http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx/?news=332956

Has anyone heard of the movie Religulous? It's a comedy/documentary with Bill Mahar pretty much poking fun at the major religions.

I'm really bothered by it. I know everyone has the right to believe what they want, but I just wish people could make movies with messages of hope rather than poking fun at something that 96% of the world believes in. It bothers me that there are so many pompous people out there who tout the idea that if you believe in a supreme being, you must be stupid, violent and irrationally intolerant.

I'm not wanting to stir a debate with this post. Actually, what I'm asking is, what makes you believe in God during times of so much cynicism? How do you hold onto your faith?

Did he poke fun at Islam?

Yes, he makes fun of Islam too:

I just ignore it all. It doesn't bother me a bit. My faith has nothing to do with the opinions of others.

who cares what Bill Maher thinks? He's a douche bag of Biblical proportions!

second on who cares what Maher thinks -

Eventually - If his opinion is correct - we will never know. If he is wrong - he will know.

Bill Maher ROCKS!! And he's never going to get married. SMART man! And any smart woman won't date him, either!

His big beef with Christianity, and with Islam as well, is with those who take everything in the Bible literally.

He has a lot of diversity on his show with both political parties as well as the "other" parties. It's a smart show. Funny at times, too.

It's not going to bother me a bit or cause my faith to waiver and I'm going to watch the movie as soon as I get a chance.

Charlotte

By "literally," do you mean that Jesus Christ literally IS God the Son, incarnate, who literally did die on the Cross to pay the required penalty for the sins of all humans who believe in Him as THE Messiah promised to us by God, or even that God actually exists?

Perhaps a more "literal understanding of things" you might prefer is that all life "literally" owes its existence to the "literal impossiblity" that spontaneous generation of life from non-life actually happened, in violation of all known physical laws?

If you want to be an apologist for that fruitcake Maher, that is your right.

But I wonder if perhaps Maher might a bit more reticent in his bashing if there were a "Fatwah" issued against him similar to to the Muslim fatwah against Rushdie?

Literally, blasphemy used to be handled with capital punishment, until Jesus intervened with the adulterous woman who was presented to Him for "judgment."

Now, just how "literally" should we take Jesus' teaching about forgiveness?

Say what?

Blasphemy has been a capital offense here in America as recently as 1692, to say nothing of Europe in the middle ages. While I do believe that Maher is a jerk, and IMHO, not a particularly amusing one at that, Jesus did not put an end to the evil that men do in the name of religion - or, more accurately, power. He laid down an example of behavior that most mortals are unable to follow.

FWIW, I don't think much of Rushdie either. The Satanic Verses was a snooze, and like Maher, his personal life is a shambles.

IMHO, Jesus's teachings on forgiveness are not part of what I would call literal interpretation, although they truly are one of the fundaments of Christianity. Personally, when I speak of someone who is a fundamentalist Christian, as was my best friend growing up, I refer to someone who believes, for example, that the story of creation should be taken literally, verbatim, rather than interpreted as a parable that attempts to explain man's relationship to G-d.

I have known too many people of too many religions to dismiss or poke fun at anyone else's beliefs. To do so, IMHO, is to proclaim your own insecurity.

Spending your money on his movie is funding an enemy to the Christian faith.

Watching the filth is inviting the enemy into your life.

More horrors have been committed in the name of God than anything else.

I disagree that when it comes to violence that Christ set an example that man was "unable" to follow. I believe they were "unwilling" to follow.


While I believe this is true in many cases...there are some where the dismissal is entirely within reason. Scientology anyone??? We might as well have formed a religion called the Wrath of Khan.

Wouldn't that be the Wrath of Xenu?

WRT being "unable" vs "unwilling", I believe that if you accept that Jesus is the son of G-d, that he is divine, you are automatically unable to emulate his teachings entirely - after all, you're made of mortal stuff. That is not to say that you should not keep trying, even if you miss the mark.

Precisely.

Often difficult enough for those who believe in Christ, but in Maher's case....enough said to simply say that to those who are not believers in Christ it is all "foolishness." Not to say that they have any "better way" either, they just think they do because that's what they "will."

It's sort of like those who question why pro-life people don't go around killing abortion doctors and blowing up abortion clinics as a "rule," since they consider abortion to be the deliberate murdering of a child. They just don't get that the directive from Christ is "be angry (righteous anger), but in your anger do not also sin" in response.

True.

But I don't think you have to be Christian to realize this. That was the whole point of the Old Testament, that we are incapable of "being perfect" and saving ourselves. That was, for example, the purpose of the 10 Commandments, to show not only what, according to God, SHOULD be done, but that no one is capable of keeping the Law perfectly, all the time, and that we are all guilty of sin and under the judgment of God for sin.

But in relation to the question raised here, and to your response, I have often wondered how and why the Jews (who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah) do not seem to also be following the Laws of the Torah. Additionally, if after all, we are all made of mortal stuff and DO "miss the mark" of perfection, and there is no longer any sacrifice by the Priests, how do the Jews currently gain forgiveness of sins?

The movie should be highly entertaining.

Any flick that causes psycho fundamentalists to protest deserves to be seen.

As with most movies, you are not qualified to comment on it until you have seen it.

They aren't worried about sinning....they're more worried about being fresh meat in a prison than saving innocent babies.

as usual, you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I invite you to prove that I "don't know what I'm talking about".


YOU are the one commenting on a movie you haven't seen.

I am sure that you also were not all that concerned about your wife having sex with the OM when you walked in on them...you were more concerned about the possible stains on the couch. If you were really upset at what your wife did...wouldn't you have killed the OM?

HMMM...sound reasonable...nah....but you continue to dismiss others faith and use your less than intelligent arguments to support your theory...and to call pro life people liars.

I haven't critiqued the movie at all. I commented on Bill Maher.

Krazy, I'm not sure what burr you have under your saddle, but this statement seems to one of the most "unqualified" comments ever seen.

By your "reasoning," NO ONE who has not personally experienced something is qualified to comment on it.

By extension of your faulty logic, then Dr. Harley is not qualified to comment on infidelity and recovery because he has not personally experienced it. KNOWING about the subject and listening to others is NOT the same thing as having "seen it for yourself."

Do you seriously believe this or do you just have something against religion and/or Christianity in particular?

Actually, if I hadn't been in shock, I would've killed him...and he wasn't even "murdering babies".

You can call my arguments "less than intelligent", but you can't exactly counter them, can you?

I prefer to call pro-lifers hypocrites, not liars.

I guess we will all just have to bow to your superior mind-reading abilities since you obviously know what motivates believers other than humble obedience to God, and can read their minds and know their hearts.

Did the shock last only until he pulled up his pants and left?

As far as countering your arguments, they have been countered...you just dismiss the arguments....just like I dismiss your "shock." It was more an issue of cowardice...can you prove I am wrong?

Krazy, you are free to hold any opinion you wish. After all, it's just your opinion and doesn't have to be based in fact. You can let your emotional responses override reason, logic, and truth anytime you wish. But it still does not confer truth upon your opinion. Of course, if you can really read minds and hearts, perhaps you do know what truth really is. Can you?

Try "consent of the governed" on for size and that "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's" is God's directive to His people.

Huh? Unqualified how? Unqualified because I think a person is required to see a movie before they critique it? That makes no sense.


You have completely failed to use reasoning. My comment was about movies, and only movies. You warped that simple sentence into me saying, "Nobody can comment on anything until they've personally experienced it".

Yes, that would be a stupid statement...if I had said anything even remotely similar to that.


You then take YOUR twisted sentence (it was never mine) and use it to support an entire paragraph based on something I never said or insinuated. Once again...I was only referring to movies.


I have something against organized religion in general. I think they are manipulative, destructive, and I think that since their inception thousands of years ago, they have done more harm than good.

Why shouldn't I? They (the religious) certainly have something against the non-religious, as they've shown countless times.

You haven't countered anything I've said.

Trying to make me angry isn't going to work, although it is a very Christian way of making your point. Nice effort.

I'm not making a point..I am stating a truth that you can't refute.

And I suggest that you go back to another thread that was locked to see the rebuttals. FH has summed them up nicely.

I went back to the thread I started about abortion. There were no decent replies...something about you putting your life on the line, blah blah blah...I don't see what you're talking about.

that wouldn't be the thread...but that thread would support my cowardice argument.

okay, as FH has pointed out, there is a Biblical directive to act in an appropriate fashion.

Also, the murder of an abortion doctor...as has been proven in the past, would not stop the killing of babies. It emboldens the pro abortion crowd and makes them close ranks. I KNOW that if abortion could be ended today by my taking out an abortion doctor, I would do so in a heart beat ...of course committing a sin in the meantime.

Look to Paul Allen Hill as an example.

I personally think the only way to assure that this slaughter stops is to get the right people in office and they will get the Supreme Court in order to change Roe V Wade. Hopefully we do not run into any more justices that change their thinking. IF a group (pro life) started killing abortion doctors, that would all but assure that the liberals would be victorious in the long run..thereby keeping abortion legal.

If a person like Hill is driven by his calling to lash out...then I do not fault him. But it is not a long term solution to this problem and it will only result in the pro life side winning the battle but losing the war.

My point about putting my life on the line was you call pro life people cowards...I was affording you the opportunity to call this pro life person a coward to his face....in other words, I was stepping up to the plate.

Seriously? You are making this statement seriously?

"Hypocrites" and "liars"? Base on what personal experience of yours with respect to abortion? What have your done if you think that abortion is the murder of an innocent child?

Critiquing a movie is NOT necessary to have seen the movie when the issue is the "message" of the movie. There are many movies I would NOT see, nor recommend anyone see, simply because I KNOW the subject matter and the bias of the movie producer.

How about "Debbie Does Dallas?" I have not seen, nor do I intend to see, that movie to KNOW that I would oppose it for viewing.

That's just one example. I have seen Maher's "promos" on television, and from that, no more needs to be seen as his BIAS was clearly shown.

Krazy, since the inception of barbarism and humanism (self-orientation apart from God) there has been much manipulation, destruction, and much more harm than good done. It is NOT the 'exclusive domain' of religion, organized or otherwise. It is a condition of the sinful heart of man and its inclination to sin and exhalt self regardless of anyone else.

What, exactly, do you think that "the religious" have against the "non-religious" that comprise some of your "countless times" statement?

Could it also be possible that many "religious" people have given much, up to an including their lives, FOR other "non-religious" people too?

Where do you see, if you see any at all, any balance in your prejudicial stance as stated in your opinion quoted above?

Or perhaps it has been more "personal" for you in some way. Have you personally been on the receiving end of sort of "attack" based on religion?

Krazy, the thread in question was the John McCain thread.

Even one of the pro choice people here emailed me and said that he wished Krazy was on this pro life side of this since his arguments are in fact crazy.

What I offered on that thread is that the introduction of additional violence into this mess will not have a good result.

You offered your same hollow arguments.

I have done nothing to stop abortion. Then again, I'm not out there protesting, or trying to force my beliefs onto others, either.


You can't even critique the message of the movie, let alone the content, because you don't know anything about it. In several interviews, Maher has stated how he got along with most of the people in the movie.

Talk about closed-minded...I saw "The Passion of the Christ", even though I think the story is based on a fairy tale far older than Christianity, just because I thought it would be a good, entertaining movie. Sure enough, it was...and Mel Gibson is a nutcase.


I thought you might bring up pornography...that's why I said "MOST movies", rather than "ALL movies".


Of course he's biased. He's open and honest about that. His opinions differ from yours...ooooo...scary! If your faith is strong, nothing Bill Maher (or any other non-believer) has to say should rattle you one bit. Your rights aren't in jeopardy.

Hold the phone!

While this debate is interesting, the question I had wasn't really about Bill Mahar or his movie specifically, it's a larger question really. My question is about faith. With cynicism being so prevalent, how do you hold onto faith? What inspires you? How do you attain that inner quietness, that peace that surpasses all understanding? I'm not asking for an intellectual and philosophical debate, but more, I would like feedback. How do you listen to spirit amidst all the noise?

I realize this changes the whole tone of the thread, but I'd like to know more about what we have in common rather than what makes us different.

He has a problem with organized religion in general.

Now I'm an apologist for Bill Maher?



Bill Maher is a VERY smart man, nevermind his views on religion. He has very compelling discussions on his show and he doesn't pull any punches with either side.

That's what I'm interested in. I don't care what he says about religion, it's his opinion. Big deal.

Charlotte

MrsZonie, what does other people's cynicism have to do with you? It does not CHANGE the reasons for your faith. You have faith for a REASON, don't you? Another person's cynicism cannot undo what you ALREADY know to be true.

I am just confused about your question because I don't understand how someone's cynicism has anything to do with you.

Aw, it's in the theaters? Darn! I thought HBO was doing it as a feature for HBO.

Well, I won't be seeing it until it's on there, then.

ITA on all three points!

Charlotte

Religious people have an irrational fear, in the USA at least, that godless heathens are going to take their religion away from them. THAT'S one reason why they don't care for non-religious people. Not to mention that it's human nature to be wary of any other group who isn't like "your" group.


Huh? Are you speaking of the military? The soldiers who have been killed throughout history, all of them, are fighting for the United States...you know...the country...and all of it's citizens. I would imagine non-religious people are just as grateful as religious people, considering they aren't positive they're going to a "special place" when they die.


I never claimed to be fair and balanced...I'll leave that to propagandist news outlets. It's just my opinion.

I've been repeatedly disgusted over the years by too many self-righteous, smarmy, smirking, goody-two-shoes, high horse-riding, ivory tower living, holier than thou hypocrites. Of course not all religious people fit that description. My W has been a Christian her whole life.

Lotta good that did me.

Before you think you've made some discovery about me, know that my opinion of organized religion has been the same since long before I even met my FWW.

Krazy, do you happen to a liberal? Because this is just the sort of lie/subterfuge that liberals use all the time when they are "called" on their previous statements.

By way of reference, this IS what YOU said, and you did NOT say "MOST movies," you did indeed say "ALL movies," as anyone can see simply by reading what you actual wrote:




Okay. That's clearer know. You DO support the taking of innocent lives then and, like Barak Obama, support the taking of babies lives in or out of the womb if the INTENT was to kill the baby prior to birth. I understand better now.




Maher doesn't bother me one bit. But that wasn't your argument. You were arguing that no one who hadn't SEEN his movie had any right to an opinion about what he was presenting in his movie. Are you simply afraid of any protest against "God-bashing" that Maher likes to do? And surrounding himself with "like-minded" folks so that he can get along with them doesn't surprise me much at all either.

Whether Maher's movie is funny, cruel or thought provoking, I have no idea. If in a comical manner the movie exposes stupidity, masquerading as piety is that wrong? Neither secularist nor theist holds a monopoly on ignorance.

What I find troubling is the reticence by some modern theists to acknowledge that faith may be subject to critical analysis. The influence of Aristoteleanism upon Christian rationalism and the works of the great Christian thinkers of the Scholastic movement were very much focused on the tension between reason and faith. When a theist takes the position that faith itself is not subject to critical exploration I think that diminishes the belief as a whole.

Your post has so many holes in it, I hardly know where to begin.

I'll tear into it after lunch.

Nothing "irrational" there, Krazy. They've already done it and are trying to expand it even further.

When's the last time you hear prayer in schools?

How about the attempts to get "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

How about Christmas trees for cryin' out loud?!

MANY examples.

And to substitute it with what?

Secular Humanism?

The faith in evolution and that life began from non-life?




Krazy, while I don't wish the "joys" of infidelity on anyone, there is inherent in your statement here the makings of a troubled "unequally yoked marriage," that your wife should have considered before marrying you.

Brix, this thread is not suited to a discussion as you were attempting. If you'd like to discuss that sort of thing, why don't you start a thread for that sort of religious discussion and I wouldn't mind contributing a few posts to such a discussion.

If you want to do so, you might start by defining what you mean by a "critical exploration of faith," as you were using the phrase. Were you referring to "Higher Criticism" sorts of things or did you have something different in mind?

I can hardly wait, Krazy.

Which "holes" were you referring to? The one where you said a person was required to see a movie before offering an opinion or the one where you tried to "amend" that declaritive to "most movies?" and change the clear meaning of your first statement as you "dove for cover?"

Um, we are formed from the dust of the earth. Nonliving material.

Living things received the breath of life into this nonliving material.

So in a matter of speaking, life did begin from non life or else there would be two different contradicting systems and God don't allow those sort of things.

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Aloha MrsZ,

The way I hold onto faith? I know what I believe and I know why I believe it. I don't believe scripture just because someone up in a pulpit said it is so. When I hear a message preached, I go back and look at the scripture myself and see if Scripture confirms what the pastor said. I wrestle with it myself; and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I learn the truth.

Am I always at peace with what I learn? No. Because sometimes I am lead to change something in my life that I don't want to change (because it's not easy). Even though it is not easy, I still do my best to make the change because God blesses obedience. He doesn't bless having the knowledge; and his blessings aren't based on my success of being obedient.

I don't let strangers tear down my friends that I know intimately and I don't let strangers tear down my faith in a God I know intimately.

Hope that helps.

Blessings.

S&C

You are right, Pariah.

But the key point is formed by God, by direct purpose, design, and intent. GIVEN life by God. God created ALL things from nothing (ex nihilo), and began with the inanimate and only progressed to the animate when the material world was suitable and ready.

versus

Random chance wherein the Laws of Science PROHIBIT the beginning of life and there is not enough time in all the universe to come close to allowing for "random chance" to actually have resulted in life, let alone sustainable and reproduceable life.

Without having seen the movie I imagine reason and faith are integral to the film.

As for critical exploration, I will give you an example. If a theist states that their faith is supported by Aquinas' "Five Ways to prove that G-d Exists" I may disagree with them but respectfully, b/c they have considered their faith in an estimable manner.

On the other hand, if a zealot comes to my front door brandishing a pancake upon which he claims has appeared the face of Jesus I may take his faith a little less seriously.

Should the former and latter beliefs be afforded the same weight--is not one superior and the other inferior?

My first post on this thread:


Lying and subterfuge, huh? It's also a standard conservative tactic to blame others for what you are guilty of.

Anyone with an I.Q. above that of Forest Gump would assume that I wasn't including movies from the pornography industry. Duh!

I support the right of mothers to determine what happens in their uterus. Of course, the way you say it sounds more creepy and sinister.

Of course, it's not nearly as sinister as thinking a raped teenager should have to carry the baby in front of her family, friends, and classmates, then either raise it or put it up for adoption. That is punishing the victim for being raped. See India, Pakistan, and various parts of the Middle East for examples of countries where rape victims are punished for being raped.

Oh, and Bill Maher didn't surround himself with like-minded individuals, unless he's a gay Muslim fundamentalist AND a Mormon AND a Catholic, etc. They couldn't have been more different...they were just more tolerant than you.

Surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals happens all the time, especially on Sunday mornings.

SC,
Thank you for your post, that is exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I love debate and discussion, but right now I'm looking for inspiration!

But on the other hand... Brix, your posts are very interesting. I need to think about what you wrote, you make excellent points.

-Mrs Z

I grew up in Kansas and attended public schools. I never saw or heard a kid pray, ever. Not one time. Besides, prayer doesn't have to take more than a few seconds, and can be done in silence, without hand gestures, and nobody would ever know.

Or, they could simply pray before or after school, or both, but that's beside the point.

School is for learning. Pray somewhere else.


It wasn't in the original...and that's so petty. You're using that as an example of your religion being threatened?


What about them? They're only (barely) a Christian symbol because someone arbitrarily decided they should be...unless Israel had a thriving evergreen market that I'm unaware of.

Last I checked, you could still buy them at Wal Mart...not exactly a sign of the end of Christianity.


How about self-reliance, instead of a mythical crutch?

Evolution, and science in general, is always open to critical thinking, further study, and modifcation if/when new data is acquired. Religious beliefs as a whole are not.

As far as life from non-life: What did God supposedly create Adam from?


And the real Christian comes out!

1. "Unequally yoked marriage", as far as religious beliefs, is a garbage statement. Fodder for the religious.

2. My wife should've considered MY beliefs before marrying ME? You should call Dr. Harley, because you're apparently found the one thing that could justify cheating: Lack of faith. :RollieEyes: If anything, I should've seen her for the typical, hypocritical "Christian" that she is.

Then refused to do HER the favor of marrying HER. I managed to stay faithful with no faith at all. Shouldn't that be impossible, without God, Inc. to guide me?


I assume you are a BS? Then that last statement was completely ignorant.

If you were a WS, then you have no right to speak of faith to anyone.

Brix, according to several people on MB, the answer to your question is "yes, they should be afforded the same weight" and "no, no judgment is allowed regarding one person's beliefs being more or less superior to another."

That's the basis "relativism," that is ascribed to by many on MB.

I disagree.

But to carry your thought along a little further, substitute Bill Maher and his "pancake" opinion versus 2000 years of committed followers of Jesus Christ, and ask yourself the same sort of question.

As for whatever "weight" you want to assign to Jesus Christ, since I speak as a Christian and not as any other faith system, that is up to you. Ultimately, the judge of "right or wrong" will be God and His "opinion" will be the only one that counts.

No one comes to a belief in Jesus Christ without the Father first drawing them.

Thank God for one Constitutional right that still exists.




Okay, I'll grant you this "exception." Now will you join me in abolishing all other abortions? Perhaps you'd like to toss into the "exception" list rape (any age) and incest too? I'd be okay with that too. Then let's ban all the "other" reasons for aborting a healthy, innocent, baby. Let's return this to a MEDICAL procedure and not a money making enterprise that Planned Parenthood has turned it into.

Most believers I know believe primarily because their parents did.

Nonsense. I have a degree in Biology. School may be for learning, but it's not for learning about ALL theories of where things came from.

Evolution refuses to deal with the question of origins of life because the Biogenetic Law and the Laws of Thermodynamics PROHIBIT life from forming by accident, as required by the whole concept of Evolution.

Furthermore, try as evolutionist try, there is NO evidence of any macroevolution. There IS an "explosion" of diversity of life. There IS the "rethinking" and "modification" of things that were taught as FACT, when...oops, it was shown the facts were wrong and the taught "proof" was invalidated. Phylogeny recapitulates Ontogeny, is one example that I was taught by the learned Doctors of Science while studying for my degree. Guess what? That's now debunked and discarded, yet it was taught as truth.

Then there's the issue of Scientists (of the evolutionary stripe) refusing to consider any other theories or hypothesis because they will NOT entertain the possibility that God DID CREATE, despite their elevation of nature and natural process to a level of unproven faith as if they were "god."




Krazy, if I thought your was half-way serious, I'd take some time to try to give you an answer to that question. You might be surprised to learn that you are not the first person to ask that sort of question.

But let me give you hint anyway. God created by design and with a purpose, unlike the concept of evolution that requires no purpose and no design. God created Adam from the same elements He previously created, and ordered the resulting "product" to be Adam rather than a rock, a fish, or any other living creature.

So, to continue in your vein of question, just WHERE did the required INCREASE in INFORMATION come from in order to "evolve" from some lower form of life into a completely new and more "informationally" advanced form of life in order for your theory of evolution to have ANY chance of being correct?

And remember, you must account for that new and more complex information strictly by using nature and random chance, "inventing" if you will information that did not exist at the preceding level of complexity.

Hey, we've still got other rights...Bush didn't manage to take them all. Thank goodness for term limits on Presidents.



I think a compromise is called for.

Sex Ed needs to be taught in every public school, in every grade. There should be no "opt-out" policy. It should be age appropriate and uniform across the country. No local school boards should be allowed to modify what is or is not taught. Abstinance is not an acceptable form of sex education, because it is not realistic.

Special exceptions aside, I think all abortions should be performed in the 1st trimester. Obviously, the embryo becomes a full-fleged human in the womb at some point, but I don't believe it's the moment my...stuff...meets the egg.

Each person should get one first-trimester "oops" abortion in a lifetime. That wouldn't count against them in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's survival.

It's not an ideal compromise, but there is no ideal compromise.

Great post!


He sure gave it the ol' "college try," though.



Exactly!

Charlotte

The problem with establishing "when" the embryo becomes a human. Is i when it can survive outside the womb on its own because technically it would be a parasite before that point. I believe that is somewhere around 35-36 weeks (w/o support from hospital)? Or is it when doctors have a reasonable chance of delivering and saving it (25-26 weeks I believe)? Or is it at the end of the first trimester (13-14 weeks)? Or is it when conception takes place since the process is in motion and the baby is on its way to being created? I have no answers to this dilemma just food for thought.

If you say so, it must be true, given the fact that you don't believe yourself




Nope, no need to call Harley. He has stated that if his wife ever cheated on him he would go directly to divorce and would not try to recover his marriage.

But, yes, your wife (as a Christian as you indicated she was before you were married), SHOULD have listened to Christ and NOT been unequally yoked.

For what it's worth, I was not a believer when I met my wife and she was a Christian. Her father's advice to her was to NOT be unequally yoked to an unbeliever. When I learned of that advice, I agreed and told my wife that we would NOT get married if I could not find the answers regarding Christ that would allow me to accept Him as my Lord and Savior.

I don't speak this way from ignorance, Krazy, but from personal experience and a respect for the wisdom of the Word of God to all of us.




Is that anything like we are all "typical" sinners in one way or another?




No, it's possible to remain faithful without God. It's a matter of the culture you were raised in and what you accepted as the "norm" for marriage, irrespective of what God has had to say about marriage. But like all of us, there are other areas of your life where you were likely NOT "perfect" according to God's standards (called sin by believers).




That's right, Krazy, I am a former BS. And no, it was not "completely ignorant" as I faced that very issue when I was in my 20's.

Krazy, term limits came as a result of a Democrat President (FDR) and were imposed by Congress.

Now if we could just get Term Limits on Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court Justices we might actually get a government that returns to SERVING the people instead of becoming self-indulgent cushy lifetime jobs where their FOCUS is in getting their butts reelected or (in the case of the Supremes) far outliving their mental capacity.




I totally disagree. Why not just take the children from their parents and plop them in government communes and indoctrinate them according to what the State wants?




Biologically speaking, Krazy, you are wrong. What "defines" a human being (a full-fledged human in the womb) is the genetic code, made up of a double helix. It received one-half of that helix from the mother and the other half from the father, and in the egg, upon fertilization, they combine to form that one new unique individual human being, genetically different and distinct from the mother's DNA.

But I'll grant you way more credit that I grant someone like Barak Obama, who would not support legislation to even help a baby that survived an abortion attempt. Obama believes that baby should be left to die. Barak voted AGAINST a bill that would have granted protection to babies who survived an attempted abortion. Infanticide is running rampant in this country and we might just elect the biggest proponent of infanticide to be President. With such little value on human life, that is a very scary belief system to have as the President.

The film will have to stand or fall on its own merits. If I concluded after viewing, it that he mocked or disrespected those entitled to better treatment than I would disagree with the film's POV. If it's funny and thought provoking without devolving into abject mean-spiritedness than perhaps it works. As for the weight to afford Maher, I don't think too many run the risk of confusing him with Richard Dawkins.

We finally agree on something. I'm for two term limits all around, including and especially Supreme Court justices. No one person should have that much power without being directly elected.


There is only one correct way to teach sex ed. It is either factual or it is not. I'm not talking about "How To Give a Better BJ", just the mechanics of it all, diseases, etc.

Plopping a kid into a commune and indoctrinating them is what I see when I look at Sunday School. Those little buggers can be made to believe anything if you get 'em young enough.


I understand that even a newly-fertilized egg has its own unique DNA, but I also understand that it is not a complete human, either. It will be, eventually, but not immediately. Since nobody knows when that is, exactly, I chose the 1st trimester. There is little excuse for not knowing you're pregnant for 3 months, especially if such a law were in place.


You've got to be wary when someone votes for or against a bill. Without reading the entire bill, you have no idea what sort of crappy legislation was written into it besides abortion-related stuff.

Let's say you are a congressman & you are presented with a bill that provides funding for breast cancer research, but also called for every kitten in the country to be exterminated. You vote against it, so your opponents claim that you don't care about women because you refuse to support breast cancer research. How cruel of you! You are in favor of women dying from breast cancer!

The difference that seems to be apparent here, Krazy, is your answer seems to focus on the physical to the exclusion of the ethical, moral, and or religious aspects of sex. In short, it gives a one-sided approach to it as being "merely" a biological function, devoid of purpose and/or intent and really gives the children no basis in determining values.

It also usurps the parental role and responsibility, replacing it with the "wisdom" of schools that are heavily dominated by far-left liberal teachers in many, if not most, cases. It PROHIBITS any mention of God or His purpose for sex and marriage, especially that sex is intended to take place ONLY within the bonds of marriage between a husband and wife.

What it would do is to "plop a kid into a State mandated commune and indoctrinate" them. That's not much different than the "Hitler Youth" program of Nazi Germany. However, to the point of your contention that Sunday School is somehow "bad" and "indoctrinating" children against what YOU might think is best, or your way of believing, that is the POINT of the Constitutional point that Congress shall make no law ESTABLISHING a STATE religion (which it is, imho, with evolution and secular humanism as the only approved teaching) AND Congress shall pass no law restricting the free exercise of religion by the citizens of the country.

It is NOT up to the State to determine what IS and what is NOT taught to children. That RIGHT is reserved for the parents as citizens of this country.




Your answer here begs for clarification of the terms used. In much the same way that no one is "a little bit pregnant," you either ARE pregnant or you are not, and you are either a complete human being or you are not, as determined by the genetic code of a given organism.

Trying to "parse" the concept of what a "complete human" is simply begs the issue. Once the egg is fertilized, it IS complete, with the entire genetic code that will "unfold" into a growing, developing, eventually adult, human being. It will not unfold into any other sort of living organism but a human being being, because that is what it is from the moment the genetic code is established. One could, by using your appeal to being a "complete human" argue, for example, that a new born baby is NOT a "complete human" because it does not have teeth, cannot crawl or walk, and cannot survive without assistance because it cannot even feed itself, let alone "forage" for food and water/milk. Arguments have been made that a baby is not "human" until it draws its first breath, but that begs the issue of WHY it even breathes. It breathes to provide the body with oxygen. While in the womb, the placenta provides both the oxygen and the nutrients needed to survive and to continue growing.

Choosing the first trimester is, at best, an arbitrary choice of when killing a developing human being is "okay" and when it would not be "okay." But on what basis is the first trimester "okay" and anything later is not "okay," given that the baby is developing according to the genetic information from the moment of conception?

When you say that "nobody knows" when a baby becomes a "complete human," you are incorrect. I, and many others, know when that happens. It happens at conception when the complete genetic code of a unique new person is formed. Others "refuse" to see or agree with that, but I would submit that their "confusion" and inability to recognize the real formation of a complete human being at conception is grounded NOT on science, but on convenience and personal wants and desires to be able to DO anything they want to do without consequence. The VAST majority of abortions are preformed for just that reason, for the convenience of the mother who does not want the "inconvenience" of one of the consequences of sex.

There ARE other consequences that you touched on, such as STD's. Some of those consequences the mother can also rid herself of with antibiotics, but others like HIV are a death sentence and cannot be undone. All of which is predicated on the concept that "if it feels good and you want it, do it" as the "guiding light" for sex education. Physical consequences are addressed to some extent with contraceptives, which are ignored by a large number of people anyway. But the moral, ethical and religious issues are either NOT addressed or mimimized as some "kook" ideas. VALUES are not taught, only methods are taught.



When it comes to THIS bill that Obama voted against, I do know what the bill contained. He still voted against it, refusing to place ANY restrictions of any kind on abortion. Not all that surprising given his statements about being in favor of abortion for his own daughters should they become pregnant.

The specifics are readily available, but if you'd prefer to not look it up for yourself, I could provide it if you'd like the details.

I've learned a really neat term lately - fatwa envy:

http://forknowledge.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/fatwa-envy/

NMDreams - very interesting and very revealing. You quote from a decidely anti-Christian site, using a pejoritive term coined by them, which is based on a false premise that they concocted, and you think it's "neat?"

The reference to the fatwa has nothing to do with envy or any belief that athiests would "prefer" Islam.

It has to do with control of free speech, wherein the "control" is DEATH if they don't like what you said.

If you "blaspheme" Mohammed or Allah, they can, and most often will, issue a general death sentence on you and encourage any Muslim anywhere to carry it out.

Here you sit in the comfort of a free country and think you can just be blatantly disrespectful to anything Christian, because you KNOW that Christians WILL NOT try to kill you for it. You take advantage of the Christian idea of "turn the other cheek" and say things that you would never say about Islam if you were living in an Islamic country. You MIGHT say something once in a while about Islam while you are sitting in a free country, but you also know that fatwas have no territorial boundaries and are "good" worldwide. You just hope you can "hide" and be kept safe by the actions of others (i.e. police, etc.) to keep you safe.

Sorry, not buying into your attempt to marginalize Christianity yet again.

FH, I agree with you.

I am learning one very valuable lesson on these boards...consider the source.

ForeverHers,

A fetus in the 1st trimester cannot live outside the womb, because they don't have developed lungs.

Incomplete lungs = incomplete human. It doesn't matter that the genetic code is there, or that there will be complete lungs in the future.



The building isn't complete just because you have finished architectural drawings.

Without the drawings and the first brick, there is no building.

Life begets life. if the fetus is not alive then neither is the mother.

It can be alive and incomplete.

If it's complete, it should be able to live outside the mother immediately after conception.

Well of course, if it wasn't alive inside then it would be dead inside. So which is it?

Can you survive without food and oxygen?

Uh, it's alive and incomplete.

Of course not.

I have complete respiratory and digestive systems to help with that.

Tst...consider the source.

What about it?

A fish would say you're incomplete because you can't breath underwater like they can. A dog would say a fish is incomplete because it cannot survive on land. So what?
I don't get your point about being incomplete the entire genome is complete the moment the sperm met the egg. Hence complete and alive.

Either something is dead or you have life.

It takes more than genetic code for an organism to be complete, and just because it's alive doesn't mean it's fully developed.

Krazy, using your logic ~ a newborn baby is incomplete because they are not able to feed themselves or eat or clean themselves.

A child is incomplete because they are not yet an adult.

A 30 year old man is incomplete because he has not matured into an old man with gray hair.

A 90 year old man is incomplete because he has not yet died.

Reality is: Nothing has fully developed until the moment it dies.
Said another way: Everything is continuing to develope until the moment it dies.




Like what?

It is a scientific fact that the human genome IS COMPLETE at the moment of conception.

That's just bizarre... History is full of Christians executing anyone who said anything remotely anti-Christian or refused to accept Christianity... Yes, in this country, people can express themselves more or less freely, be it against Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc - but that has nothing to do with religion itself. Christians have killed way more people in the name of religion than Muslims ever have.

AGG

"Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed. The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great's army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism. Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia. The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school."

Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

Congrats to Christians!

Your religion has killed fewer people than the Muslim religion!



That's definitely something to hang your hat on.

We use several human cell lines in the lab with a complete human genome. Most came from a cancerous tumor. Am I committing murder when I put them in the autoclave?

(really didn't want to get into this discussion but I hate the human genome argument)

Tabby,
I have not breached into the logic of killing or committing murder. Don't intend to.

We were discussing whether a human cell, that is ALIVE and healthy (not a defective cell), COMPLETE at the moment of conception or incomplete. I stand by what You quoted

I understand. Perhaps it's my profession but it bugs me when the human genome argument is given. Lots of living cells have a complete human genome. It doesn't make them a human. Human, yes, *A* human, no.

a fetus is not just living cells. It is a growing human being....leave it in place and that will be proven. look at an aborted baby...it is clearly just a young child...even at 10 weeks.

It may bug you, but

When a human sperm and egg come together ~ it has everything it will ever need to develope into exactly what it is designed for. A human being. And from that moment it WILL remain COMPLETELY alive until it dies.

It's easy to make flippant comments. But, I'm just curious, what exactly is YOUR faith or belief?

No problem with this argument at all. Just making the point about the human genome/DNA thing which happens to get under my skin.

consider the source TST...you will be running in circles with this one.

My belief? I have no spiritual beliefs. I have never seen a single shred of convincing evidence that any god has ever existed.

I am not so mesmerized by the complexity of nature that I think, "This MUST'VE been created by God... just LOOK at it!"

I think that religion has only existed throughout the millenia to explain things that humans couldn't understand at the time.

When the sun was being worshipped, nobody knew that it was a ball of superheated gas 93 million miles away. Now that we know exactly what it is, it would seem silly to worship it as a supreme being.

These days, two of the big questions we don't know the answers to are "How did the universe come into being?" and "What happens to us after we die?"

Fortunately for modern-day religions, we will likely never have definitive, fact-based answers for those questions.

I simply have never had a use for religion, personally.

So I assume from this comment you are an atheist. So, Why attack those who may be theistic with flippant comments?




But from this comment I assume you are just against religion. An anti-theist. Or maybe an agnostic.


Can you give me a little more clarity.

Atheism is a belief system.

I'm not sure what I am....

I don't think there have ever been any gods, and really, I don't care if there were. I'm completely apathetic when it comes to "is there or isn't there a God?"

I do think organized religion (all of them) is a load of manure.

What I hear you saying is you're a "live and let live" kinda guy. But.......
Saying you don't care or that you are completely apathetic is completely inconsistent with your flippant anti-theist comments.
If you didn't care then comments about God whould never ever ever bother you. And it's apparent to me that is not the case.




So are you saying YOU are incomplete but alive?

So again, why attack those who ARE sure about what they believe in if it doesn't matter to you?

No more so than you would be in amputating an arm or a leg, removing an appendix or a spleen.

They are not the same thing, and you know it.

So why do you bring up such a ludicrous example?

Or are you using several human cell lines to create human Clones?

Whether or not you personally hate what you call the "human genome argument," the FACT remains that it is the fertilized egg that is the repository of the complete human genome of a new individual human, and it begins to grow according to that information into an adult specimen of a human...human in all stages of development. It would seem from your comment that you should KNOW that too.

I understand your position Krazy.

But in the interest of "fairness," let me ask you to "explain the un-understandable" from a humanist standpoint as you see it.

HOW DID self-replicating life come into being by entirely natural and random processes when such an "feat" is prohibited by Science?

It is no more ludicrous than saying a fetus is a human simply because it possesses a complete set of human DNA. I'm not saying a fetus isn't human. I'm just saying this is not the reason and it bugs me when it is used as an argument. It's a faulty argument.

And no, I'm not making human clones.

Say what?

Crystalline compounds replicate themselves all the time. They even grow. But they're not alive (at least by our definition).

Organic compounds are much more complex than inorganic compounds (typically). But it isn't much of a stretch 2 pos2late that living organic material developed from self-replicating organic compounds.

But that's an "origins" question, not an "evolution" issue.

-ol' 2long

So science is the lynchpin by which you rule out evolution, yet you claim science is a bunch of bunk.

Of course it is "more ludicrous" to say your example is more so when you attempt to equate differentiated cells to a fertilized ovum. NO cell other than a fertilzed ovum WILL develop into a full grown human being, but the ovum will because that is what it is designed to do.

If there is a "faulty argument" here, it is your attempt to equate such "lines" with a fertilized and developing egg. Yes, they both contain the entire genetic code within each cell in the body, whether that "body" is the single celled egg that is beginning to develop a new human being or whether that "body" is skin cell, a heart muscle cell, etc.

But it is something entirely more "ludicrous" to try to argue that autoclaving the cells you are working on is the same thing as killing a developing human being.



Whew! I am relieved, because then you would be autoclaving a person. :MrEEk:

Selah.



-ol' 2long

Hey, if they don't turn the heat on in here soon I will be autoclaving a person - myself!!!!!

No, rprynne, I "rule out" evolution because God has clearly revealed the truth that HE Created.

But when someone wants to play the game of "debunking" Creation as a "myth" as to the origin of life, I am comfortable enough with Science to talk to them on their level regarding their FAITH in Science and their FAITH that life arose from non-living material according to the RULES and LAWS of that very basis in Science that they accept as "true" without any proof whatsoever.

For the record, I have NEVER stated nor claimed that SCIENCE is a "bunch of bunk." There ARE scientific theories that I think are a bunch of bunk, as well as the INTERPRETATIONS of data that many scienTISTS bring to the table as they attempt to PROVE that no God created anything and that everything can be "accounted for" simply by an appeal to "natural processes."

But are YOU saying that science CAN prove that life came into being FROM non-life, if you think what I said was a "Bunch of Bunk?" If so, I really would be most interested in seeing that data.

I will tell you what I have found. "Evolutionists" HATE to address the issue of ORIGINS and want to avoid it, claiming that evolution ONLY applies to living organisms AFTER they somehow mysteriously came into being.

Furthermore, there is NO evidence anywhere in the world of Macroevolution, while there ARE Scientific LAWS that prevent such a thing from happening.

Evolution is adhered to on the basis of FAITH, not fact.

However, if will take the two theories, evolutionism and creationism, you will find that Creation theory more closely predicts what HAS BEEN found in nature and does not any of the "twisting" of data that evolutionism needs. In addition, evolutionism has no know way to account for the required INCREASE in informtion that is REQUIRED by higher and more complex forms of life. WHERE exactly did that information, that is vital and essential, come from? It DID NOT exist in the "lower" form of life, so where DID it come from and HOW did it "get into" the lower form of life in order to allow it to "change" into a completely different type of life, more complex than its "predecessor"?

Awwww, don't go autoclaving yourself.

Just pop some towels in the autoclave and warm them up. They make nice wraps to take the chill away.

Sounds cozy! Except if I do that everyone will want some!!! Then again, our autoclave is big enough to set up a card table and chairs. Maybe we'll move the lunch room into there!

I see. So you refuse to consider any other theories or hypothesis that entertain the possibility that God did not create? The reverse of what you said here?





I am not offering my opinion either way. I don't think you would be interested in seeing any data. (which is not a statement to imply I have such data.) You have already established that unless it supports what has been clearly revealed to you, then you will refute the data. If you know you will refute the data, it establishes that you have a bias (similar to the bias you ascribe to the Scientists you despise).


I must have misintrepreted you. Then there is science you agree with and science you don't. Is the demarcation line of those two groups defined by your understanding of scripture? i.e. its good science until conflicts with your religious beliefs?


And if this were true, do you think it conveys more information about the correctness of either theorey or more information about the complexity of the theories? To match with creation, it just needs to exist. The bar is set a little higher for evolution theories.

WOW! That is a BIG, dang autoclave!! :MrEEk:

I've never seen one that big. Just the little ones.

Oh, and BTW...slight t/j here...I don't know where that thread is anymore and I didn't have an opportunity to reply to you there, Tabby, but yes! It would be groovy if we could exchange information so we can go head to head in Word Twist!!

Look out! Ha-cha-cha!!

Charlotte

How do we do that? Can the moderators do that for us?

You each must e-mail justuss and give permission to exchange.

Thank you, tst!

Charlotte

Okay, your turn. Unless you beat me to the punch! LOL!!

Charlotte

Alright, I sent one!

Not at all, rprynne. I consider all theories and evaluate them. There was a time in my life when I accepted evolutionary theory simply because the "authority figure" of my professors "said THAT was how things got here."

After becoming a Christian, I "had to" examine BOTH theories, both of which "make sense" to the "believers" in each form of faith. The reason for that is very simple, there ARE only TWO possible ways that everything got here, especially how LIFE "got here," and ONLY TWO WAYS.

The DATA (the universe, the planet, the living things on the planet, etc.) are all the same and are NEUTRAL. It is the interpretation of that data that is open to differences of opinion.

But here's one very good starting point of anyone who might be interested in examining the claims of both theories: which model of origins (creation or evolutio) BEST predicts what is actually found without the need to manipulate the data? In other words, IF "A" is true, then what SHOULD be seen and what actually has been seen? If "B" is true, then what SHOULD be seen and what actually has been seen?




rprynne, you are making assumptions about me (my interest in seeing any data) that are groundless and false.

And I have never said that I don't have a "bias" that I would also bring to the interpretation of data. But I RECOGNIZE that bias and will NOT "reject" data that seems to contradict or be questionable toward the MODEL of origins that I DO support.

The same cannot be said for the "mainstream evolutionary scientists." They WILL NOT consider anything other than evolution and an evolutionary FAITH the rejects ANY possibility that any "Supreme Being" might actually HAVE "created."

In fact, they will quite often accuse scientists who DO believe in God and creation as being, at best, "pseudoscientists." They will often ask pejorative questions such as "what peer reviewed articles have they published?" That sort of question may "sound good," until one finds that those same dogmatic believers in evolutions CONTROL the journals and WILL NOT publish anything from anyone who might dare to present anything supportive of creation.

In addition, you might want to look at what the evolutionist zealots do to scientists/teachers in "their" institutions who might make the terrible mistake of admitting that they believe in God and creation.




No, rprynne. "Good science" has nothing to do with it. "Good science" is neutral, as I said earlier. It is the interpretions, the hypotheses, the theories, etc. that come from studying the data that form "good" or "bad" with respect to their claim for their opinion to BE "good science."

Many things in "science" are NOT opposed to God or creation, simply because they were established by God as the way that the universe operates. An example of those sorts of things are the various LAWS of science, i.e. the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Biogenetic Law, etc.




No, the bar is not set a little higher for evolutionary theories.

If I tell you that the sky is blue and you wanted to say that the sky is "not blue" but some other color, then it would be incumbent upon you to PROVE that the sky is "not blue," even if it turns out that the sky is a different color than what you thought it was. The DATA (the blue sky) is available to everyone to see and evaluate for themselves, but they are willing to "see what the 'non-blue-sky' scientist has as supportive PROOF for an obvious 'opposite' belief in the color of the sky, regardless of how the sky 'got there' in the first place.

Consider for a minute the "diveristy of life" issue. For a creationist the reason and the "how" of that diveristy (not the "how was it done") of the diversity of life is BECAUSE that was God's purpose and design, and He CREATED all life according to that purpose and design. In short, the diverity of life is a result of the PURPOSEFUL acts of a Living, Thinking, Being who ACTED according to His will and plan.

Contrast that with the evolutionary "explanations" for the diveristy of life and HOW supposed "evolutionary ideas" accounts for the increase in complexity and the diversity of life.

To paraphrase and use a statement from a movie that many might know, "Show Me The Money!" Not ONE proof has been offered by evolutionist. All that is offered is a dogmatic BELIEF that evolution and natural process are all that there IS.

The "latest" attempt at proof of this sort has been the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium," invented out of thin air with precisely NO proof of the validity of the hypothesis, yet the "scientist" who made up that idea is celebrated withing evolutionary circles as a "Great Scientist." Phooey.

rprynne, THE underlying theory of evolution is the idea of Uniformitarianism, without which evolution will have a very hard time proving anything. Yet today, even more and more "evolutionist scientists" are moving away from Uniformitarianism as more and more data has become available to show it to be a "false" theory.

The theory, from the beginning of time, is that God created. Virtually ALL of the "founding fathers of Science" believed in God and creation, but that did NOT stop them from trying to learn HOW things operate according to the rules that God has established. There was, if you will, no denial of the existence of "electricty" as the motive force behind the actual working of the engine, but they wanted to know how the parts of the engine were put together, how it worked, why it worked, what it was designed to do, etc. But they did NOT deny the real existence of the "electicity," without which all they would be examaning would be a useless lump of whatever.

Now, if I want to argue that GOD created life according to His design and His purpose FOR life, and an evolutionist wants to say "no, life came about by some big cosmic accident of natural forces and not by the creative will of some living being," then it is INCUMBENT upon that evolutionist to PROVE their theory. And a believer in creation can also examine the claims of the evolutionist and examine whatever "data" they want to submit as "proof" of the correctness of their evolutiary claim.

That is NOT "setting the bar higher." That is just standard requirements for evaluation all theories and models. It holds "evolutionary theory" to the same standard of proof as creation theory is held to by evolutionists.

When it comes to the issue of ORIGINS, evolutionists DO NOT want to address HOW life began because the "origin of life" is NOT something that can be duplicated. On the contrary, EVERYTHING that Science knows about life PRECLUDES life forming from anything other than PREEXISTING life (as in a living God created life). Hence the Biogenetic Law that "Life begets Life," and it rejects spontaneous generation of life from non-life.

The constant refrain from evolutionists is along the lines of "well given enough TIME, and the presence of the chemicals that were themselves not created but always there, RANDOM CHANCE AND PROBABILITY alone makes it CERTAIN that the 'right combination of needed chemicals FOR life to exist WILL OCCUR."

In other words, they lean on Probability Statistics to "prove" that evolutionary theory is correct so that they can "gloss over" the question of ORIGINS. Then they try to limit their concept of "evolution" to "just" AFTER life already exists and then begins to "evolve" into more complex and higher forms of life.

At every turn, evolutionists choose to IGNORE data that conflicts with their theories and only "consider" data that supports their preconceived rejection of creation and supplanting of creation with evolution as THE "answer." Sometimes supporters of evolution have even tried to "invent" data to "prove" evolution. "Piltdown Man" would be one example.

Then there would be pigs tooth that was used in the Scopes trial, yet claimed to be a human tooth.

Deception has occurred several times on the evolutionist front, but to my knowledge has never occurred on the creationist side of the issue.

If you'd like another evolutionary "puzzle" to consider, consider the extinct "missing link" from fish and gills to land animals and lung breathing called the Coelocanth. This extinct "lung fish" was touted as a missing link (from the fossilzed remains found) as "proof" of an evolutionary step (or missing link, if you will). Imagine the "problem" that developed when the Coelocanth was found to be alive and well TODAY, some millions of years AFTER it was supposed to have "appropriately and beneficially to evolutionary theory" gone extinct and become only a fossilized specimen?

The fish is no different from the fossilized remains. It is STILL a Coeloncath today, "millions of years later," and it has far outlived its "evolutionary" niche and right to exist other than as some fossils in some rocks somewhere.

True.

Nor will they publish anything supportive of a geocentric cosmology.


And what the Catholics did to the infidels who dared to suggest a heliocentric cosmology.

Fair enough. Then is it safe to assume that you have rejected all parts of evolutionary theorey? Natural Selection, random genetic mutation, long time scales, etc.? I would find rejecting them all as indictive of not truly evaluating them. However, I would imagine that you would describe that as just a function of the fact that they are false. Are their parts of evolutionary theorey you have evaluated and concluded that they are valid? Even close to valid?


Its not that creation theorey fits what is observed, it is the fact that anything that can be observed will fit for a creation theorey.


Perhaps false. I will reserve judgement on whether they are groundless. I assumed you would not be interested in the data because I suspect that you have no choice but to reject it, and thus little interest in "false" data.


And what makes them "mainstream evolutionary scientists"? If they have considered that a "Supreme Being" created and rejected it based on their intrepretation of the data, do you lump them into that group. Or will you tell me no such scientists exist, for proof of considering this lies only in them accepting it?


This is not an answer to my question. I asked you if your intrepretation of scripture defines your opinion of science?


Sure sounds to me like you are saying the bar is higher, your are just saying it is due to a "primacy" issue. Because the creation theorey came first it is incumbent on scientists to proove evolution?


This is not true, many scientists, including evolutionists are attempting to address how life began. Google Abiogenesis. You phrase it this way to imply that they are terrified to pull back the curtain, which is not correct. They just haven't solved it. One can argue that because they haven't solved it, a solution does not exist, or the solution is creation, or its only a matter of time.


You are awfully dismissive of randomness. Its a bit more powerful than you might imagine. Ever play around with a Monte Carlo simulator?


I'm sure that deception has occurred. Some mistakes have also probably occurred. But is this deception proof of anything other than the fact that scientists seek fame and fortune as much as anyone else?

Okay, rprynne, I'll play your game for a little while to see just what it is you are arguing FOR rather than against.

Then is it safe to assume that you have rejected all parts of evolutionary theorey?

I guess about the same as all believers in natural process alone being able to explain where everything, especially life itself, came from. I guess that would make us about equal, eh?


Natural Selection, random genetic mutation, long time scales, etc.? I would find rejecting them all as indictive of not truly evaluating them.

Natural selection occurs.

Random genetic mutation occurs.

Long time scales? Define "long time" if you would. And while you are at it, what importance do you place on whatever "long time scale" you mean, and just how long IS that time scale?


However, I would imagine that you would describe that as just a function of the fact that they are false. Are their parts of evolutionary theorey you have evaluated and concluded that they are valid? Even close to valid?

I have evaluated all parts of evolutionary theory and have found evidence for none of it in the form of any proof. What has been found is proof that evolution is incorrect as a theory to explain what IS there.

However, I guess the sort of answer you might be looking at is Darwin's statement of what really caused HIM to think his theory of evolution (natural selection) might NOT be correct. That issue STILL causes insurmountable problems for evolutionists and is not likely to "go away." Part of the issue of "proving" a theory is in the "falsifying" of the theory. In other words, finding something that invalidates the theory, and in the case of evolution, finding something that "should not be" if evolution is true rather than false.

In the final analysis, rprynne, advocates of evolution do so because they don't want to admit to, let alone accept, the existence of a Supreme Being.

And there's the "rub, too. To sum it up, what is faced here is the reality of TRUTH. To put it succinctly;

1. Creation is correct

2. Evolution is correct

3. Both "could be" false (though everyone would be hard pressed to come up with a 3rd possibility that makes sense), but both CANNOT be true.

If Creation is correct, evolution CANNOT also be true.
If Evolution is true, Creation cannot also be true (my apologies to the folks who want to try to blend the two with God "kick starting" everything but then letting random chance take over and create life or not create life)



That's not how predictive models work, rprynne. The model predicts what should be seen if the model is correct BEFORE the data is evaluated.

However, what you are describing IS precisely how evolutionists use data to support the theory of Evolution. They simply reject any data that would conflict with the theory. That is NOT how one proves a theory, by getting rid of "troublesome data." But evolutionists do that all the time.



Please don't take this the wrong way, rpynne, but I really don't care what judgment you might come to of me.

Your assumption, again, is incorrect. I frequently look at the data. But let's be precise here. I DO NOT reject "data." I reject some interpretations of some data. Evolutionists, on the other hand, most often DO reject ANY interpretation of data that might suggest, let alone support, Creation and the Creation Model.



rpyrnne, you are playing games, either consciously or unconsciously. Show me ONE believer in the evolutionary theory who also believes that God created everything according to His will. Understand the distinction please. I did NOT say "scientists," I said "evolutionary scientists." There ARE MANY scientists who also believe in God and Creation.


You are asking the same sort of question as, if you'll allow me to make a couple of substitutions in the wording of your quote: "do you believe that...

And what makes them "mainstream atheists"? If they have considered that a "Supreme Being" exists and rejected it based on their intrepretation of the data, do you lump them into that group. Or will you tell me no such atheists exist, for proof of considering this lies only in them accepting it?

Rprynne, they can believe whatever they want to believe. But they CANNOT be intellectually honest and say that a THEORY is the same thing as PROOF. The belief in evolution is a FAITH, not a proven scientific fact. The belief in creation is a FAITH, not a proven scientific fact. They both form "MODELS" of origins and attempt to "explain" how everything that is seen actually "got here." The MODELS set up predictions of what Should Be seen if that given model is accurate, and the actual data should "fit" a given Model with little, if any, need to "manipulate the data."



No. Does that answer your question?

Now, does your interpretation of science define your opinion of Scripture?




Again, no, prynne. I thought the "blue sky" answer might be more understandable to you. Obviously I was wrong. Let me expand on that a little and then tie it directly to the question of evolution.

The sky IS blue. Everyone can see the blue sky no matter where they are on the Earth. Along comes "Darwin" and he says, "no, the sky is not blue, it is magenta. He says that everyone else's sight is faulty and the TRUE color of sky is magenta, because that is what HE sees through HIS eyes.

Now, let's focus on the aspect of evolution that restricts itself to "just" living organisms. There is a PLETHORA of life forms, from the microscopic to very large living animals to even larger extinct animals.

Along comes "Darwin" and he says, "No, God didn't create all KINDS of living things, they evolved. What proof do I have of that claim? NONE, but it just seems to "make sense."

Ever since then, evolutionists have been trying to prove that ANY macroevolution actually has taken place, is taking place, or will take place, because they SHOULD if evolution is true. To date, there have LOTS of failed attempts, but NOT ONE example of proof. ALL that is "offered as proof" are the opinions (interpretations) by PRO-Evolution scientists of the Data, and a rejection by those same scientists of ANY opinion (interpretation) of the same data that would suggest evolution is wrong or that creation is correct.



If you want to discuss Abiogenesis, we can.

However, the "salient point" is that NO attempt to "recreate" the so-called original conditions (ala the primordial 'soup') has been able to result in ANY success, let alone the actual creation of life.

Maybe what I'll do for you is to spend a little time on this issue and your "appeal" to "it just needs time." You might find it interesting, if not revealing.



No I have not. But I can imagine quite a bit, and have, when it comes to this "life from non-life" issue that is CRITICAL to evolutionary theory.

I guess I will have to spend some time "on the numbers," it would seem.


Now, let me ask you a question in return. Are you familiar with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Biogenetic Law, and Information Theory? If so, how does evolution "get around" these absolutes "killers" of the theory? (and yes, I already know the standard answers and the flaws inherent in those answers, but I want to know your level of underestanding of what you are advocating for).




I guess your suggestion as to their motivation is as good as any reason. However, when that false data is USED by 'serious scientists and people' to "PROVE" that evolution is correct and that creation is wrong, then there IS deception of great magnitude. Mistakes are one thing, but there is a deliberate and pervasive attempt by evolutionist of deny even the discussion of, let alone the consideration of, the Creation Theory. They will have nothing to do with anything that remotely suggests that there IS a "Being" out there that is vastly superior to Man and that Mankind IS NO ACCIDENT of nature.

Actually, it sounds a lot like "I was for the war before I was against the war, and I really don't think the war is 'just' even though I said it was previously."

Now, in the case of the Scopes trial, the ENTIRE case was built on a pigs tooth, the "misinterpretative mistakes of the scientists," and the INTENT to "do in the teaching of creation."

As in the case of DNA exhonorating a killer, the TRUTH about the evidence present SHOULD, wouldn't you think, DEMAND a reversal of the court's decision and the restoration of the teaching of creation theory AT LEAST alongside of the teaching or evolution theory?


Evolution, reprynne is a FAITH SYSTEM masquerading as "science."
Creationism is also a faith system, which evolutionist are "quick to point out" while adamantly denying that evolution is also a faith system and NOT a proven fact.

Both, imho opinion should be taught as models of origins with science as a tool to see the strengths and weakness of each model, without the prejudicial bias of evolutionists controling what is, and what is not, taught to "young skulls full of mush."

Thank you for proving my point, Jayne.

They won't publish anything they don't agree with because they see themselves as the only "holders of THE truth," proven or otherwise.


But here's an interesting question for you to play with:

If a line is of infinite length, can any point along that line be correctly referred to as the "center point?"

What about in a universe of infinite size?

Where IS the center of the universe?



I'm sorry Jayne, I thought we were discussing current events and current Science. If you want to talk about History, we can can that. We can talk about all sorts of things, but they are not relevant to the discussion of Evolution.

I'm not arguing for or against anything. I originally posed a question about using science theories created by scientists as support of the corruptness of scientists and their theories.


I find these statements curious. How do you reconcile randomness which is generally by nature not directed, nor purposeful, with creation?


Long enough to allow natural selection and random genetic mutation to account for the diversity of life, as defined by the evolution theories. i.e. earth billions of years old vs several thousand.


I understand predictive models. You are asking me to compare models and I am saying one model is constrained and the other is not, and that has more to do with the "fit" than the "correctness" of the models. Is there anything that a creation model can tell me can not exist?


I don't take it the wrong way. FWIW, it was not meant to be a judgement of you, it was a judgement about your interests in the data. Which I suppose can be viewed as the same thing, but anyway, I mean no offense.


I'm not playing games. I am poking at why you claim to be an open minded person who has reviewed data and its intrepretations on both sides of the debate and have landed on the side of creation, yet seem to imply that the only way anyone could have done the same things and landed on the side of evolution is if they are corrupt.


No.


No, the color of the sky is not the question, it is why is it that color. Darwin observed the diversity of life, (as did everyone else), and asked what could explain all this diversity.


I might. I'm always willing to listen.


Maybe not the numbers. Look up "Black Swans"


I have only a basic understanding of those things. I am not advocating one theorey or the other. I have never made up my mind about it either way.

I am always perplexed on this board why so much is taken as adversarial. I'm sure you are more learned in scripture than I will over be. Probably more learned in science. I just was asking about what appeared to me to be flawed logic.

I hate to derail this thread by getting back to the topic of the OP, but I can't think where else to post this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/05/boxoffice.ap/index.html

In comparison, the movie "Expelled" on its opening weekend earned
$2,970,848 in 1,052 theaters, for an average of $2,824 per screen.

It's usually because someone is not clear about what they are asking or what their intentions are.

The appearance of "flawed logic" is usually in the mind of someone who is making conclusions without adequate facts or knowledge about the subject or the position of someone else.



May I suggest that you try being a bit more forthright in your questions and why you are asking something, rather than appearing to play the "gadfly" and appearing to "question" one view while appearing to support the opposing view.



Yes, you are playing games. I never said anyone was "corrupt," you did. That's what I mean by you are playing games. Instead of asking WHY someone believes what they believe, you jump to conclusions that are erroneous and are not, it would appear, at all serious about why someone would choose Creationism or Evolutionism. No, you'd rather play "gadfly" and beat around the bush to get to whatever it is you want rather than ask sincere questions, especially if you DON'T know and if "I have never made up my mind about it either way" is actually true.


So let's give it one more try:

This question indicates a lack of understanding on your part of what you were asking, or at the very least a lack of specificity in your question.

You ASSUME, in the way this question is worded, that "randomness which is generally by nature not directed," and my answer that "yes, there are random mutations in nature" MEANS that those mutations WILL result in a different "KIND" of organisn (on the level of created KINDS), or if you prefer, more complex and completely different types of life than the original organism that had a mutation in its genetic code.

But that is NOT what I said. Random mutations DO occur, but they detrimental to the organism and cause a LOSS of information, not a GAIN of information, as would be needed to "evolve" into something entirely different.

Random mutations are part of the Law of Entropy, if you will, that states things go from a state of organization to a state of less organization, NOT the other way around.

"How do you reconcile randomness which is generally by nature not directed, nor purposeful, with creation?"

To answer your question directly, I don't reconcile it with creation. I reconcile it with natural processes that operate according to the rules established by God at creation, or to be more precise, after the FALL when the whole of creation became corrupted by sin. That is one of the reasons for the existence of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.


As for "natural selection," it too occurs, but it occurs within the given species. Two quick examples:

First the a moth population can go from predominantly white to predominantly black because predators EAT the more easily seen white specimens, leaving the black population to survive and predomintate. However, both color possibilities are ALREADY PRESENT in the genes and it is still a moth.

Second, Stapholococcus Aureas is normally killed by Methocillin. However, Methocillin resistant Staph has become a problem because the susceptible strain has been killed off, leaving the "super bug" MRSA (Methocillin Resistant Staph Aur.)

That is a big problem in a lot of hospitals today. But the "bug" is STILL Staph, not something else.




Okay, since you didn't give a specific and just used a general time of "billions of years," I will assume that you are referring to the general estimates by evolutionary scientists of the age of the universe as the "base line" for the timeframe in which evolution is allowed to occur. Unless you object, that is the baseline I will use for the "time" component of the equations.



I differ with your suggestion of "constraints," as evolution has some VERY BIG constraints in it by virtue OF the theory itself, and God is NOT "constrained" in what he can do. Think of it this way, if you will. A monkey is "constrained" by his innate abilities so that if you sit the monkey down at a keyboard and tell it to compose the Gettysburg Address, you will wait a very long time before you finally realize it CANNOT do that. YOU, on the other do not have that constraint, and YOU do have the ability to write the Gettysburg Address. In that sense, you may also see a little of the meaning that "Man is created in the image of God" WITH the ability to think, reason, and create according to his purpose, just as God created according to His purpose. But unlike God, WE are constrained by the limits of our physical world and universe to the Physical Laws established by God.

But constraints or not is irrelevant to the Evolution Theory, even though the proponents of evolution often go to great lengths to try to circumvent the restraints (i.e. their plea to an "Open System" as a way to try to get around the Laws of Thermodynamics). They confuse "availability of energy" with "useful work" of that energy and they do so on purpose because the Laws are FATAL to evolution unless they can find some "exception" that will allow them to continue to believe in evolution.


Okay, for having said that, let's return to your previous question;

I have "landed" on the side of Creation BECAUSE God clearly revealed to us that HE CREATED all things.

Evolutionists say, "no, no God created anything, it all just came about by accident, with no purpose or intent, it just happened naturally."

The PHYSICAL World exists, and exists as DATA.

That is also where you seem to have gotten "off track" in your concept of a "predictions" by the two "Models" of origins.



Precisely. I'm glad to see you are understanding that basic point. But the "why" is also something you have to careful about. In the example of the "blue sky" and that most people "see" the sky as Blue, the question arises WHY the "other guy" sees the same expanse as "Magenta" instead of Blue?

Think about the possible "why's." Remember, despite what others think or say, HE is convinced that the sky really is as he perceives it...magenta, not blue. Therefore all those who believe the sky to be blue are WRONG, isn't that right?

From HIS perspective, it's not possible for the sky to actually BE blue, but that doesn't change the FACT that the sky IS blue, even though he can't see the color blue.

And that is also the condition of Man, as a result of Fall of Man and the corrupting of creation as a result of the Fall.

Were it NOT for the fact that God chose to reveal to us HOW things came into being, we wouldn't really know.


But Sin also causes Man to rebell against God and to refuse to accept even His very existence. But that position does nothing to alter the REALITY of God, nor the reality of the fact that HE created everything ON PURPOSE, by DESIGN, and for HIS purposes.

By FIRST denying God, second by denying God AS Creator, and third by seeing and acknowledging that the universe and the vast variety of life that does exist ON EARTH, they are left with ONLY one alternative to Creation by a Living, Purposeful, God. They are left with natual processes and evolution as the ONLY way that things COULD have gotten here.

In short, they ASSUME evolution is correct and then set about showing how everything MUST fit within the framework of an Evoltionary Model.

I am interested in the DATA, because the data is the same regardless of whether or not someone believes in Creation or Evolution. I am also interested in how the data is explained, especially data that is used to give evolutionists an "excuse" to teach evolution as a FACT and not as a theory.



No, why don't you tell me why you think "Black Swans" are relevant to the discussion or how they apply to either Creation or Evolution.

Are you, in fact, arguing through the "Black Swan" idea that "Hopeful Monsters" suddenly appeared, to buttress the idea that evolution is correct?


It's getting late and I'm admittedly rather tired. So I'll wait until later to get to some of the "numbers" and difficulties with evolution, if that is okay with you.

Oh, that was FUNNY!!!!



And...GOOD for Bill Maher!! Right on!! WOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Charlotte

**edit**

I say that for Christians to have any credibility, they must believe the entire Bible literally. Word-for-word.

You shouldn't get to pick and choose what parts are literal, and what parts are metaphoric. If certain parts of the Bible are just too far-fetched for your liking, find a new religion. Those are the words of God, and you write them off as a metaphor? God didn't say anything about metaphors.

The people who take the Bible literally are the ones who think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that people shared the Earth with dinosaurs.

**edit**

Who decided what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts are not?

What if the story of Noah's Ark is literal, and the story of Jesus' crucifixtion is only a metaphor?

consider the source.

**EDIT**

no, actually it is just an expression of not respecting you or your words on matters of faith or morality.

Logical fallacy:
Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

My post is not directed to FH ... A List Of Fallacious Arguments is a site I often visit:

link


This site is wonderful when deciphering politicians ...

Please keep it respectful or this thread will be locked. Religious bashing and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

The prophecies are generally written in code, but the key is there, too. The prohecies of Daniel and Revelation both use the same code, and are the key to each other. The angel clearly told Daniel that the four beasts coming out of the sea represented four kings, for example. They were not literal monsters, but described very accurately the literal kingdoms they portrayed. (Daniel 7) Same thing with the image of Daniel 2. The image was a symbol, and the angel gave Daniel the literal interpretation of it.

When speaking to the crowds, Jesus spoke ONLY in parables. (Matthew 13:34-35) Parables are not literal, but are stories that may or may not be true, and contain a deeper (spiritual) significance. The spiritual meaning is to be taken literally, but the parables themselves were not.

Those are the only exceptions. The Bible makes very clear the few times the meaning goes beyond literal to a deep apiritual understanding. It also provides all the tools necessary to understand the symbolic portions in a literal sense.

All other parts, including creation, are intended to be taken literally.

The literal creation limits God to man's constraints to time, when he iplicitly says "My time is not your time, My thoughts are not your thoughts".

A day to the Lord is as a Millinea to man.

To me, the earth is four billion years old and I can accept that.

If man were truly special, we would have a different makeup rather than DNA, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen.

Evolution and extinction go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other and we are extermination species at an alarming pace with nothing adapting to take their place.

That should pose quite a problem, considering some of the "highly unlikely" stories found in the Bible.

Either you accept those stories as fact, which even most Christians consider ridiculous, or you admit that parts of the Bible are fiction.

If some parts are fiction, any part could be fiction.

What you "say" has relevance only for yourself, Krazy. YOU do not get to place restraints on other's beliefs, especially when they DO NOT even come close to what "biblical inspiration" really means. For example, I literally believe that the Bible contains all forms of speech and that the message conveyed DOES convey the message that God inspired the authors to pen.

I DO NOT, for example, believe that God is some "big bird in the sky with wings and feathers," even though the Bible uses such a similie to describe God's care for people.




Don't be ridiculous, Krazy. But one thing the Bible DOES say very clearly is that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you WILL NOT receive forgiveness of sin and be saved. Pick and choose what you like, THAT is the primary message FROM God to all of us.



Yep, just about as crazy as people who literally take the word of some "all knowledgeable scientist" who thinks that all life came into being from non-life and who think that the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to life. They posit and think that everything happened by random chance and that time and statistical probability alone "proves" that everything evolved. No proof, just faith.



Gee....possibly scholars? Possibly the Bible itself in many places?

And who are YOU to decide that everything must be taken "literally" rather than any other way? Who made you the authority on the Bible and/or biblical interpretation?




And what if sin doesn't exist because there is no god? What if there are NO absolute standards?

But to answer your question directly, it makes no difference if the Flood and Noah's Ark are literal or not with respect to the primary issue of the Bible, the reconcilation of Man to God because of SIN.

The Bible is equally clear about your question about the crucifixion. If Jesus Christ is NOT actually, truly, really raised physcially from the dead, then all of Christianity is false. Period. On the other hand, if it is true, then all other "belief systems" are false.

Pepperband - I would not consider disagreeing with Krazy71 to be an "ad hominem" attack because HE put himself up as "the authority" on what is supposed to be "literal" with respect to the Bible.

The "burden of proof" for his claimed right to decide that issue for others falls on him.

Species cannot adapt fast enough to keep up with the destruction we wreak upon the land and their habitats.

Even on Galapagos, where species evolve at a faster rate.

Yes, we'll get them all, that will be the legacy of man and WOman. Rape and pillage the land and sea until nothing remains but you and me.

Soylent Green, anyone?

Charlotte

That's fine, Pariah, you can accept anything you want to accept.

However, you are misusing the "day/1000 years" quote and misapplying it to Creation. The words used in the Creation account are very specific and leave no room for substituting anything other than a literal "day" (24 hours or there abouts) as the delinators are clearly given (morning and evening).



Why? Why would anyone design something that does NOT use the elements already established? Are you perhaps arguing for a "silicon based" lifeform rather than a "carbon based" lifeform?

And humanity DOES have something truly special. It is created in the image of God and imbued with an everlasting Spirit, given life by the breath of God.



So much for evolution and natural selection I guess.

But you CAN have extinction without evolution.

Besides, from a humanistic perspective, who cares? The humanistic perspective (ala an atheistic belief) is a "live for today because there IS no tomorrow" sort of belief, "dead is dead and what matters is what I can get for myself in the here and now."

mmmmmm....Tasty!!! :crosseyedcrazy:

It makes no difference if God actually murdered the entire human race or not? Well, except for one "special" family, that is. It seems to me that it's extremely important whether or not the Christian God is capable of such an atrocity, or if somebody just thought the story "sounded cool".

Also, I've never understood why we are expected to make amends to our creator for our sins. Clearly we were designed to sin, if we were designed at all.

It's like replacing a tire with a wooden block, then blaming the car for the rough ride.

One more question I've never heard a really good answer to:

God was so upset with our behavior that he was ready to vanquish us again. Why does the brutal murder of Jesus change his mind about us?


Of course. That's why THAT particular story involving supernatural occurances is never regarded as a metaphor...because the entire religion is pointless if that is the case.

That's why I'm confused about why Christians are so willing to declare Noah's Ark and the story of Jonah to be metaphors. Doing so discredits the entire book, and those who authored it.

uh huh. Such as WHAT, in your opinion, are examples of what you consider to be "highly unlikely stories?"

And while you are at it, what about being "highly unlikely" equates to not being true?

It is highly unlikely that someone would survive a fall from an airplane when their parachute fails to open, but some people HAVE survived, as unlikely as it might appear to you.

That was another ad hominem attack.

Medc responded with "Consider the source".

No facts, nothing of any substance at all. Very Palin-esque.

I DID NOT put myself up as an authority on anything. I was only stating facts and asking questions. I did not say what IS or IS NOT a metaphor. I was making the point that if one part is a metaphor, any part might be.

I didn't try to decide anything for anyone, and we are not in a court of law. There is no "burden of proof". This is only a lively discussion about religion.

What would it take to prove to you (besides dying) that there is no God, no Jesus, and that the Bible is a work of fiction from cover to cover?

There was no morning and evening to begin with, just the electromagnetic spectrum of light. A 24 hour day wasn't established til later, no?

When I pull fossils that have been extinct for 250 million years out of the ground and someone says "the devil" put them there to implant doubt, they have severly miscalculated his intentions.

And again, God's time is absolutely not our time, and I for one do not confine him into a thimble just because I can't fanthom 4 billion years.


If we were created different, then we would have no room for doubt or choice. The breath of life was given to even the creeping things. We were given a soul and freedom of choice.

Even the raven cries out to God for food and the sparrow builds her nest in the temple. They KNOW their maker and he cares for them.



We are supposed to be stewards of the creation, and we are doing a poor job because many think that we are pre-forgiven. Stewardship of the creation is one of our works that will be judged by fire and a buncha people are building with stubble social climbing their way in the church.

Okay, Krazy. Let me put it this way, if you are seriously inquiring rather than just being argumentative because you really don't care about the answers to your questions, then I will attempt to dialogue with you about such answers. Otherwise, it's simply not worth the time just to indulge you in some "game" you might want to play.



Krazy, Christians DON'T consider Noah's Ark and Jonah to be metaphors. They were real, literal, events that took place. Now, if you want to "lump" some folks who might "claim" to be Christians in there as the sort of "Christians" you are referring to, I can understand your confusion.

But so true!

The entire book of Genesis and the entire book of Revelation, for starters.

Other individual stories like Noah's Ark, Jonah, the parting of the Red Sea, how the Ten Commandments came into being, the burning bush, etc.

Those are off the top of my head, and are easy to name.



One or two unlikely stories is one thing, but the Bible is full of such occuracnces. It's clear to me that at least some of them are probably fiction...or "not true".



Yeah, a tiny handful have. Probably fewer than a dozen since skydiving began.

Most of them just die on impact.

It seems that you're willing to believe the equivalent of 5 skydivers jumping out of the same plane at once, all 5 chutes failing to open, and all 5 living to talk about it.

To borrow a phrase you used with appropriate modification: very Obama-esque of you to try to deny what WAS said:


Frankly, your DID put yourself up as the authority and you DID attempt to impose your opinion on others with that statement.

That is the literal truth, not an ad hominem attack.

uh huh again. "Unlikely" to you, but not to me. That neither makes your belief nor mine true. What makes it true is God.

I HAVE seen other side and met the man himself.

NDE?

FH, I would strongly suggest that you consider the source and no longer waste your valuable time debating with those that are at best. ignorant...and at worst, evil.

There are some fools in life that think that no matter how stupid their remarks are...no matter how negative they may be about others beliefs...feel that they are due a response that addresses their idiocy. I would rather just consider the source and spend my time talking with people that have some morals.

There will always be scoffers and God haters for some reason or another.

God isn't a Pez dispenser or ATM machine that can be commanded into obedience with chants and rituals.

No, I didn't. "I say" means "I say". That doesn't mean "you should say" or "we all say". It's another way of saying "in my opinion". My only mistake was not typing "in my opinion".

How Karl Rove of you.

Another 2wit who can't pronounce "nuclear."

I don't vote for those.

-ol' 2long

I don't know how to respond to you as I absolutely trust no-one about it.

Some people would be shouting from the roof tops, but I choose to keep it to myself for some reason. I am extremely uncomfortable with details as I can't even comprehend them.

I caught a bunch of indignant reaction from "upper" church members as they thought that they "deserved" a sneak peak at the other side for being so "faithful" and I was just some schmoe that got a hole blown in him.

I feel any description or mention is boasting that I got something that someone esle didn't get.

To say the least, it was a humbling experience and quite prepared me for my divorce.

Congratulations...two of the nastiest posts (or personal attacks, if you prefer) on this entire thread...from a Christian?


My opinions make me ignorant, and possibly evil, huh? I smell insecurity and paranoia. Evil? Really?


I'm stupid and immoral, too, apparently, because I don't accept fables as fact without a single shred of decent evidence...and I don't keep quiet about it.

So, why don't you bury your head in the sand, and surround yourself with like-minded individuals who will accept everything you have to say without question?

Oh...it's not Sunday yet.

FH, you are merely being goaded into conflict so you can be labled a hypocrite.

I've seen this tactic used over and over by the other side ad naseum.

The late Joseph Campbell (author of "The Power of Myth") was a very smart man.

The Noah story is probably the most obvious example of mythology in the Bible (a monotheistic rewrite of the polytheistic Babylonian Gilgamesh flood story).

"Myth" isn't the same as "fiction". Myths exist 2 convey great truths.

-ol' 2long

I don't hate God, because I don't hate anything that I believe to be nonexistent.

I am an organized religion hater.

it's funny how neither of my posts were in reply to you. One was directed to FH the other was and addition to my own post. You seem to just figure out on your own that you fit the description I laid out.

I must admit that I once felt rather antagonistic 2ward organized religion, particularly in the several years after I quit going 2 church, about 33 years ago.

But these days, I try 2 give all of us a little credit for being down here trying 2 do our level best 2 figure our $h!+ out - we just go about it pretty differently.

I'm not anti-religion, but I don't believe in religion.

Oh, and medc: You can be moral without being religious. You can also be spiri2al without being religious (like yours truly).

-ol' 2long

A "hypocrite"? Ooooooooo......scary.

If I wanted to use that label, I could've done so many posts ago.

Why do you assume that I am goading him into conflict? He's not exactly agreeing with me, either. We are going back and forth. Nobody is goading or being goaded.


"Don't talk to him, FH! He's gonna call you a hypocrite!"

I agree 100%. Some of the best people I know have no religion in their lives. And being religious doesn't automatically give one morals either!

Since you've already replied directly to me with nearly the same response word-for-word several times on this thread alone, it wasn't too difficult to figure out.

I should add that myths 2 the Old Testament folks are like parables 2 the New Testament folks. They serve the same purpose and work the same way.

-ol' 2long

What "great truth" did the story of Noah convey?

What I get out of it is "behave or die".

I don't blame you one bit.



Understandable. Too bad, though. I would LOVE to talk about it with you.



That sucks. A similar thing happened to my grandfather when he was in the military. They told him he was "nuts." Or made him feel that way even if they didn't say it that way.



I don't think it's boasting but I'm sure some others would.



Yeah, I bet so. On both counts.

Take care,

Charlotte

FH - I could not be LESS interested in Krazy's thoughts about the Bible. I am only interested in Biblical discussions with fellow believers.

That's just me

medc - noted.

I've tried to be pretty clear.


Going to have to disagree with you here. The appearance of flawed logic is "usually" due to the existence of flawed logic.


How could I ask you any questions without you intrepretating that as supporting an opposing view? Your certainty on the subject matter would seem to require that any comment, other than compliance, to be viewed as opposition.


What word should I use. How would you define a group of people who, as you describe, present themselves as seeking the truth, yet in reality are suppressing it?


I asked a serious question. I asked how could you simultaneously use science as the crux of defeating a view and then further argue that scientists are corrupt (or insert whichever word you would like to use). You said that's not what you were doing. I asked what part of science do you agree with and if it was defined by your spirtual beliefs. You said no, that you have an open mind. I then asked multiple questions to explore how open minded you are. Additionally I asked if you feel it was possible for other people to be as open minded as you and come to a different conclusion. All the while you keep hammering on me about evolution vs. creation and for the most part I am not asking about that.


I'm pretty sure I understand what I was asking. I think you can understand that randomess is not usually the tool of directed action.

But fine, so am I to understand that you agree that some of the components of the evolution theorey are valid, but they do not come together to explain new species.


Sure.


Actually, given enough monkey's, they can compose the Gettysburg Address. War and Peace as well.


Then science has nothing to do with it?


No. The discussion was on randomness. Black Swans are a conceptual term to describe what was thought to be "tail events" typically being more common than expected. This is usually due to a failure to account for randomness or cognitive biases.

I understand, Pep. However, I am of the "school of thought" that believes the biblical directive to always stand ready to give an answer to those who might inquire as to what and why I believe, for the hope that is "within me."

I also understand that there is a difference between a sincere inquiry and "less than sincere" inquiries.

You might wanna note this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

The primary reason I try 2 keep myself away from these boards is because I agree with you that this kind of post is an ad hominem attack ***edit***

-ol' 2long

How interesting!

"Opposition" of ideas does not necessarily imply "bad" or "baiting." It can, if the disagreement is sincere, as well as the interest in discussing and evaluating being sincere, be a normal and acceptable method to consider the arguments and perhaps arrive at a "change in mind" on the part of someone.



Denial, self-interest, bias toward something that, if accepted, might well mean that they would have to change their behaviors and/or beliefs, close-minded, etc.

Not necesarily "corrupt" but unwilling to actually consider opposing viewpoints and how they might relate to the subject matter. "Arrogance" might tend to more closely describe this sort of mindset.



rprynne, if you are not asking about evolution vs. creation, then what ARE you asking? I answered your questions directly, yet it seemed insufficient for you as it related to evolution vs. creation. So needless to say, I am a bit confused by your concluding sentence in the quotation.

I believe that God created AND set the laws in place by which His Creation operates and is sustained. So where does that leave you with confusion about my position?

If by "explore how open minded you are" you mean that I might still be "sitting on the fence not having arrived at a conclusion concerning evolution or creation," then you are incorrect in your usage of the term "open-minded." I am "open minded" with respect to hearing, examining, and evaluation claims made by supporters of evolution, but that does not mean that I will simply "accept what they say" simply because some "scientist says it."



Yes, if by that you mean some things like random mutations of the genetic code. That is NOT the same thing as saying that evolution theory is valid, let alone correct. Mutations follow the Laws of Thermodynamics and do NOT confer new information. Rather, they most often destroy information that makes it less beneficial to the organism, if not fatal if the mutation is severe or critical enough.



Your really think so? On what basis? What "experiment" has proven this to be the case?




Not with respect to Creation. Science can neither explain HOW God created nor can it explain HOW life supposedly came into being WITHOUT God. It offers a theory, but no proof, and accepts that theory(that life somehow DID arise from non-life in opposition to all known scientific laws and principles) on FAITH alone, with science having nothing to do with it.




And it's not germaine to the issue of origins, especially not to the issue of the origin of life.

Here's a couple of "facts" as presented by Science. The age of the universe is estimated to be around 3 billion years old (with the supposed age of the Earth to be substantially less) and the number of electrons in the entire universe is estimated to be about 10 to the 80th power. Those two figures play a dominant role in the "randomness" argument you are are positing for the possibility of life "evolving" from non-life.

Now, to give your "Black Swan" concept and credence, it would entail the need for "random acts of creation" to be continuing rather than a "once for all time" event. GOD is capable of such a feat, since He is not limited by anything, such as in the cases of people who were resurrected from the dead (including Jesus Christ). But "natural processes" as required by evolution ARE constrained by the Laws of the physical realm, not merely by my opinion or my "mindedness."

Seems to me you might want to read that article for yourself.

Well that's one way of looking at it but I imagine that most believers view the Rainbow covenant as a message of a new hope--that when the waters receded the potential for redemption and the promise of divine beneficence remained. In secular terms, its symbolic import perhaps evidences a shift from retributive justice to restorative justice.

That's certainly one message you can get out of it, but it's not the primary message. But then you don't believe in sin, right? You don't believe in God, right? You don't believe in miracles, right? And you likely don't believe that the antedeluvian world was significantly different from the post-deluvian world, right?

Ok.

rprynne - not sure what you were "okaying" when all you said was "okay." Care to elaborate a little?

Me either.

"Nu-cu-lear," indeed! :RollieEyes:

That is the equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard for me! (Bush drives me absolutely bugnuts with that!)



Charlotte

Bugs me too. Although I must say the three syllables they use to pronounce nu-clear is no where near as troubling as their murderous pronunciation of a-bort-ion.

LOL

I think GWB's mispronouncement of that word has a mischievous intent...I think he deliberately gives his own spin to the word just to provoke pompous pundits/liberals.

FH, great posts!

I LOVE this commercial!

Spoken like a true unbeliever, 2long. From your perspective, what other possible explanation could be true?

I guess that makes sense since Fairy Tales are like facts to the Evolutionist folks, don't you think? "Make believe" masquerading as "learned scientific facts." Out of the imagination of man.... (Punctuated Equilibrium [just another attempt at the "Hopeful Monster" myth of yesteryear, but with a little lipstick on it to make it look better] masquerading as Science, for example, coming from the imaginings of a man, to "explain" why there ARE NO "missing links" and how "nature" somehow "got around" the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Information Theory problems)

Uniformitarianism....now there's a great geological/scientific myth that has been the underlying principle of evolution. Do you accept uniformitarianism or catastrophism, as a geologist, 2long? Where in the world can I go and see the entire "Geologic Column," by the way? Another fairytale I'd love to actually go and see. Also, IF the Geologic Column is true, why are some "ages" inverted in many deposits?

Referring back to the quotation, it would appear that these "myths" of uniformitarianism and the geologic column "serve the same purpose and work the same way for "true believers" in naturalism and evolution.

FH, a while back I had mentioned to you that I don't like to get into discussions about faith with those that have none and are unwilling to be open to God. In my opinion, all this debating with these people accomplishes nothing but giving them a platform to rail against Christianity. IMHO, it makes everyone involved look bad. Left to their own devices their own words will eventually show the error of their thinking.

Until the Lord touches them....until they have faith...all the arguments in the world will not convince them to believe.

Just my opinion.

And your opinion is valid, medc. Each of us is different, with different gifts as given by God. But just because we may not be "gifted" in a given area does not mean that we should NOT try to do some of the work normally thought of as being a part of that "gift." I think of the gift of evangelism, as an example. Not everyone is gifted to BE an evangelist, but we are all called TO evangelize. We follow God, HE provides the increase, we don't.

I guess I think of it sort of like any area of disagreement, say the disagreement on abortion. The same sort of thinking could apply there as well.

The "purpose" that is served, as I see it, is at least twofold.

1. That they, and any other person who might be reading but not "speaking", will KNOW that their "opinion" is not "gospel" to all people. That you DON'T have to "check your brains at the door" when you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

2. It IS up to the Lord. He tells us to be "seed planters," not harvesters. Some seed will fall on various types of ground, and only God knows for certain which type of "ground" might be reading and hearing. "Resist the devil" is a part of the mindset too, as the devil is very good at using partial truths and deception, of making things "sound good," but that are really false, in order to foster distrust of God and even rebellion from God.


On the issue of evolution, Satan simply is using his age old, tested and proven, method of deceiving people:

"God didn't REALLY mean what He SAID, did He?"

Do you believe in Satan, as he is described in the Bible?

I think you are incorrect because of the nature of the two topics.

Abortion is a legislative issue. Abortion rates can be measured and discussed with a pie chart. That makes public debate about abortion fruitful in the sense that laws can be changed or the interpretation can be changed. It is of public interest.

Faith is a miracle and a personal gift. Faith is not measurable by the government.

Yes, I believe Satan exists as a real living being

But, Krazy, I am unsure what you mean by "as he is described in the Bible". Perhaps you could tell me what you mean or what "description" you are referring to.

EGG ZAK LEE

First of all, I am not going to get into a heated debate. We've been there and done that, we're not going to change, so as long as neither of us tries to push our beliefs onto the other, we should be fine.

I was asking if you believe in Satan as an actual being...a fallen angel, etc. and not just man's dark side.

I've always been of the opinion that man doesn't require the existence of Satan to perform unspeakable acts of evil, and that chalking it up to Satan is a form of blameshifting.

In my opinion, if Satan is real but was destroyed tomorrow, mankind would still be just as "sinful" as it ever was.

Perhaps, Pep.

However, in the context of "true believers" and those motivated FOR abortion for "financial gain," I believe it is correct. They "will not" be "swayed" by any argurments that are "pro-life," as evidenced by Barak Obama and his support for infanticide as a personal and politically expedient thing to do.

Abortion is both a legislative issue as well as a moral/ethical issue. Abortion rates can be "measured" statistically, as can membership in a religious group or affiliation.

But none of that speaks to the Heart Issue.

Faith IS a miracle and a personal gift.

So is human life that abortionists kill and proponents of abortion support in denial of that great gift.

And according to the Great Commission, speaking the gospel message is also "of public interest," even though our government is trying its best to violate the "Free exercise of" clause of the First Amendment and the "Freedom of speech" clause of the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

With respect to creation and evolution, the government is doing its level best to censor all teaching (free speech and free exercise of) in the PUBLIC arena, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The teaching of Creation Theory DOES NOT "establish" a specific religion, but the prohibition of anything other than humanistic evolution DOES establish a State Religion of Atheism and Atheistic thinking.

Krazy, yes, I believe that Satan is an actual being, very powerful but not Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, etc.

Man, evolutionarily speaking, can't have a "dark side," as it's "survival of the fittest" by any means possible that the individual can use. "Good and evil" are moral concepts that are rooted in a STANDARD of what Good is, and that Standard IS God, with Satan being the Standard of what is evil.

Atheists remove both God and Satan "from the equation," and try to establish "Relative morality" in its place. The problem with that is WHO gets to determine the STANDARD by which judgments are made concerning thoughts and behaviors so as to IMPOSE on anyone other than self a determination of "Good or Bad, Sinful or not Sinful?"

In a strictly "natural world" with NO design or purpose, there can be NO absolute set of standards, not even "culturally established standards" are applicable to the whole of humanity.

NO "Group," let alone any individual, has the right to impose its will, or standards, on anyone else, because any given group IS NOT the "absolute authority" and the simultaneous STANDARD of GOOD, against which all other actions and thoughts are compared.

Since the FALL, or since the first lifeform miraculously crawled out of the ooze, take your pick, the world and the people in it have not been "perfect" and DO "fall short" of perfection.

So in that sense, the "Deed has been done and cannot be 'undone'" and I would agree with you that if Satan were blotted out from existence NOW, evil would still exist as the "basic nature of mankind."

Regardless, the issue really isn't the existence or non-existence of SATAN, but the existence of GOD.

Atheism is not a religion. Such statements are only attempts by the religious to point a finger at them and say, "See! You have faith, too!"

I would be in favor of an elective "Creationism" class in public schools, as long as every major religion's story of creation is given equal time....no special emphasis on Christianity.

You can't have one without the other. Without one of them, the other serves little to no purpose.

Do you find the fact that the fruit of the tree of knowledge was forbidden to be a little troublesome? That the pursuit of knowledge led to an everlasting punishment for all humans?

I think that the story of the snake, fruit, etc. is one of those parts of the Bible that screams "metaphor".

I think the entire story is a fancy way of saying "ignorance is bliss".

Of course you would be of that opinion, Krazy.

But the reality is that Atheism is as much a "religion" as anything else that has a "faith" in something unknown and unseen, bigger than themselves (i.e., nature and natural processes even though there is NO known way for life to have developed on its own).

Atheists are often fond of asking believers in God PROVE that there is a God. But ask an Atheist to PROVE that there is no God and all you will get is "that is just what I choose to believe, but I won't know for certain until after I die if there is a God." That is FAITH in, at best, some "cosmic force of nature" with no direction or purpose that we all just "accidentally" answer to according to the "rules" that nature somehow chose to make, but couldn't make "on purpose."

You seem to want to equate "Faith" with a faith in God (i.e. the monotheisitic God of Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and not with any other sort of faith (i.e. Animism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc.)



Okay, but let's also toss Evolution's "story of creation" in there too, no special emphasis on Humanistic/Naturalistic Evolution.

Not at all, Krazy.

But to be precise, it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The pursuit of knowledge was NOT a punishment, rather it was a gift given to Adam to "subdue the earth and all that is in it."

DISOBEDIENCE as a CHOICE was what was forbidden.

Elevating man's thoughts above God's thoughts was the problem.

That is why Satan "appealed" to them with "you shall be LIKE God." He forgot to tell them that being LIKE God is quite a bit different from BEING God.

I'm not sure additional elaboration is neccessary. I asked a question, you feel you answered it, I am saying ok.

What else can I say, what I hear is that because you believe you are right, all your arguements are fair and reasonable. When I say I don't think all your arguements are fair and reasonable, you tell me that they are, because you are right.

You are perplexed why I have an issue with that, and then you tell me that the problem with evolutionary scientists is that they do the same thing.

I don't think any further discussion is going to change that.

So..."palling around with terrorists" didn't work and now it's on to the next smear.

The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

The justification for Hudson's misleading "infanticide" charge stems from a proposed state version of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act, debated in Illinois when Obama was a state senator in 2001. The most well-publicized portion of that bill would have required that any "viable" fetus surviving a late-term abortion receive sustaining medical care (something which opponents of that bill said was already required by a 1975 bill in the state). But because Obama voted "no" in committee and "present" on the Senate floor, Hudson reasons, Obama must have been in favor of killing viable, born babies -- especially since the U.S. Congress also passed a "born alive" measure in 2002 in near unanimous fashion.

"Unlike Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to support the [2002 federal] bill," Hudson wrote earlier this year. "In fact, the bill passed the Senate 98 to 0 with pro-abortion senators like Boxer (D-CA) and Reid (D-NV) supporting it. In 2003, the bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature for the third time and directed to a committee chaired by Obama, Health and Human Services. They refused to bring the bill to a vote. Only when Obama left for Washington in 2005 did the Born Alive Infant Protection Act pass the Illinois legislature. It's for good reason Barack Obama has been called 'the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.'"

One significant problem with Hudson's logic is that it requires comparing apples to oranges. The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact. Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Illinois State Representative Rosemary Mulligan sighed when the Huffington Post told her about the "infanticide" claim currently being leveled at Obama. As a pro-choice Republican who is supporting John McCain for president but also worked with Obama back in 2001, she described the first Illinois version of the Born Alive legislation as "a very onerous bill," adding that "I think that the hardcore, hard right conservative Catholics overreach on this one."

Want2Stay

He's not that intelligent.

-ol' 2long

2funny, FH. You apparently started this post on the defensive for some reason I can't fathom. Then you dredged up an old attack of yours on evolution 2 put me on the defensive.

Nice try.

Persevere!

-ol' 2long

Rprynne - it is certainly your right to discuss or not discuss anything you wish.

And you are correct, I am not going to change my position about creation. I was an evolutionist at one point in my life and I CHOSE creation despite all of the evolutionary "training" I had received and despite all of the evolutinary "theories" that were presented as facts, by examining those theories and what was presented as "facts" that "prove" evolution.

However, as a proponent of evolution, or as one who might be "undecided" about how things actually DID get here (since we DO exist, as do all the various forms of life), it does not seem "unfair" nor "unreasonable" to ask about and examine some of the claims of evolution. That IS how learning proceeds it would seem.



"When I say I don't think all your arguements are fair and reasonable, you tell me that they are, because you are right."

A couple of points about this statement, rprynne. First, I think my arguments for creation and against evolution are fair and reasonable because I am not afraid to examine them and consider all the arguments. Second, if you don't think my arguments are "fair and reasonable," then it would seem to make sense to talk about WHY you think they are unfair or unreasonable, with whatever scientific data you wish to use as the "point" or "points" of examination by which interpretations of said data can be made. That DOES seem like a "fair and reasonable" approach, don't you think?

2long, one good "myth" idea deserves another.

I see you've answered my questions in typical evolutionist fashion, ignore the "problem areas" of evolutionary theory.

If you'll allow me to "borrow" one of your latest responsive quotes....

This particular creation vs. evolution debate centers around how life began, correct?

Because evolution after life began is scientific fact.

That's not to say "we came from monkeys", but life does evolve.

Nobody "knows" how life began. Not yet, at least. To claim to know is to claim to have access to knowledge that is, as of right now, unattainable.

This doesn't make sense. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, where is there room for Satan?


Sounds metaphorical, and so far as this goes, I can accept it. I just don't think the metaphors are necessary, and when you set them aside or look in2 their meanings (like looking in2 the meanings behind the literal wordings of myths and parables), it is just as valid 2 describe this "evil" as "man's dark side" as it is 2 name it Satan.


Don't hurt yourself worrying about this, FH. I don't, and I doubt Krazy does either. But I'll let him speak for himself. Morality IS relative, but it's developed over hundreds of thousands of years (at least) as humanity evolved as a species and formed communities.


Not sure I follow you on this one. There certainly are absolutes in the na2ral world.


Then what purpose is served by naming it Satan?


Really?

-ol' 2long

Or 2 quote a statement that WAT found a few years ago:

"Arguing that atheism is a religion is like arguing that not collecting stamps is a hobby."


I would 2, but I would insist that the "Origin of Species" be put in the Bible, right after the first chapter of Genesis.

-ol' 2long

A holy book inspired by a deity that reveals the truth and commands proper behavior does not exist within a vacuum. In fact, there are many conflicting claims of revelation and an appeal to divine law often has contradictory results. History is replete w/ examples of intolerance and persecution by one faith against another all supported by an appeal to divine law.

In addition, if one particular G-d (the right G-d) is the true dispenser of morality but there are still millions of people behaving morally under the influence or commands of the wrong G-d--than perhaps belief in the "right G-d is not so critical when it comes to moral conduct. Finally, non-theists have shown themselves to be just as capable of moral behavior as theists (the Buddhists are an example).

I follow you on most of the first 2 sentences above, but you lost me after that. Carl Sagan (and many other non-theistic people) said once that he can't prove that there is no god, and so he must not be a true atheist. But that didn't mean that he believed there is a god. When he knew he was dying, during an interview he also said, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Like most other people, I would like 2 believe that consciousness continues after we die, but as a scientist I can see no evidence that this is anything more than wishful thinking." 2 me, and maybe I'm unjustly putting words in2 Sagan's mouth, this is a profoundly spiri2al statement, as well as an objectively scientific one.

-ol' 2long

Want2Stay - "palling around with terrorists" doesn't come close to the monumental lack of judgment that Barak Obama has SHOWN throughout his life as being HIS biggest problem. Ignore it as you like, but it WILL become very evident even if he should become the President and can no longer "hide" from making the "tough decisions."


But since you are "carrying Obama's water" on his PRO-abortion at any cost position, here's a little something concerning the REAL issue....the difference in the Federal legislation and the Illiniois legislation was not the wording...it was Barak Obama and his REFUSAL to add the federal words to the Illinois bill.



http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm#

Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act

by Jill Stanek, guest reporter

He often stood alone as an Illinois lawmaker in opposition to protections for babies who survived abortion.

Note: This report first appeared in the April issue of Citizen magazine.

On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”
There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.
With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.


First encounter

An Illinois lawmaker offered the first draft of the state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion — viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived — in a utility room to die.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Patrick O’Malley of Oak Lawn defined “born alive” using language identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who in turn drafted wording developed by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955:
The term “born alive,” with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Obama questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.
Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted “present” — neither “yes” nor “no,” but merely “present” — on the state Senate floor, one of many “present” votes that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama.


Constitutional blindness

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both schools are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country.

But Obama revealed his constitutional blind spot in his book The Audacity of Hope:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

… (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration — that we are born [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will — is one that every American understands.

Note Obama’s choice of the word “born” over the word “created.” Perhaps that helps explain his support for unrestricted abortion. Also note that our "bundle of rights” can be “taken away” with “just cause.”

Obama clearly considers abortion a “just cause.” Here is how he argued against Born Alive during Illinois Senate debate in 2001:
… I just want to suggest … that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — child, a 9-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The legislation passed the Senate but did not survive in the House.

When Rep. O’Malley reintroduced Born Alive and its companion bills in 2002, they headed again to the same committee, where Obama rewrote history:

"Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year, and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Of course, Obama had not agreed with me the year before, and I was the one who had told him about the Comfort Room, which the hospital created in response to my testimony: "We now have this prettily wallpapered room. … There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death."
The hospital made live birth abortions look nicer, but the end result was still dead babies.

“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that,” Obama concluded, and voted “no” in committee again.

The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the sole speaker against it, claiming that it would impose a “burden” on physicians:

[T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus.


Troubled conscience?

Democrats won control of the state Senate in November 2002, and when Born Alive was reintroduced for the third time in 2003, it was directed to the Obama-chaired, infamously liberal Health and Human Services Committee, where he simply refused to call it for a vote.

By this time Obama was running for U.S. Senate. He won his primary in March 2004, and Republicans recruited former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who lived in Maryland, to oppose him. It was Obama’s position against Born Alive that persuaded Keyes to run, as he stated in his announcement speech:

"When I was first approached about this possibility… I have to say that my reaction was negative…. What finally caught my eye, however… what finally arrested my attention and forced me to consider whether I not only had the opportunity to oppose him, but the obligation… was when I learned that (Obama) had actually, in April 2002, apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live birth abortions in the state of Illinois … .

"We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive — is out of the womb, breathing and living on its own — and he cast a vote against the idea that we should not stand by and let that child die!"

This was why Keyes alleged during their campaign that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, as he explained in an interview with an NBC affiliate:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. … Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama later admitted Keyes’ comment “nagged” him and has written or spoke about it several times, although he always misrepresents Keyes’ rationale as being about abortion support when it was specifically about infanticide support. In a July 2006 opinion piece in USA Today, restated later in The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote:

If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Obama’s faith has come into question on the campaign trail. Accused of being a Muslim, he’s insisted that he’s “rooted in the Christian tradition” and has a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” In fact, Obama has attended the largest church in one of America’s most stridently pro-abortion denominations — the United Church of Christ — for 20 years. His church, Trinity, is located just five miles from Christ Hospital. Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, served on the board of Christ Hospital’s health care system.

It’s ironic in the extreme that the most determined opponents of preborn life — and even those who are born — embrace the name of the One who caused John the Baptist to leap in his mother’s womb.
Jill Stanek writes a weekly column for WorldNetDaily.com and is a pro-life speaker and blogger.

(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

Is it? By what proof do you think it's a FACT rather than an opinion?

Right along side of us and the rest of the angels, 2long, I thought you of all people would know that.

We've been here before 2, FH.

I'm not Krazy, but the correct answer - a very small but significant part of it - is:

The stratigraphic record.

-ol' 2long

I've heard that before, and it still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If God and his creation is all that there is, then there is either no Satan, or God is evil as well as good.

-ol' 2long

You mean those natural world absolutes such as the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics and that Life CANNOT arise from non-life?

I guess I would agree with you there.

But if you mean something in the natural world such as a lion killing and eating a zebra as being "evil" or "immoral," I disagree. Those sorts of value judgments are strictly HUMAN in nature. The question is "what values" and "why should any of them apply to everyone else rather than just to myself by my own choosing?"

Yes, as Satan is himself a created being and not God.

Suffice it to say that brother Carl now knows THE truth, both spiritually and objectively.

May he toast evenly, eternally.


Allow me to try to clear up some of your confusion after the first 2 sentences....try belief in natural forces and laws. That there is no rhyme or reason why we exist, we only exist as some great accident of nature and have no inherent purpose for our existence.

Okay.

I don't think it's possible 2 find common ground here. Please don't take that as an insult, it isn't meant that way. Just an observation.

Got work 2 do.

-ol' 2long

2long, you are an intelligent man and I don't believe for one minute that you don't understand.

And you also know that the creation of the angels predates the creation of mankind.

Understood. And I don't take offense.

Likewise for my observations.

One simple example is that for the most part, our wisdom teeth no longer fit into our jaws.

This is likely due to a change in diet over the millenia.

With an all-powerful God and a Bible that is at least partially open to interpretation, it's not difficult to make the claim that God started it all, put evolution in place, and let it run its course.

Is that not what you believe?

OMG! That is hilARious!!!!!

Well then someone better tell Obama's campaign manager to quit "smearing" Obama b/c he described Obama's relationship w/ Ayers as "friendly".

BTW: CNN aired a segment last night that shows Obama has lied about his connection w/ Ayers.

LINK

No Krazy, that is not what I believe.

But are you saying that you believe God DID create? If so, at what point do you think He stopped creating according to His will and let 'random chance' determine if He got or didn't get what He intended?

MrsZonie, I hope you're still around.

Here's a great review of the movie...

Maherly Fair
The Religulous parade.

By Mark Hemingway

Bill Maher has built a career at the nexus of Hollywood and D.C. (or Hollywood for ugly people, as Rush Limbaugh famously calls it) by convincing an audience that quick-witted retorts about contentious and complex debates are somehow indicative of high-level discourse. But you could say the same of most cable-news shows these days, so in some respects it’s hard to hate Maher as a player any more than the game.

Still, it’s never taken much to scratch the surface of Maher’s glib opinions to expose the underlying dermatitis of vanity, egoism, and even outright hostility. Maher apparently thinks he doesn’t show enough of these unflattering traits when he discusses politics; that’s just about the only conceivable reason someone of his temperament would make a documentary about religion.

And thus was born Religulous. It’s hard to pin down where Maher falls along the atheist-to-agnostic spectrum, except to say he’s an avowed opponent of organized religion, which he has described as a “neurological disorder.” (Maher serves on the board of Sam Harris’s Reason Project with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, which directly links him with the three biggest atheist intellectuals in the world.)

Of course, Bill Maher is also on the board of PETA, thinks milk is poisonous, and has stated that he doesn’t believe in vaccination or that Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of disease is correct. So while he may not believe in God, the idea that Bill Maher is somehow in a position to judge whose beliefs are reasonable is kind of laughable.

Particularly when Maher thinks he knows so much more about the target of his opprobrium than he actually does. He makes his first mistake in the first line of the movie by referring to the “Book of Revelations” — it’s not plural — and it just snowballs from there.

Within a few minutes Maher is denying not just the divinity of Jesus Christ but his actual historical existence, a question disputed by almost no credible scholar. You can argue that it is difficult to believe in Jesus’s existence considering that primary records for his existence are recorded by only a precious few devoted disciples who recorded his allegorical teachings in detail as well as the social unrest they inspired. Then again, if that’s the standard – you probably don’t believe Socrates either.

Still, Maher isn’t exactly on solid ground in questioning what he sees as the more fantastical elements of Christianity. Maher asserts that there are a slew of uncanny similarities between Mithraism and the worship of the Egyptian god Horus, on one hand, and Christianity, on the other, and that these beliefs, which predate Christianity, were bastardized to make up the foundations of the new religion. Here too he falls flat on his face; at best there are some commonalities (present among nearly all religions), and most of the specific similarities asserted in the film, e.g., that Jesus, Mithras, and Horus were all the product of virgin births, come from dubious sources.

The example of the virgin birth is particularly telling because Maher makes much hay of the fact that only two of the four Gospels mention the circumstances of Jesus’s birth. That others would omit this important fact is somehow proof that they were making it up. Well, Mithras was born out of rock (and the earliest known account of his origins seems to postdate the writing of the Gospels), and Horus was conceived by his mother Isis with a golden penis which may make her not quite a virgin? For the Gospel writers to ignore the virgin birth is no more strange than for a comedian to ignore the existence of the penis and all of the potential for hilarity it presents. Unfortunately, Maher ignores it because it doesn’t make his case. And again, we’re just getting started dissecting the facts in Maher’s documentary.

Fortunately for Maher, he doesn’t spend the bulk of the documentary making a factual case against Christianity. He spends a lot of the time traveling and interviewing various religious believers. These interactions are at times amusing and revealing, but say absolutely nothing about the film’s central contention — religion is bad.

That’s because Maher doesn’t confront one serious theologian or apologetics expert in the entire film. Not one. Faith is by its very nature something that’s intangible — difficult to explain or justify rationally — and as such, there is plenty of fertile ground for disagreement and argumentation for a nonbeliever like Maher.

And yet, Christian apologetics is perhaps the most studied subject in human history and because Maher’s critique seems to rest solely on sarcasm and snappy comebacks, it’s hard not to imagine that just about any serious scholar of Christianity would have eaten his lunch.

Instead, the film is a seemingly endless parade of believers who are from marginal sects, easily mocked, radical in their beliefs, just plain crazy, or some combination thereof. And it’s true that many featured in the film, such as a former soul singer turned prosperity-gospel preacher, an anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew who supports Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda (a crazy cultist who claims he actually is Jesus), don’t come off well. But it’s far from clear that Maher’s examples are representative of anything important: Using Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda to discredit religion is like citing John Wayne Gacy to prove that all children’s entertainers are sinister.

But oddly, Maher can’t even be fair to those believers who are obviously crazy. The editing of interviews is awfully suspect and punctuated with sarcastic subtitles and cutaways to various pop-culture references to make snide points. The film was directed by Larry Charles of Borat fame; that’s about all you need to know in determining whether the film was ultimately fair to its subjects. (At one point the film presents a cartoon about Mormon beliefs almost as if it’s Sunday-school material — when it is in fact from a notorious anti-Mormon film.) The film closes with a (literally) apocalyptic montage to make its point about where religion is leading us.

Of course, Maher never pauses to consider what heading in the direction of an irreligious society might mean. If you apply Maher’s logic, one could note that Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were far and away the most murderous tyrants in history and their societies were correspondingly totalitarian and hostile to religion. Nor does he contemplate or address in any meaningful way the societal good religion is responsible for, as anyone who has ever had need of a hospital can testify to.

I’m sure Maher would agree that the fact that Stalin was a fellow anti-religionist says little about his own beliefs. It’s a simple concession, but one that would seriously undermine the whole premise of Religulous. In the end, the only religious views that the viewer comes to understand are Bill Maher’s. And whatever Maher does believe, fairness and shared understanding are not a part of it.



LINK

I wish both campaigns would stop with the slime attacks under the guise of "it shows poor judgment"...

I would have greater respect for a candidate who focused on issues instead of trying to make himself look better by making the other guy look worse. I know, wishful thinking...

AGG

I don't beleive he created the world, but even if he did & created evolution, that wouldn't mean it was "random chance".

There can't be random anything if he's omniscient, including the exercise of free will. Sure, you might think you're making your own choice, but God already knew what you'd do since the beginning of time.

Then you'll probably love this too!

Especially when the tape gets to 4:44. LOL

Krazy, think about what you are saying here. If you eliminate random chance, you eliminate evolution, because one of the fundamental tenets of evolution IS random chance, not directed purpose, and no "design" by any "designer."

If God created "evolution" to operate according His design, it would no longer BE "random chance," it would proceed according to His design, according to His "blueprints" and no variation from that plan would be allowed, like the building of a skyscraper from the architectural plans, and the bringing together of all the right parts, in the right order, right?

As for God's omniscience, you seem to be confusion "all knowing" with lack of free will, which is not the same thing. Knowing what will happen is NOT the same thing as saying, in effect, that God directs all choices. Think about it this way, though it may be an inadequate analogy. Suppose you had watched a movie and you knew how it began, progressed, and ended. Then suppose you were able to go back to when the idea for the movie was just a thought in the producer's mind. The movie was "already done" in your mind, but in the mind of the producer, director, screenwriter, actors, etc. it was a "work in progress" with many choices to be made. Yet they all were made you DID know the movie "before" they had the "finished product."

Now think of time as God knows time if you can....eternal, with no beginning and no end. But for us there IS a beginning and an end to "this movie" that we are in. The "next movie" we star in is also known to God and it will have a beginning, but no end.


Free will is the gift that God gave us, and it carries with it the possibility that we will choose "against" God. That is the same way that God created the angels, and Satan(Lucifer), and Adam and Eve. Some of the angels and Adam and Eve "chose poorly."

You might also benefit a little from studying what the parable of the "Wheat and Tares" is all about, especially as it pertains to those who ARE His in Christ and those who are not.

McCain focused on the issues...but only because he didn't have the stones to say to Obama's face what he and Palin have said on the campaign trail. Coward.

SHOCKing.

Actually considering the man has proved his mettle over years I would suggest that you once again are clueless. One of the roles of the VP pick in an election is to do the dirty work...Joe Biden has the same role. Candidates try to remain as "presidential" as possible and above fray.

It's not as though McCain has acted like a huge coward in the past and now hides behind a keyboard acting all tough.

I totally agree GG. I HAD a lot of respect for John McCain until last week. Once he attached his name to the latest round of attack ads he lost mine. It shows his true lack of CHARACTER that he would stoop so low to win the Presidency. Simply because his campaign is behind. He wants to be President so bad that he would do nearly ANYTHING to get it. Too bad it's not going to work. He will always be McFairage, McWarmonger, McBush and it's career politicians like himself that have broken our government.

I'm Want2Stay and I approved this message.

Don't be so hard on yourself...you don't come across as tough.

I would respond to you...but I am in shock right now. How about we just couch this discussion.

Nice try! (pats the Trig on the head)

"Straight talker" :RollieEyes:

Hey all!

I found a really cool site that has all the candidates information nicely summarized with links to full quotes by each person.

Barack Obama

John McCain

Want2Stay

I don't know many parents that would appreciate their minor having a surgery and then not being informed about it.

Joe Biden and Barak talk tough on crime...the FOP has strongly endorsed McCain/Palin.

Healthcare is a RIGHT. Wow...give everyone...even if they choose NOT to work something for nothing.









He's got some good stuff in there...but this stuff stands out to me.

Medc,


I agree with most of what you said. There are concerns, but I do not think that John McCain would serve us any better. Something that bugs me to death is John McCain continually touting "preconditions" to entering into talks with Iran. Claiming that entering negotiations would legitimize the Iranian beliefs of Israel. He even made a video explaining his idea of "preconditions."

Iranian Preconditions

I think that is a total cop out. The Iranian government already has those beliefs whether we talk to them or not. They are aggressively seeking to build a nuclear missile and treating them like a child and basically saying "I'm not talking to you unless you meet my demands" is insane. I think entering negotiations and making it perfectly clear that 10 minutes after they level an attack against Israel, we would in turn make Tehran the largest parking lot in the world, may just shut them up.

Want2Stay

I will check out the link. BUT, I understand that McCain has only said that PRESIDENTIAL talks should not be held without preconditions...and I agree 100%. I have not heard him say that diplomatic talks should not take place...in fact, I have heard him say the opposite.

Obama now has adopted McCain's position after realizing he misspoke about HIS sitting down with these leaders without conditions.


as for the link...it is stupid! BUT, Iran should have been bombed already(although perhaps not by the US) and thankfully Israel will NOT allow these people to develop a nuclear weapon.

A President does not have to sit with another leader to make this clear. I would make the statement....and then suggest that when they back off of their "destroy Israel" stance, we will have something to talk about. Until then, there is no reason to give that nut-job an audience.....much less let him come into our country and spout his rhetoric.

Presidential talks are NEVER undertaken without preconditions. Obama's position that he would do so was absolutely unheard of.

Summit meetings are risky things to hold in the first place, from a diplomatic standpoint. There is a reason we have ambassadors and embassies and Secretaries of State, after all.

When the President of the United States meets with another nation's leader, it DOES legitimize that leader in the eyes of the world. Even though the US is a superpower, when the President meets with the leader of another country, they do so as equals, and in this sense some of the "prestige" of the United States is conferred upon the leader he meets with. Prestige is a very important quality in international relations, and has a lot to do with the perceived legitimacy of a government.

Most Presidents also are very careful about who they meet with for the simple fact that meeting the wrong person would be unwise, politically. A photograph of a US President embracing (or even shaking hands with) someone like Pol Pot, Idi Amin or Adolf Hitler would be political dynamite in the hands of the opposition.

Obama was ignorant of both of these considerations when he made that promise to meet with Ahmedinijad "without preconditions". That doesn't say much for his judgement, in my opinion.

[quote] [Obama was ignorant of both of these considerations when he made that promise to meet with Ahmedinijad "without preconditions". That doesn't say much for his judgement, in my opinion./quote]

agreed.

The Obama Campaign has tried to mislead Americans into believing that Obama never said he would meet with Ahmadinejad, which is a lie. Here is video of Obama himself in September 2007 clearly stating he believed there was nothing wrong with negotiating with Ahmadinejad. Obama even called him by name.

"Would you be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea without preconditions?"

Here is Obama's response on 2007 SC CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate (23-Jul-2007):

Ah, the sound of desperation.

Yep!!

They now have Cindy, the OW, throwing mud at Obama.. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel....LMAO...

AGG

Thanks. I cringe every time I see the candidates (or their surrogates) throw mud. It is so unbecoming and unpresidential, and just worsens my opinion of whoever is doing the slinging. Oddly, both McCain and Obama look uncomfortable doing it, but I guess their advisers keep telling them "sling sling sling"... .

AGG

I agree with everything he said.

Not talking to our "enemies" is foolish.

You can always invade them without just cause after talks break down.

see, the problem with the Obama crowd is, you can't state facts...like Biden's opinion of both Obama and McCain without them whining like a bunch a 9 year old girls. It's either a racial issue or "swift boat" politics.
How about ...it's the fact.

Ayers is a HUGE problem...and it SHOULD be pointed out.

Biden's opinion of Obama IS relevant...as are his stated views that McCain would be a very good president. Joe Biden said that.

But in typical liberal fashion...it's time to whine when the facts come out. It's a vast right wing conspiracy.

Even Obama doesn't stand by the comments he made about sitting down with the presidents of those nations. Even he now knows it was a STUPID thing to say.

Indeed

Have you heard about Raila Odinga yet?

LINK

Whining?

Why would liberals be whining?

The scoreboard says Obama is winning handily, late in the fourth quarter.

Ayers isn't a problem at all. Why would it be? Hilary already tried to make it a problem and failed, months ago.

Todd Palin...now THAT could be a problem for McCain, if the Obama campaign needed the ammo.

That music was SCARY!

And the desperation builds...

that's all liberals do...heck, you have it down to a science....so, pull up your big girl panties and at least educate yourself. Then vote your conscience.

It's called 'winning', not 'whining'.

My conscience tells me that every American is morally obligated to vote for the candidate that is least like GWB, who will likely go down in history as the most incompetent AND the most corrupt President in US history.

Because he s a self admitted domestic terrorist. it's a shame that pansies like you can't figure that is not a good associate for a president.

Please pass on what you have on Palin. I would slam her too. I just think our politicians should NOT be associating with people that have tried to harm our country.

Todd Palin believes in Alaska's secession from the United States. I'm leaving the office in a minute, but it's easy to look up.

I agree that politicians shouldn't associate with such people. Obviously, we should never provide people like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban with weapons...

oops...

I agree 100% about not arming any of those idiots.

I do not equate a person belonging to a group that wants to secede from the US with terrorism. I draw the line at bombing places and physically hurting others.

I would wish to have PA secede from the US if this country does not change its course. I would not bomb anyone to achieve that goal.

As our federal government grows and becomes more corrupt, I wonder if we wouldn't be a bit better off splitting off into more "like minded" countries. Our government wastes so much money and is so very corrupt, perhaps starting over is a good thing.

The demoncrats already tried that war back in the 1800's.

Well, that's what we have a State Department for.

Having the President of the United States sit down with tin-pot dictators and avowed enemies of country... THAT is foolish. That's what you have diplomats for. When they promise to abide by the rules of the civilized world, and establish a little bit of a track record in doing so... THEN the President can meet with them.

Let me ask you this... when you go to buy a car... do you sit down and talk to the owner of the dealership directly? Do you negotiate the price of the car with the owner, or with the general manager?

NO - you talk to a salesman. The salesman goes back with your offer and talks with the general manager, then comes back with a counter-offer. Once you have it negotiated down, he goes back to the general manager for final approval. But at any time, he could come back and say the GM won't go for that. He can come back with a counter-offer.

You know the salesman really wants to put you in that car, and he's really fighting hard to get you the best price. It's just that the manager won't approve it. But the salesman fought hard and how about this compromise price? It's pretty close to what you wanted.

Do you think they are really haggling over the price in there? No - they're sharing a cup of coffee and just hanging out long enough so that it looks like they are discussing something. But the salesman can give the impression he is on your side, and the manager, who ultimately approves or denies the price, is someone you don't see directly.

The exact same principle applies in international relations. If you meet the president, you can make a demand and put him on the spot. That can be embarrassing. That's what we have diplomats for, to negotiate the details.

Obama doesn't know enough about international relations to have realized how foolish he sounded when he made that statement.

Barack Obama 87.4% (134,094 votes)
John McCain 12.6% (19,310 votes)

http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/

CC,

The "I need to talk to the boss" tactic is just that...a tactic.

The salesmen tries to make the buyer feel as if he is on their side. "It's us against HIM."

They TEACH that tactic.

The idea is to make the customer think that the salesman is actually going out on a limb for his benefit. The really successful ones will make a great show of it by going into the boss' office and having the boss jump up, shout, slam his fist on the desk and then the salesman comes scurrying out looking like the dog that just got kicked and says "I might get fired over this yet, but let me show you what I told the boss..."

Just thought people should know that it really is something that car dealers teach their employees.

If the salesman says "I can't make that kind of deal. I need to talk to the boss." Just say "OH. I'm sorry. I thought you were authorized to make a deal and negotiate with me in good faith. I guess I'll have to call sometime tomorrow and make an appointment to talk to the boss, since he's the one who has to make the deal and I know he must be too busy right now." Then walk...

Bet you don't get to your car before they hunt you down.

I does tend to weed out the riff-raff...

BTW, the same tactic by you usually gets you the best price on almost anything. But you have to be willing to walk away from it and not buy it. Can't be married to it if you want the best deal...


As for the election...

Can we get a box that says "None of the above?"


Mark

Exactly! But it's a tactic that works... which is why they all do it.

Same principle in International Relations. If the president personally met with every tin-pot dictator, without preconditions, we'd be giving up a HUGE amount of leverage over their behavior. They'd have no incentive to conform to standards of decent behavior.

Remember... a visit from the President of the United States is a big deal. A lot of prestige is on the line. A dictator who meets with the President will use that to bolster his own legitimacy in the eyes of his subjects. It will help bolster his legitimacy in the eyes of his neighbors, too.

And they can use the meeting to make demands... and in these kind of summit meetings, the President can be put on the spot, and into an awkward situation. He cannot play for time, or promise to see what the boss says. He'll be pressured to give a yes or no answer right then and there.

Even under the best of circumstances such a summit meeting or head of state meeting with a friendly nation, there is plenty of opportunity for diplomatic incidents and inadvertant insults.

Works the other way, too. If the President of the United States meets with a foreign leader and makes demands, he can end up putting the other leader on the spot, in an awkward situation, pressured to say yes or no. That can end up restricting the range of options available to the president.

In any situation we want the widest range of options available. We don't just want "peace" and "war". We want to be able to apply sanctions, to restrict trade, to loosen trade, to encourage or discourage investments or cultural exchanges, to lodge formal protests, to granting or withholding foreign aid. Not every difference of opinion between nations merits going to war.

Summit meetings, though, can push the other side to respond in ways that they would not have through careful and patient negotiation, and we could end up having no other option than to go to war.


As tempting as it would be... (I, too, don't like either one) no, we can't... We get the choice we get...

Okay, you offer up as "proof" of evolution the stratigraphic record, also known as the "geologic column."

No time right now, but thank you for listing what you call a "very small but significant part of it (facts upon which the THEORY of evolution are supposedly based).

And yes, you and I have "been here before," too, 2long.

And I also vividly remember you stating uncategorically that no person who believes in creation can BE a scientist, regardless of any degrees that they might hold.

I also acknowledge that you are a Ph.D in Geology and I am a lowly Biology graduate. There is, though, it would seem, a marked difference between inorganic rocks and living organisms, especially with respect to what it TAKES to actually have a living organism. So from that perspective, I will "bow" to your expertise in inorganic matters, but will reserve the right to not always accept your interpretions of rocks and/or geologic formations as "unquestionable gospel." I hope that doesn't offend you, because it's not meant to offend, just to continue the "age old tradition" of scientific inquiry and examination.

I will come back to the "column" issue when I have some more time, because, obviously, I do NOT consider it to be any sort of "proof" for evolution, and I think I can show that fairly easily, at least for those who are not dogmatic believers in evolution.

MEDC, you may need to "get real" here.

Liberals DO NOT think, they emote. They do not look at things logically, they think with their emotions and ACT on their emotions, just like another "crowd" of folks we are very familiar with on MB.

There is not one "logical" reason to vote for Obama, and even he knows it. That is why he is following the "personality" over substance and experience route.

So let's "get real" here. All liberals can do is the equivalent of the "falling on the floor laughing my butt off" EMOTICONS.

EMOTIONS, not truth and logic prevail. AND THAT, sadly, is also easily seen by what Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of the liberals in Congress did with Fannie and Freddie just to make votes for themselves by making a bunch of "unqualified" loans that now, the responsible people of America are going to have to PAY FOR, not those who don't pay anyway.

Liberals, especially in this election, are following the 60's mantra if "if it feels good, do it!" and that's how they are approaching the vote for President. There has never been a more UNQUALIFIED candidate for President than Barak Obama.

And he supports Sharia Law in Kenya, by the way. Just look at Odinga and Barak's HUGE support for him as Barak tried to interfere in Kenyan politics. (Stand by for more news on that shortly).

Change?

That has been Barak's answer to everything, but NO specifics. When he DOES touch on anything close to specifics, it's always Socialistic and anti-American freedom and against this nation being anything other than subservient to the rest of the world.

He IS reckless and so far left he has EARNED that position and should NEVER be anywhere close to being responsible for the Constitutional defense of this country.

This man is the closest thing I've seen to an "anti-Christ" personality wherein he is able to get people to think that HE is the answer to all of their problems and he is their "Savior" while hiding his true positions. Yet his positions DO peek through, and his RECORD shows exactly what Barak actually BELIEVES and how he WILL ACT once he HAS the actual power, especially if he gets a "veto proof" Congress to follow in jack-boot lock-step with him.

Barak Obama WILL usher in "change," and it will destroy our freedoms and may destroy the nation as the "Home OF the free and the home of the BRAVE." Barak IS, as he has said, a "Citizen of the World," not a citizen of the USA, except in so far as he can make the USA subservient to the "World."

But as bad as that is, consider what will happen if Barak is the President AND the Congress is "filibuster proof" and firmly in the grasp of Harry and Nancy? "The war is lost" WILL "come home to roost" and America will be lost.

Freedom is not Free. They've never learned that primary lesson.

hmmmm...you know what Krazy?

I might just move to Alaska if Barak gets in and join such a movement, if one exists, or start one if one really doesn't exist.

Think of it. The nation of Alaska, exporting oil and gas to a liberal Obama who doesn't think we need to do anything but "inflate our car tires and that will offset the oil need."

Instead of sand and camels, Alaska could have cold and moose and caribou. Tourism could be another big draw. Heck, let the price of oil skyrocket, it would just increase the value in the new Eskimo dollar.

And THAT should be enough for anyone who loves this country to NEVER let Barak anywhere near the Oval Office.

Big BAD USA. They SHOULD be just as poverty stricken as the rest of the world and they should have to do what the rest of the world wants them to do. Freedom? That's just for fools and idealists. The REAL WORLD is "do what I want you to do, believe what I want you believe, or I WILL kill you and intimidate the rest of the fools that think freedom IS free."

Just about as likely as we can get a box that says; "The Affair didn't happen and we can just NOT have to do any hard work to fix our problems."

By the way, just how successful IS negotiating with someone who IS out to destroy your marriage despite their claims that it "just feels right to take what is yours" Besides, the kids will never be affected anyway, right?" How about with someone who is out to destroy the "American way of life?"

But then, "exposing" Obama for who he really is and what he really thinks is "just not fair!" One would think that the liberals on MB would be just as much in favor of the OM or OW getting their way because no one "should" be allowed to judge their beliefs and actions. After all, THEY are "happy" with what they want for YOUR marriage.

Time for a little emotion....

That's about as unpatriotic as it gets. The leader of Todd Palin's favorite movement has openly advocated violence in order to successfully secede.


Talk about needing to educate yourself...did you watch either debate? Have you ever actually heard Obama speak?

During the debate Tuesday, he avocated more drilling for oil, as well as more nuclear power, wind, solar, and biofuels. Both candidates stated repeatedly the need to achieve energy independence a.s.a.p.

Maybe if you stopped getting all of your information from Fox News, you would be a little more educated on the issue.

Xenophobic much?

You really DO like ad homimen attacks don't you, Krazy?

What an ignorant, sweeping generalization of about half of all Americans.

Yeah, and conservatives are a bunch of racist rednecks who, even when they do try to think logically, do so on a 2nd grade level. They'd rather vote for someone they can have a beer with than someone who is actually able to be a decent president. That's why Bush was elected TWICE.


McCain is an even more erratic version of George W. Bush. He knows little about the economy. Even in the area of foreign policy, which is supposed to be McCain's strong suit, it is not apparent that he has any more experience than Obama, other than his age.

His running mate, the Barratuna, has not made a single substantive statement since she was picked by McCain's handlers.


I use those because you can't hear me laughing through a computer screen at some of your ridiculous assertions.


Maybe if Republicans weren't so anti-regulation, the problem could've been fixed during the many years they controlled Congress...6 years of which they even had a Republican President who was signing everything they put on his desk.


Nobody is "qualified" to be President, except for ex-Presidents. There is no position that can adequately prepare you for the job before you get there. It's a one-of-a-kind gig.

If qualifications are a big deal, then why did McCryptkeeper pick Palin as his running mate?


Swiftboat 2, only even more pathetic. Any new "facts" that come out about Obama this close to the election should be viewed in the most cynical light. The GOP has been digging for dirt on Obama since he announced his candidacy, and 3 weeks before the election they finally found it! What a coincidence!


You are either lying through your teeth, or you're not paying attention to what's going on around you. The McCain campaign completely lacks substance...they are too busy slinging mud to bother with foolishness like real issues.


Can I use my laughing emoticon now?


Antichrist? Savior?

You'd better get back in touch with your logic...sounds like your emotions are taking over!

As far as a veto-proof Congress...Dubya had that for 6 years. We've seen how that worked out.


There isn't a single shred of credible evidence to back that up.


You talk of liberals using emotions to make important decisions, yet your post is brimming over with FEAR. FEAR without just cause. FEAR of someone who isn't like you occupying the White House. America will be lost?? Stop being such a drama queen. America isn't going anywhere, so long as we can keep incompetent, backwards conservatives out of power.


The military hasn't directly defended our freedom since 1945.

Everyone knows freedom isn't free. Claiming otherwise is compltetely assinine.

Oh, do you really want to talk about being "unpatriotic?"

Where, oh where, should we start to talk about this sort of nonsense?

Maybe we should begin with Biden's telling everyone that they are "unpatriotic" if they don't pay more and more taxes?

Maybe we should begin with Barak's position of negotiating on behalf of the USA without any preconditions prior to his meeting with anyone regardless of THEIR stated positions about the world in general and the USA in particular?

Maybe we should begin with Barak (and Harry Reid's) idea that the "war is lost" and we should simply pull all of our troops out of Iraq, to say nothing of Barak's steadfast refusal to ADMIT that the surge worked (as championed by McCain) and that the Iraqi government has made HUGE strides in accomplishing the "political" benchmarks that the LIBERALS established as one of their "measuring sticks" of "success" in Iraq?

Maybe we should talk about Barak's nauseating talks about wanting to help "education" and the "children" and that our educational system is broken, all the while doing NOTHING to fix or address the problem he COULD HAVE addressed in Chicago schools?




Talk about needing to educate yourself...did you watch either debate? Have you ever actually heard Obama speak?

During the debate Tuesday, he avocated more drilling for oil, as well as more nuclear power, wind, solar, and biofuels. Both candidates stated repeatedly the need to achieve energy independence a.s.a.p.

Maybe if you stopped getting all of your information from Fox News, you would be a little more educated on the issue. [/quote]

Gee, what would be better, the New York Times? CBS, NBC, ABC? How about Move On.org?

But, to your point...I HAVE educated myself about Obama's positions and have seen his "flip" in rhetoric to "make it seem like" he is favor of energy independence. His RECORD, as thin as it is, shows a decidely different REAL Obama. Just like his claim to be "pro-life" while decidely actually being "pro-infanticide" and NO restrictions of any kind on anything related to abortion.

Now, I wonder if those "Lone Stars" might want to consider joining and forming up a new nation of "Texalaska?" Think of the oil and gas they would control in the world!!!!

How do you recommend the country pay for little things like defense, education, infrastructure, and law enforcement, to name a few, without tax revenue?

When our troops are fighting a war using bolt-action rifles, remember your stance that paying taxes is not patriotic. :RollieEyes:

No. You displayed xenophobic characteristics, and I called you on it.

Hey, when the shoe fits you don't seem to like it very much.

Now tell me, Krazy, just ONE thing that Barak Obama has ACCOMPLISHED?





Right. Thank the Lord for non-elistist rednecks, clinging to their guns and religion!




Yep, all very logical and well thought out. What, exactly, does BarakO know about the ecomomy? We've certainly SEEN what the liberal Democrats, of which he is #1, THINK about economics and NOT having oversight on Fannie and Freddie, all the while they were raking in huge political contributions from Fannie and Freddie. And did I mention the Chicago Teachers Union and THEIR endorsement of Barak? Have you ever wondered WHY the CTU supports him and WHY Barak is beholden to them and WILL NOT DO anything to fix one of the most basic problems with the Chicago school system?



Laugh all you want. That's about the only argument you have in defense of Barak, because there is nothing of substance to him. Now THAT IS a joke.



Don't be ridiculous or disengenuous, Krazy. McCain tried years ago to head off this looming disaster and GUESS WHO opposed his efforts and REFUSED to have any oversight? Try getting your facts straight and not from MoveOn.org.




You are consistent, I give you that Krazy. You don't really want to consider qualifications and experience, do you?

I know, I know the liberal mantra, "asking about qualifications is just a 'smear tactic'." Obama IS the most UNVETTED candidate ever. Charm, personality, etc. etc. etc. But not ONE ounce of qualification for the Presidency beyond being a citizen.

Shoot, given your predeliction for experience, why don't we just give the Presidency to ANYONE who meets the age and citizenship minimum qualifications?




LOL!

Here comes the "swift boat" argument! Don't you dare consider the FACTS! Don't you DARE consider what the TRUTH is! Don't you DARE question anything about Barak Obama!

Just like Barney Frank was telling everyone just a month or so before the big Fannie and Freddie "meltdown" that everything was fine and no one needed to "look too closely" at what reality really was.



Think so? I'll be happy to go "toe to toe" with you on REAL issues and the lack of Barak in those areas.




Sure, go right ahead, you don't believe in God anyway, unless it's the "god" Barak. There are a lot Germans who were "enraptured" by another man of "substance" as you like to think Barak has. That man DID have his own "unspoken vision" of what he thought his country and the rest of the world should be like, just like Barak does. And the willing sheep who won't bother to look at just what the substance is, will likely follow him right over the cliff too.

Uh huh. You can hold whatever opinion you wish.

But I'd call what I said more Patriotic.

I argue for the USA ahead of the "world."

Too bad you don't see it that way, but then the liberal mindset seldom does until the "world" impinges on their OWN laps. Until then, it's someone else's problem and it's "wrong" to put "America first."

But in your 'xenophobic world' no one would HAVE the right of Free Speech anyway, right? Chop heads and "honor kill" anyone you feel has hurt your "honor," right?

Ya, the rest of the world is such a better place than America.

And while we are at it, what ever happened to all those liberal Holloywood celebs who threatened to move out of the USA if George Bush got elected? Couldn't they find any better place to live the way they want to live?

So let's put this whole Ayers controversy to rest. Here's the actual FACTS rather than the typical FoxNoise "Smear Of The Day" talking points.


Pointed out for what? If William Ayers was a part of the Obama campaign I would understand the association, but the FACT remains he is NOT. I don't deny the Ayers past is treacherous, but it was also a sign of the times during Vietnam war. The President himself has his own regrets to that era since he dodged serving in Vietnam.

Did George W Bush Dodge Serving In Vietnam?

Insisting that there is some insidious relationship between Obama and Ayers is a desperate, grasping at straws attempt to discredit a candidate. Invoking the words that Obama "palls around with terrorists" to try and sway a losing campaign. A blind man could see the pure SMEAR politics behind those accusations.

So lets look at the FACTS...

Bill Ayers and Barack Obama at one time lived in the same neighborhood in the city of Chicago, and both had worked on education reform in the state of Illinois. The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform."
How shocking that two people living in the same city and working on the same issue of "Education Reform" would meet.

Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago.

The Annenberg Challenge Project was established by right-wing REPUBLICAN pillar, Walter Annenberg. Since Annenberg selected Chicago as a recipient of the challenge grant, he must have saw merit in the initiative authored by Ayers, Hallet and Chapman.

Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."

Shame on Ayers for not wearing a flashing neon sign that said "I was once a radical anti-war activist 40 years ago. How dare Obama not run background checks on every person which he has ever been an associate. You think just maybe because Ayers was not convicted, it is likely that Obama had no idea of Ayers past actions.

The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.

Again, nothing more than the coincidence of two people being active in politics in the city which they reside.

In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate. Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers. The senator said in September 2008 that he hadn't "seen him in a year-and-a-half." In February 2008, Obama spokesman Bill Burton released a statement from the senator about the relationship between the two: "Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous." CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the non-profit projects in which the two men were involved. Internal reviews by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic "have said that their reporting doesn't support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship".

MORE PROOF...

Appearing on screen are the words "A deliberate attempt to smear Obama," attributed to The Associated Press, and the word "false," credited to a CNN report. Though the ad does not mention it, both reports refer to the claim by McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, that Obama is "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," a reference to William Ayers, a Chicago professor of education, who in the 1960s was part of a radical anti war group that set off pipe bombs in lavatories in the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.

Of Palin's charge, CNN concluded:

CNN Fact Check, Oct. 5: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the city of Chicago awarded William Ayers the "Citizen of the Year Award" in 1997 for his work on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. On a site that encourages repentance, I would say that is exactly what William Ayers has tried to do with the rest of his life. Make up for mistakes he made over 40 years ago. It's a moot point anyways because the heart of the matter is whether he and Obama are associates. Which obviously, other than the interactions of people involved in the same business, there is no ongoing relationship. The right-wing propaganda machine can try as they might to make it more than that, but it will never stick because it is completely FALSE! No more than the accusations of a desperate campaign.

Want2Stay

You just compared Obama to Hitler. 'Nuff said.

When I think of "willing sheep", I think of Christian conservatives.

Well, so much for "love thy neighbor".

I guess "love thy neighbor, as long as they are just like you" would be more accurate.

As far as the celebs, I couldn't care less. They are 0.0000001% of the population, and not worth commenting on.

Hmmm, for a second, I thought you must have been talking John and Cindy, the honorable couple of the century...

AGG

Now that's almost amusing, coming from someone who starts his posts with "you liberals do not think much"...Hypocritic perhaps?

AGG

Unfortunately, this misses the point. No one said he was a "part" of Obama's campaign. That is not the point. What has been said is that Obama has strong ties to an unrepentant domestic terrorist who brags that he "didn't do enough" in his attacks on America. That is an attitude he has TODAY. That was his attitude when he LAUNCHED Obamas political career in his living room. That was his attitude over the years they worked together on the Annenberg project.

The fact that Obama has close political affiliations with America haters like Jeremiah Wright and terrorist, Bill Ayers reveals an aspect of Obamas CHARACTER that should be taken into account.

And Obama knows this or he wouldn't have LIED and dismissed him as nothing more than "some guy who lives in my neighborhood." Dismissing this with idiotic spin like: he did the bombings when he was 8, or Ayers is not part of the campaign is not going to work on most people. It is clear they worked closely together and it is clear that Ayers HATES AMERICA and has no remorse about his terrorism. That is a SUITABLE FRIEND to Obama. We are known by the company we keep so this needs to be considered.

If those kinds of associations are OK with democrats, that is fine, but please lets not be dishonest about it and lets not dismiss it as an "mudslinging." The truth is not "mudslinging."

If John McCain hung out with David Duke of the Klan, wouldnt that be relevant information for us to consider? Of course it would.

WALL STREET JOURNAL
OPINION SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools
By STANLEY KURTZ


Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.


Bill Ayers.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

<snip>

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.



entire article

Why Won’t Obama Talk About Columbia?
The years he won’t discuss may explain the Ayers tie he keeps lying about.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Barack Obama does not want to talk about Columbia. Not even to his good friends at the New York Times, who’ve so reliably helped him bleach away his past — a past neck-deep in the hard Left radicalism he has gussied up but never abandoned.

Why? I suspect it is because Columbia would shred his thin post-partisan camouflage.

You might think the Times would be more curious. After all, the Democrats’ presidential nominee has already lied to the Gray Lady about the origins of his relationship with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Back in May, in a cheery profile of Obama’s early Chicago days, the Times claimed (emphasis is mine):

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.


Now look, anyone who gave five seconds of thought to that passage smelled a rat. Ayers and Dohrn are passionate radical activists who lived as fugitives for a decade. There’s no way they held a political coming-out party for someone who was unknown to them. Obviously, they already knew him well enough by then to feel very comfortable. They might have been sympathetic to a relative stranger, but sponsoring such a gathering in one’s living room is a strong endorsement.

And now, even the Times now knows it’s been had. In this past weekend’s transparent whitewashing of the Obama/Ayers tie, the paper claimed that the pair first met earlier in 1995, “at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper[.]” That storyline is preposterous too, but it is also a marked revision of the paper’s prior account (which, naturally, reporter Scott Shane fails to mention).

Why the change? The tacit concession was forced by Stanley Kurtz and Steve Diamond — whom the Times chooses not to acknowledge but who hover over Shane’s sunny narrative like a dark cloud.

Despite all manner of stonewalling by Obama, Ayers and their allies, these commentators have doggedly pursued information about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. That’s the $150+ million “education reform” piggy bank substantially controlled in the nineties by Ayers and Obama, who doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist radicals — radicals who, like their patrons, understood that control over our institutions, and especially our schools, was a surer and less risky way to spread their revolution than blowing up buildings and mass-murdering American soldiers. As Diamond observes, in a 2006 speech in Venezuela, with Leftist strongman Hugo Chavez looking on, Ayers exhorted: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!”

Be clear on that much: Whether clothed as a terrorist or an academic, Ayers has made abundantly clear in his public statements, both before and after he established a working relationship and mutual admiration society with Obama, that he remains a revolutionary fueled by hatred of the United States. And while Obama now ludicrously pleads ignorance about Ayers’s terrorism — the terrorism that made the unabashed Ayers an icon of the Left — understand that this rabid anti-Americanism is the common denominator running through Obama’s orbit of influences.

Yes, Ayers is blunter than Obama. As he so delicately told the Times, America makes him “want to puke.” The smoother Obama is content to say our society needs fundamental “change.” But what they’re talking about is not materially different.

Such sentiments should make Obama unelectable. So, when it comes to his own radical moorings, Obama is engaged in classic liar behavior. He changes his story as the facts change — and the burden is always on you to dig up the facts, not on him to come clean. Yesterday, asked to comment on the Ayers relationship, David Axelrod, Obama’s top political adviser, hilariously chirped, “There’s no evidence that they’re close.” Translation: Get back to us when you can prove more damaging information — until then, we don’t need to further refine our perjury.

And then Axelrod gave us still more lies: “There’s no evidence that Obama in any way subscribed to any of Ayers’ views.”

Oh yeah? Well, Mr. Axelrod, how do you explain Obama’s breathless endorsement of Ayers’s 1997 Leftist polemic on the criminal-justice system, A Kind and Just Parent? As Stanley Kurtz has recounted, Ayers’s book is a radical indictment of American society: We, not the criminals, are responsible for the violent crime that plagues our cities; even the most vicious juvenile offenders should not be tried as adults; prisons should eventually be replaced by home detention; American justice is comparable to South Africa under Apartheid. Obama’s reaction? He described the book as “a searing and timely account” — a take even the Times concedes was a “rave review.”

Obama and Ayers shared all kinds of views. That is why they worked so well together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), funding the likes of Mike Klonsky, a fellow SDS and Maoist associate of Ayers who, as Steve Diamond relates, used to host a “social justice” blog on Obama’s campaign website. With Obama heading the board of directors that approved expenditures and Ayers, the mastermind running its operational arm, hundreds of thousands of CAC dollars poured into the “Small Schools Workshop” — a project begun by Ayers and run by Klonsky to spur the revolution from the ground up.

Precisely because they shared the same views, Obama and Ayers also worked comfortably together on the board of the Woods Fund. There, they doled out thousands of dollars to Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church to promote its Marxist “black liberation theology.” Moreover, they underwrote the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by Rashid Khalidi, a top apologist for Yasser Arafat. As National Review’s David Pryce-Jones notes, Khalidi once directed WAFA, the terrorist PLO’s news agency. Then, like Ayers, he repackaged himself as an academic who rails at American policy. The AAAN, which supports driver’s licenses and public welfare benefits for illegal aliens, holds that the establishment of Israel was an illegitimate “catastrophe.”

Khalidi, who regards Israel as a “racist” “apartheid” state, supports Palestinian terror strikes against Israeli military targets. It’s little surprise that he should be such a favorite of Ayers, the terrorist for whom “racism” and “apartheid” trip off the tongue as easily as “pass the salt.”

And it’s no surprise that the like-minded Obama would be a fan. Khalidi, after all, has mastered the Arafat art of posing as a moderate before credulous Westerners while (as Martin Kramer documents) scalding America’s “Zionist lobby” when addressing Arabic audiences. The Obama who decries “bitter” Americans “cling[ing] to guns or religion” when he’s in San Francisco but morphs into a God-fearing Second Amendment enthusiast when he’s in Pennsylvania — like the Obama who pummels NAFTA before labor union supporters but has advisers quietly assure the Canadians not to worry about such campaign cant — surely appreciates the craft.

Obama and Ayers not only demonstrated their shared view of Khalidi by funding him. They also gave glowing testimonials at a farewell dinner when Khalidi left the University of Chicago for Columbia’s greener pastures. That would be the same Columbia from which Obama graduated in 1983.

Khalidi was leaving to become director of Columbia’s Middle East Institute, assuming a professorship endowed in honor of another Arafat devotee, the late Edward Said. A hero of the Left who consulted with terrorist leaders (including Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah) and was once photographed hurling rocks at Israelis from the Lebanese border, Said was exposed by researcher Justus Reid Weiner as a fraud who had created a fictional account of his childhood, the rock on which he built his Palestinian grievance mythology.

We know precious little about Obama’s Columbia years, but the Los Angeles Times has reported that he studied under Said. In and of itself, that is meaningless: Said was a hotshot prof and hundreds of students took his comparative-lit courses. But Obama plainly maintained some sort of tie with Said — a photo making the Internet rounds shows Obama conversing with the great man himself at a 1998 Arab American community dinner in Chicago, where the Obamas and Saids were seated together.

Said had a wide circle of radical acquaintances. That circle clearly included Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. When they came out of hiding in the early 1980s (while Obama was attending Columbia), Ayers took education courses at Bank Street College, adjacent to Columbia in Morningside Heights — before earning his doctorate at Columbia’s Teachers College in 1987.

Said was so enamored of Ayers that he commended the unrepentant terrorist’s 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days — the book in which the haughty Ayers brags about his Weatherman past — with this glowing dust-jacket blurb:

What makes Fugitive Days unique is its unsparing detail and its marvelous human coherence and integrity. Bill Ayers's America and his family background, his education, his political awakening, his anger and involvement, his anguished re-emergence from the shadows: all these are rendered in their truth without a trace of nostalgia or “second thinking.” For anyone who cares about the sorry mess we are in, this book is essential, indeed necessary, reading.

Sorry mess, indeed. For his part, Ayers is at least equally enthralled by Said, of whom, even in death, Ayers says “[t]here is no one better positioned … to offer advice on the conduct of intellectual life[,]” than the man who was “over the last thirty-five years, the most passionate, eloquent, and clear-eyed advocate for the rights of the Palestinian people.”

After they left Columbia, both Obama and Ayers went to Chicago: Obama to become a “community organizer” (the director of the Developing Communities Project, an offshoot of the Gamaliel Foundation dedicated to Saul Alinsky’s principles for radicalizing society); Ayers, two years later, to teach at the University of Illinois. Diamond details how they both became embroiled in a major education controversy that resulted in 1988 reform legislation.

Ayers’s father, Tom Ayers, a prominent Chicago businessman, was also deeply involved in the reform effort. Interestingly, in 1988, while Obama and Ayers toiled on the same education agenda, Bernadine Dohrn worked as an intern at the prestigious Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin — even though she could not be admitted to the bar due to her contempt conviction for refusing to cooperate in a terrorist investigation. How could that happen? It turns out that Sidley was the longtime outside counsel for Tom Ayers’s company, Commonwealth Edison. That is, Ayers’ father had pull at the firm and successfully pressed for the hiring of his daughter-in-law.

The next summer, though he had gone off to Harvard Law School (another impressive accomplishment he prefers not to discuss), Obama returned to the Windy City to work as an intern at Sidley. Dohrn was gone by then to teach at Northwestern. A coincidence? Maybe (Diamond doesn’t think so), but that’s an awful lot of coincidences — and a long trail of common people, places and experiences — for people who purportedly didn’t know each other yet managed to end up as partners in significant financial and political ventures.

In short, Bill Ayers and Barack Obama moved in the same circles, were driven by the same cause, and admired the same radicals all the way from Morningside Heights to Hyde Park. They ended up publicly admiring each other, promoting each other’s work, sitting on the same boards, and funding the same Leftist agitators.

You could conclude, as I do, that it all goes back to a formative time in his life that Obama refuses to discuss. Or you could buy the fairy tale that Bill Ayers first encountered an unknown, inexperienced, third-year associate from a small Chicago law-firm over coffee in 1995 and suddenly decided Barack Obama was the perfect fit to oversee the $150 million pot of gold Ayers hoped would underwrite his revolution.

LINK

The truth is not mudslinging, agreed. And you know full well that people who complain about mudslinging are not complaining about the truth; they are complaining about candidates' constant efforts to bring down the other guy instead of explaining why they are the better candidate. The implication of "I am the better choice because he has skeletons in the closet" is absurd.

If folks want to make decisions based on what people did years ago, who their friends were/are, etc, that is fine by me. They will no doubt enjoy reading about Ayers or Wright, just like they will enjoy reading about McCain's affairs, Keating 5 ("poor judgment"), Cindy's unbelievable hypocrisy ("do we want HER in the White House??"), etc. But regardless, it'll still be mudslinging, because it says nothing good about the candidate you are promoting.

Personally, this to me is still a choice between the lesser of two evils. I do not like the Wright connection, but to me it is evened out by the affairs/Keating/Bush/Palin anchors that McCain carries. I wish there were other choices.

But after 8 years of Dubya, no matter what "character" he might have had, I believe that intelligence, understanding of the world around us, and vision, are infinitely more important than "character".

AGG

ML,


Ayers does not hold that opinion TODAY.

Quote: Bill Ayers's blog explaining the soundbite: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough chit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"


Nothing dishonest about it. There is most definately a double standard for sure though. When people point out that McCain has his OWN unsavory friendships, Charles H. Keating, it's scoffed by the right wing conservatives as being unimportant, but when there's a story about Obama's unsavory acquaintances were supposed to believe it as gospel. The bias couldn't be more blatant if they tried. :RollieEyes:

Trying to discredit Obama's CHARACTER when McCain is still in an unrepentant affairage is the pot calling the kettle black. The fact remains that McCain couldn't win talking about the ISSUES so he has now changed his tactic to mudslinging. He couldn't win talking about the issues because the American people realize HIS polices would bring more of the same destruction to the United States that George Bush's policies have because they are one and the same.

Want2Stay

What?

Look, someone pointed out to me something today that makes perfect sense. This election is really about Biden vs. McCain. There is NO way that Obama doesn't get whacked in office. As much as I hate to see anyone get killed, the man is so far left that there is a segment of this population that simply will not stand for such a radically anti-American president. Maybe there will be a holiday to remember him by...maybe not...but bottom line is, the man isn't going to be president for very long.

IMHO, his associations are what are going to do him in. Whether it is his association with a clearly racist pastor..or a terrorist, it will cost him. Then we can have riots in the streets just like after MLK was killed (I don't seem to remember riots after JFK was shot)....

Joe Biden I can handle as president. I don't agree with him on many things...but at least he isn't a radical. Using Biden's OWN words for reasoning, Obama should not be president...McCain would make a good president. Unless there is a deal changer soon, Obama will be president...that is unless he ticks someone off sufficiently before then.

All sad...but true.

Aw, you listen too much to the morons at the McCain rally yelling "off with his head" about Obama...Does that say something about McCain's associations?


"Left" or "black"?


Well, all the more reason for voting for Obama. Because what is more likely true is not that Obama will get whacked but that McCain will croak, and then we'll be staring at a real dimwit in the Oval Office. Biden is a safer bet, which I also totally agree with.

AGG

No, the only morons I hear are here...the liberals. I haven't been to, watched or had anything to do with a McCain rally.

If I meant BLACK, I would have said BLACK.

Actually, it is very likely Obama would be whacked. It is easy to kill anyone...even a president...or candidate...if one is properly motivated. History shows that to be all too true.

Obviously, I won't VOTE for Biden. HE does have the one big strike against him...abortion (even though he admits that life begins at conception...go figure!).

As for a dimwit in office...I haven't seen her IQ scores. Have you? I see a lot of people that are very well spoken that are as dumb as logs. There are a few on this site...one would even be called Dr. by the crooked letters after his name...

But, in all honesty...Palin would not have been my first choice for VP even though she has the highest approval rating of any governor on our country. Most likely, I would have gone with Romney or Huckabee. A woman was picked for obvious reasons.

WOW! Do you always make accusations like that of people you don't know?

Just can't keep from attacking your fellow posters, can you?


Nonetheless, there were shouts of "off with his head", from those conveniently placed near the front. Do you support that?


I am not following your logic.. We should not vote for Obama because he might get whacked?


Not going by her IQ score, but by what comes out of her mouth.

I would have considered voting for McCain until he made that choice.

AGG