koran was that people weren't listening to the prophets and obeying God.

Again, this is codification of existing practice not establishment of a new one. I am disapointed that there is no condemnation of slavery but I am not suprised given the pratices of the day which continued well after Constantine's boys choose the books to be cantonized. You'll have to help me here, because I see a number of issues with this. First, the verse I quoted above is from Leviticus, which the legend goes was the laws and rituals that were supposed to fashion the nation of Israel as Yahweh's chosen and special people. They were to be set apart from other nations around them. And God, who is said to be the same yesterday, today, and forever, set up a checklist. No other gods––check. No working on the sabbath––check. No using my name in vain––check. Don't draw anything––check. But when it came to slavery, God was willing to say, "Oooh, better not push it. They'll figure this one out in oh, say––" About four thousand years, during which time an ocean of blood was spilled in various ages and empires because the basic worth of the individual didn't get recognized until the Enlightenment. You're disappointed? Spartacus is disappointed. Frederick Douglass is disappointed. We're all disappointed, because this is one of those times where the unlimited power of a deity vast beyond imagining would have come in really handy. But instead what we get is, "Well, the Philistines have slaves. The Amalekites have slaves. The Egyptians have (well, had) slaves. Best go along to get along." I guess the question a theist has to ask him or herself is, does God still consider slavery moral? You make excellent points and I agree with much of what your saying. Leviticus, however, does not carry the same weight as the 10 commandments as they were perportedly written by the finger of God himself and thus are inviolatable. Leviticus was however allegedly God breathed (a chistian equivalant of "that's what God told me to write) so it should be morally consistent with the commandments and, I agree it doesn't seem to be so. This book clearly deals with day to day funtions of life in post exodus times for the Hebrew people, so I would expect that it should regulate the common practices of the day. This is a case wherein the Isralites certainly failed to set themselves apart from other nations but can we assume the by God's silence on the matter that he endores slavery, further, can we be assured that surving books of the day are neccessarily complete and acurate. Lastly, I beleive we started this whole disscusion based on a letter from Paul, which I asserted was written to advise early christians on personal behavior not as an endorsement of societal institutions of the day. I stand by that. (BTW, yes, I see the correlation between Leviticus and Paul's letter now that I'm thinking about it).

Wow, SOCAL, I just guessing you don't twitter much.

Apologies. When I started the thread, I got a tid bit busy. Here is my opinion. Recently I have started to question my faith in Christianity...posing the very same points as the non believers in this thread. Like if we do have free will and God knows exactly what is going to happen, then logically we do not have free will or God doesn't know what is going to happen. I will say that the verse that really got me thinking was Ephesians 5:21-6:9. "22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 6 Children and Parents 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."[c] 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves and Masters 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." This really makes me think...if God truly is a loving creator, then why would he advocate a something as terrible as slavery? Werein do you see advocacy that man shall enslave man. The author here clearly intended that the behavior of all men is thier responsibility regardless of station or circumstance. One could as easily be a rich a-hole or a poor a-hole, likewise one can make the best of what is given and strive always to act accordingly. Far too often people reationalize horrible behavior and cruelty because they themselves have suffered (mommy never loved me, so it's not my fault that I shot the people at the mall). Remember, Christ offered himself as a servant, not a king and clearly prefered humility to celebrity. Maybe advocate was the wrong word here. Let me rephrase... It upsets me that the Bible embraces slavery. I would expect a holy text to denounce such a terrible thing the way it denounces murder, stealing, etc. Sorry to bring this back up, but I felt compelled to reply. I think embrace is also a poor choice of words here. This passage, as with many others in the Bible treats slavery neither as good or bad, but simply a reality of the day. It wouldn't make much sense to base ones bahavior on the world as you would like it to be. I to find it frustrating that there is no outright comdemnation of slavery, but then again, if there were, it propably didn't make it into the common lexicon because of social norms of the day (see Gospel of Thecla). The point is that Paul is trying to say how a chritian behaves, not how society is or isn't just. "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."—Exodus 21:20-21 Again, codification of an existing practice. laws were enacted to goven the trade of slaves in the US, but those particular laws did not establish the pratice. Again, I am disappointed by a lack of condemnation, but I am not suprised given the common pratices of the day. Right, Moses was establishing a set of laws. I don't a gree with the idea that this condons slavery so much as codifies bahavior. If you recall the sermon on the mound, Christ warned that strickly obeying the law wasn't good enough, but rather God would judge a man by his heart. 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.--Leviticus 25:44-46 Again, this is codification of existing practice not establishment of a new one. I am disapointed that there is no condemnation of slavery but I am not suprised given the pratices of the day which continued well after Constantine's boys choose the books to be cantonized.

As to the bill itself, may it die a just death. Yes, healthcare is a mess, but I feel we would be better served by addressing issues one or two at a time rather than an omnibus bill that includes more pork, more regulation, more loopholes, and more compromises than can be counted. If a reform is needed, it wouldn't have to be introduced in the middle of a snow strom, on a Saturday and without disclose of it's contents.

I think this is the best thing that could happen for Obama. In 1982 the Republicans los power in congress, in 1994 the Dems lost majorities and in 1996 the Reps lost thiers. In each case the President at the time was forced to become more centrist and in each case, it can be argued, their presidencies became more effective. Go GOP in 2010!!!!!!!!!

Apologies. When I started the thread, I got a tid bit busy. Here is my opinion. Recently I have started to question my faith in Christianity...posing the very same points as the non believers in this thread. Like if we do have free will and God knows exactly what is going to happen, then logically we do not have free will or God doesn't know what is going to happen. I will say that the verse that really got me thinking was Ephesians 5:21-6:9. "22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 6 Children and Parents 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."[c] 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves and Masters 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." This really makes me think...if God truly is a loving creator, then why would he advocate a something as terrible as slavery? Werein do you see advocacy that man shall enslave man. The author here clearly intended that the behavior of all men is thier responsibility regardless of station or circumstance. One could as easily be a rich a-hole or a poor a-hole, likewise one can make the best of what is given and strive always to act accordingly. Far too often people reationalize horrible behavior and cruelty because they themselves have suffered (mommy never loved me, so it's not my fault that I shot the people at the mall). Remember, Christ offered himself as a servant, not a king and clearly prefered humility to celebrity. Maybe advocate was the wrong word here. Let me rephrase... It upsets me that the Bible embraces slavery. I would expect a holy text to denounce such a terrible thing the way it denounces murder, stealing, etc. Sorry to bring this back up, but I felt compelled to reply. I think embrace is also a poor choice of words here. This passage, as with many others in the Bible treats slavery neither as good or bad, but simply a reality of the day. It wouldn't make much sense to base ones bahavior on the world as you would like it to be. I to find it frustrating that there is no outright comdemnation of slavery, but then again, if there were, it propably didn't make it into the common lexicon because of social norms of the day (see Gospel of Thecla). The point is that Paul is trying to say how a chritian behaves, not how society is or isn't just. "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."—Exodus 21:20-21 Right, Moses was establishing a set of laws. I don't a gree with the idea that this condons slavery so much as codifies bahavior. If you recall the sermon on the mound, Christ warned that strickly obeying the law wasn't good enough, but rather God would judge a man by his heart.

Very poetic, but also not addressing the issue. Belief is not the end of questioning. But faith––belief WITHOUT evidence––operates under an entirely different agenda. There's also a subtle difference between the striving of a scientist and the striving of a preacher. The scientist may think he knows the answer to the question he's designing an experiment to answer, but is rewarded whether his hypothesis is proved right or wrong. With a preacher, he has faith that no matter what his quest turns up, his fundamental assumption will hold true; and since no demonstrable evidence was needed to establish his faith to begin with, no competing evidence would ever have the hopes of dislodging it. Your point is valid, but keep in mind that I was making an analogy, which by definition wouldn't be a spot on duplicate. I contend however that a scientist does not need demonstrable evidence to form a theory, merely an idea that can potentially be tested. Further, if the experimental evidence returns nagative results a scientists can and will adjust his theory rather than abondon is core rationale for the experiment.

And that number? 42, of course. Can't beat Adams when it comes to answering the fundamental questions of life the universe and everything, eh.

Apologies. When I started the thread, I got a tid bit busy. Here is my opinion. Recently I have started to question my faith in Christianity...posing the very same points as the non believers in this thread. Like if we do have free will and God knows exactly what is going to happen, then logically we do not have free will or God doesn't know what is going to happen. I will say that the verse that really got me thinking was Ephesians 5:21-6:9. "22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mysterybut I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 6 Children and Parents 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"which is the first commandment with a promise 3"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."[c] 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves and Masters 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." This really makes me think...if God truly is a loving creator, then why would he advocate a something as terrible as slavery? Werein do you see advocacy that man shall enslave man. The author here clearly intended that the behavior of all men is thier responsibility regardless of station or circumstance. One could as easily be a rich a-hole or a poor a-hole, likewise one can make the best of what is given and strive always to act accordingly. Far too often people reationalize horrible behavior and cruelty because they themselves have suffered (mommy never loved me, so it's not my fault that I shot the people at the mall). Remember, Christ offered himself as a servant, not a king and clearly prefered humility to celebrity. Maybe advocate was the wrong word here. Let me rephrase... It upsets me that the Bible embraces slavery. I would expect a holy text to denounce such a terrible thing the way it denounces murder, stealing, etc. Sorry to bring this back up, but I felt compelled to reply. I think embrace is also a poor choice of words here. This passage, as with many others in the Bible treats slavery neither as good or bad, but simply a reality of the day. It wouldn't make much sense to base ones bahavior on the world as you would like it to be. I to find it frustrating that there is no outright comdemnation of slavery, but then again, if there were, it propably didn't make it into the common lexicon because of social norms of the day (see Gospel of Thecla). The point is that Paul is trying to say how a chritian behaves, not how society is or isn't just.

As to the literal nature of the Bible; most scholars contend that some books are meant to be interpeted as quite literal (much of the old testament is simply the historical record of the Hebrew people), whereas, others are written to be illustrative or alagoric. It's not always clear which style is being used at a given time and this can cause great confusion. It's not entirely helpful either that we have to rely on translations that seldom capture the provincial nature of a given story nor the backdrop of the time. IE The prodical son was based on a common story of the time but Jesus changed the ending to demonstrate a point that to us seems obvious but would have been quite controversial in it's time.

Apologies. When I started the thread, I got a tid bit busy. Here is my opinion. Recently I have started to question my faith in Christianity...posing the very same points as the non believers in this thread. Like if we do have free will and God knows exactly what is going to happen, then logically we do not have free will or God doesn't know what is going to happen. I will say that the verse that really got me thinking was Ephesians 5:21-6:9. "22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 6 Children and Parents 1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."[c] 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves and Masters 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." This really makes me think...if God truly is a loving creator, then why would he advocate a something as terrible as slavery? Werein do you see advocacy that man shall enslave man. The author here clearly intended that the behavior of all men is thier responsibility regardless of station or circumstance. One could as easily be a rich a-hole or a poor a-hole, likewise one can make the best of what is given and strive always to act accordingly. Far too often people reationalize horrible behavior and cruelty because they themselves have suffered (mommy never loved me, so it's not my fault that I shot the people at the mall). Remember, Christ offered himself as a servant, not a king and clearly prefered humility to celebrity.

Faith is not the end of questioning. Think of those things you believe in, do you fear to question them? I propose that if you do, it is not faith you have, but doubt. The wisest among us quest for wisdom. The best atheletes strive to be better. The cleric seeks God not as he would like him to be, but as he reveals himself to be. Doubt fears exposure but truth hides not from the light.

Which is exactly my point. Infallible, all powerful and all knowing, yet gets caught unaware by a lowly human. Huge hole in the logic. Look at it this way. A being that knows all would basically look at time like a timeline laid out in a history book. You can read it again and again, but the ending is always the same. And yeah, God would fall into the "only one set of rules" which is another point arguing that the God as defined by the Bible does not exist. And I did say that we don't know all the rules. Just ask a scientist about quantum mechanics.... Firstly, the presumtion that God is suprised by our actions is unsupported. That we may piss him off mightly doesn't mean he didin't see it coming, or that wrath is in any way unjust. Secondly, speaking of quantum mechanics, wouldn't omnipotence by it's very nature view time in a way wholley unfamiliar to us mere mortals. To presume time to be a strickly linear and unidirectional concept is exceptionally constraining in the realm of deity (see realitivity theory). After all, not all human civilations even view the flow of time in specifically like manner.

I thought I recalled Sean Callahan saying (or at least implying) on Big Red Wrap Up that CW wasn't working hard enough on rehab and it didn't look like he'd ever see the feild. Then again, maybe I was high. I regret we won't get this guy to play, he hit like a freight train in high school (at least on film). BTW, I'M CHRIS WILLIAMS, AND SO IS MY WIFE!

That whole video is predicated on the premise of "the world went from a tribal society where humans only produced for themselves, but because they were smart enough to domesticate work animals and develop better technology, they produced EXCESS product. that they sold to others. (Capitalism, no?)" Let's be honest here, there was no royalty when man was first domesticating crops and animals. The video said itself that in tribal times, humans only produced what they could consume. And we all know that they had all sorts of crazy superstitions then too and now ruling class to exploit it. So where was this enslaving of humans coming from? Well, the ruling class didn't exist yet. It didn't exist until they produced excess product, to sell, and to profit from. Now because effed up people exist and don't care about the rights of others, captured and sold people because they are the ultimate livestock, for what it's worth. Now, we are slaves because of this, because religion and statism is easily manipulated to keep us livestock, whether it seems we are free or not. What made us slaves in the first place? Capitalism. Simple as that. The only people who are truly free are those who consume ONLY what they produce. Tribal societies, the amish, and guys with beards who live in log cabins in montana. Capitalism? Yeah that's the problem, because a system werein the biggest and strongest among a group take what they want by shear force was liberating. To compare our current state with slavery is rediculous and to assume that we would all be better off living in straw huts until death's mericiful embrace at the ripe old age of 14 came a callin is even more perpostorous. That said, Obamacare is an outright usurpation of power unpresidented in our peacetime republic.

Jesus' take on death Luke 13:4, let's go with the red letters on this one. PR= false prophet, the Bible tells how to test a true profit, and he fails.

I fear that too often, we let the words of Chistians determine our estimation of Christianity. The foundatoinal philosipies of Christ himself are readily available (at least to the degree that any history,written or oral can be said to be uniformly accuate). I would prefer to see a movie to judge it's quality rather than take a critics estimation as my own, sould I reach my foundation belifs with any less regard.

I always find it ironic that those who criticize religion for it's intolerance are so loath to tolerate the religions they criticize.