Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Saturday 19th April 2014 11:28:49 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 
These are answers that Itsdb has provided in Chri

Question/Answer
Liz22 asked on 11/04/08 - YES WE CAN!

It has been a while since I have been on here, I thought I would wait til our Next President would be Obama. I am so happy! Please keep our President in your Prayers! Yes, we can! Now back to Celebrating...
Please Know. God does answer Prayers, and all the great things that will follow!

Itsdb answered on 12/04/08:

Liz, been a while since I've been here, too. This place is a shadow of its former self. All congratulations are in order for Obama but I guess I’m not “mature” enough for some to celebrate. I thought I might be able to celebrate the left toning down their trash talk after their guy won, after all the “long national nightmare” that is the Bush administration is almost over, but I was wrong.


In one short month letters to our paper have called conservatives “brain dead,” “Chicken Littles,” “right wing-nuts,” “ignorant” and called Texas a “regressive state.” We’ve also been accused of waging a “war of racism,” being in “denial,” “voting stupidly” and told to “get over it and shut up.” In the same breath we’re told “hope won over fear” and we should “unite” behind the new president. Sorry, but that’s a funny way of asking for our support.

Question/Answer
madddawg asked on 06/05/07 - Evolution's faith

I came across this quote, which I am passing on for your meditation:
"Now evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen." Duane Gish.
Is this an accurate description of the evolutionist blind faith?

Itsdb answered on 06/05/07:

Nope. To believe everything began as a "singularity, those "zones which defy our current understanding of physics" - "zones" that are "thought to exist" - involving concepts which truly boggle the mind, goes much deeper than that.

"Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."

But apparently, "Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."

Yet somehow out of that nothingness, matter won over anti-matter and an earth with the pefect climate and mix of molecules was born and eventually, man oozed into existence.

Now that takes faith...

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
madddawg rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
JesseJamesDupree asked on 06/05/07 - For aton.............

Itsdb answered on 06/05/07:

Come on now JJD, don't you have somewhere else to troll for a while?

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Rosekeeper rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 06/04/07 - PERK LEAVES ONE ANTI OUT (2) ............................


tropicalstorm posted :

"PERK LEAVES ONE ANTI OUT OF HIS ANTI CAMPAIGN : ANTI CHRIST.

I do not attack any belief in my ANTI-anti campaign. I attack intolerance and abusive behaviour against the belief of those who believe differently than what peddler/Toms777/MadDog believe.

But as soon as someone who believes in some anti-christ format of religion is attacked by out Trinity, I'll stand behind him or her also, just as I stand behind everyone's right to believe whatever suits a person!

---

TS :

If you want to attack me, do that on serious subjects.
This topic went down straight away, as you started with a lie .....

;)


Itsdb answered on 06/04/07:

>>just as I stand behind everyone's right to believe whatever suits a person!<<

Even if they believe Islam is evil?

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 06/03/07 - The ANTI-anti campaign(8)...............................


Reference : The ANTI-"anti" campaign I started at 05/28/07

Our local trio of intolerant abusers (Toms, peddlers, and Mad Dog) - our own local "trinity" - which
fails to recognize that they do not speak (and/or spread) Christianity in anything they are posting.
All they do is spread hatred and despite, and try to force their particular views upon everyone else.

I have started with an ANTI-anti campaign : any further new topics that are :



Anti-Jehovah-Witnesses
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Roman Catholicism
Anti-Evolution
Anti-Atheism
Anti-Whatever




can expect to be targeted by my campaign.

As long as I have access to this board I will do my best to end all these insane anti-this or anti-that topics.

I first want to see from our "trinity" (or any other volunteers) the evidence they so far have failed to provide :
supporting objective evidence for the existence of God and God being the Creator.

Once they have PROVEN their case directly (indirect evidence - like disproving other theories or claims will not do),
they are entitled to attack other non-proven religious claims by others. Of course.

All others : just sit back and let's see how poor they do on that one!

(Repeat post in view of JJD's and peddler's recent topic diarrhoea attacks)

Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 06/03/07:

First, who determines what is:

Anti-Jehovah-Witnesses
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Roman Catholicism
Anti-Evolution
Anti-Atheism
Anti-Whatever

And what makes something:

Anti-Jehovah-Witnesses
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Roman Catholicism
Anti-Evolution
Anti-Atheism
Anti-Whatever

And who made you master and judge of these boards? Your hubris is impressive - and no less annoying than JJD's abuse.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 06/01/07 - The ANTI-anti campaign(7)...............................


Reference : The ANTI-"anti" campaign I started at 05/28/07

Our local trio of intolerant abusers (Toms, peddlers, and Mad Dog) - our own local "trinity" - which
fails to recognize that they do not speak (and/or spread) Christianity in anything they are posting.
All they do is spread hatred and despite, and try to force their particular views upon everyone else.

I have started with an ANTI-anti campaign : any further new topics that are :



Anti-Jehovah-Witnesses
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Roman Catholicism
Anti-Evolution
Anti-Atheism
Anti-Whatever




can expect to be targeted by my campaign.

As long as I have access to this board I will do my best to end all these insane anti-this or anti-that topics.

I first want to see from our "trinity" (or any other volunteers) the evidence they so far have failed to provide :
supporting objective evidence for the existence of God and God being the Creator.

Once they have PROVEN their case directly (indirect evidence - like disproving other theories or claims will not do),
they are entitled to attack other non-proven religious claims by others. Of course.

All others : just sit back and let's see how poor they do on that one!

(Repeat post in view of JJD's and peddler's topic diarrhoea attacks)

Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 06/02/07:

First, who determines what is:

Anti-Jehovah-Witnesses
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Roman Catholicism
Anti-Evolution
Anti-Atheism
Anti-Whatever

And what makes something:

Anti-Jehovah-Witnesses
Anti-Mormon
Anti-Roman Catholicism
Anti-Evolution
Anti-Atheism
Anti-Whatever

And who made you master and judge of these boards? Your hubris is impressive.

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 06/01/07 - More Ethics Charges in Kentucky Gov't

Tomorrow's news!

Saturday June 2, 2007 1:01 AM

By JOE BIESK

Associated Press Writer

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) - A commission investigating a state hiring scandal approved ethics charges Friday against four former high-ranking officials in Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration.

The Republican administration was under investigation for more than a year over allegations that the governor's political supporters were being given protected state jobs based on their connections instead of qualifications. The governor himself was indicted on three misdemeanor charges that were dropped in a negotiated deal with prosecutors.

In 2005, Fletcher issued a blanket pardon for anyone else in his administration who might be criminally charged. However, the ethics charges approved Friday by the Kentucky Executive Branch Ethics Commission are not criminal counts, and the board's general counsel, John Steffen, said he does not believe the pardon applies to them.

The panel, most of which was appointed by Fletcher, approved ethics charges against Darrell Brock, James L. Adams, Basil Turbyfill and Robert Wilson Jr., none of whom still works for the state.

Wilson, charged with four ethics counts, and Turbyfill, charged with two, had been fired. The others face one count each. All face potential fines of up to $5,000 per count and public reprimand.

Brock, a former chairman of the state Republican Party, is a former commissioner of the governor's office of local development. Adams is the former deputy secretary of transportation.

Turbyfill was the director of the governor's office of personnel and efficiency. Wilson is a former director of personnel in the Commerce Cabinet.

The commission accused each of the four with different levels of involvement in a plan to subvert hiring laws guiding the state's version of a civil service system to install Fletcher's political supporters.

Turbyfill said the commission's charges are ``totally off the wall and something I'm not familiar with at all,'' he said.

Wilson's attorney Jerry Wright said he was unaware of the charges and had no immediate comment. Calls to Adams and Brock were not immediately returned.

Fletcher spokeswoman Jodi Whitaker said she was unaware of the charges and had no comment.

The cases will go to a commission-appointed hearing officer who will review the case and give the panel a recommendation on how to proceed.

The commission previously charged former Fletcher administration official Dan Druen with violating state ethics law.

Fletcher, a former congressman and doctor, became governor in 2003 on a promise to clean up the state Capitol. Despite the ongoing investigation into his administration, Fletcher, the state's first Republican governor in more than 30 years, won the GOP primary May 22 in his bid for a second four-year term.

Fletcher faces Democrat Steve Beshear, a former lieutenant governor, in the Nov. 6 general election.

---

Comments?


Itsdb answered on 06/01/07:

A crooked politician? Perish the thought...

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 06/01/07 - Well Fred (and others)(3) ...........................................


Dear Fred Brown Arcura

So I was right after all : I warned you for this more than a year ago, when you encouraged JJD (in one of his/her many aliases there) to continue posting on the We-Tell-You board with his/her multiple similar massages "to learn Aton and me a lesson".

You can now see to what this has led : not only has JJD destroyed the WTY Board, but the virus did indeed spread to AW also.
The repeated series of multiple postings by JJD here on AW were "condoned" by the many hypocrite "christians", as poor sod JJD was a "god-fearing well-willing christian", and any actions and warnings from Aton and me to this board were thrown to the winds.

Not only did the many multiple series of postings by JJD start to destroy this board, also the many (and increasing number of) topics marked by hatred, despite, and intolerance by Toms777, by both peddlers, and by Mad Doggie and various others did their part towards the demise of this board.

Management was right after all, when they redrew their hands from AW early January 2007. They also saw it coming, I guess.

Thanks to you all this board is at (or already over) the edge of total collapse.
Following JJD, the repeated series of multiple postings by both peddlers were also condoned on the same grounds, without hardly any show of clear open intense rejection and condemnation.

And now - to my regret - I see that TTFNUAS and TropicalStorm also have started with multiple postings.

As I stated : I warned you long ago that this would be the result. This was bound to happen because the basis to allow this to develop was the intolerance of the "christians" themselves on this board.

ARE YOU ALL HAPPY NOW?

.

Itsdb answered on 06/01/07:

Perc, other than your indication that Fred encouraged JJD I don't know what many hypocrite "christians" condoned JJD's abuse. In fact, I and others condemned his abuse but there's just not a heckuva lot we can do about it.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
TTFNUAS asked on 06/01/07 - Amen a Pagan word


Amen, the very last word in the Bible1, could well have begun as a Pagan word. Yet Christians, Jews and Muslims invariably end their prayers, scripture readings, and hymns by saying Amen as an expression of concurrence. They also say it to acknowledge their agreement or reinforce a statement that another person has said.


Amen
The root of the word comes from Hebrew aman, which means to nourish and make strong. Emunah (faithfulness) also comes from aman. The ancient Greeks used the word (AMHN) from Hebrew to mean 'truth', 'surely', 'absolutely'. It is one of just a few Hebrew words which have been imported unchanged into Church liturgy. The current meaning of Amen and its pronunciation is pretty much the same in any modern language and religion.

Christians
Christians say either 'Ahh-men' or 'Ay-men'.
The 'Ahh-men' pronunciation tends to be a bit more formal and used in liturgy, choral music, etc. An example can be heard in the closing part of Handel's Messiah 'Worthy is the Lambƈ. The Ahh-men in the final chorus is repeated dozens of times, runs to six pages in a typical choral score, and usually takes around 3 minutes 40 seconds to sing.

The 'Ay-men' pronunciation is often associated with evangelical Christians and gospel singing. Unlike Handel's Messiah, the gospel chorus 'Amen' has only five words, all the same (Ay----men, Ay----men, Ay----men, Ay-men, Ay--men.) yet can take much longer to perform as it is repeated over and over again, bringing the congregation into harmony.

Jews
For Jews, Amen is also an acronym for El Melech Ne'eman, which means "Mighty, Faithful King".

Muslims
Muslims use Amen (Amin or Ameen) in the same way as Christians and Jews, even though the word does not appear in the Qur'an. Muslims say it after reciting Surah al-Fatihah, after completing their prayers, at the end of letters, etc.

Buddhists and Hindus
Many Buddhists and Hindus also use Amen at the end of prayers and as concurrence in the same way as the other religions.

But where did it all begin?

Pagans
From old Egyptian texts we can see that people believed the Sun was the emblem of the Creator. They called the Sun Ra, and all other gods and goddesses were forms of the Creator. One of these gods was Amen; a secret, hidden and mysterious god named variously Amen, Amon, Amun, Ammon and Amounra. For the first eleven dynasties (c. 3000-1987 B.C.) Amen was just a minor god, but by the 17th dynasty (c. 1500 B.C.) he had been elevated to be the national god of southern Egypt. This position gave Amen the attributes and characteristics of the most ancient gods, and his name became Amen-Ra, that is, a supreme form of God the Creator. By the 18th Dynasty (1539-1295 B.C.) a college had been established to study Amen-Ra and as a focal point for worship.

The Jews settled in Egypt for around 400 years4 from 1847 B.C. and during this sojourn there is no doubt they would have been fully exposed to the worship of Amen-Ra. By the time of their exodus from Egypt in 1447 B.C., Amen would certainly be in their language even if it was not their god. It would be a word that had associations with reverence and majesty. This is not difficult to understand. People still talk about Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha, and often use those names completely out of context as expletives. Amen was seen as a powerful god and the name continued, out of context, as an exclamation or salutation; a classic example language evolution. From the Jews, the word was adopted by Christians, Muslims and others.

So Amen was originally the name of a Pagan god, who was considered a form of God the Creator. But he was certainly not considered God, or Christ. Interestingly, most Pagans today tend not to use the word, preferring instead to say "So mote it be", an old Anglo-Saxon term. Perhaps they see the word Amen in the Bible and the Tanakh and don't want to be associated with Christianity or the like. Indeed, in the Bible3 we see Jesus Christ referred to as "The Amen". Christ is God's Amen to all that he has spoken. Thereby the name used for an old Egyptian god is replaced by the same name used for Christ.

Some people are protective of things and believe Amen is a Biblical word which is also found in the Tanakh and in Islam, and happens to be the same four letters as a Pagan god. Others believe it is an Islamic word that can also be found in the Bible and Tanakh. And so on. The whole issue is hotly debated and any Pagan link denied by many. Who knows how many accidental or deliberate mistranslations have crept in over the centuries.


MOre to come .......... ;-)

Itsdb answered on 06/01/07:

You might have to have Elliot verify this, but Wikipedia says:

    In Judaism, it is taught in the Midrash, as well as the Talmud(sanhedrin) that the word Amen is an acronym for אל (’El) מלך (melekh) נאמן (ne’eman), meaning "God, King [who is] Trustworthy." The word itself is related to the Hebrew word emuna or "faith" with the same linguistic root, implying that one is affirming with, and of, "the faith" of Judaism (and its belief in Monotheism).


I don't put much stock in whether or not "amen" has pagan roots. Ask a French woman "how much for your chair" and you might get slapped, or tell her you "need something for the pain" and you might get butter. Am I right?

Steve

TTFNUAS rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 06/01/07 - The Abusers come full cycle


I see that the abusers don't like what happens to boards after they have done their dirty work, so they want to find a decent board where they can start their destructive cycle once again:

http://www.answerway.com/viewques.php?pgtitle=Christianity&category=633&msection=0&quesid=63300

They did it to Askme.com, and the owners turned the key

They did it to Wetellyou, and the owners abandoned it to drift without moderation

They did it to Answerway, and the owners here also gave up.

And the person who posted this message looking for another board holds the record for the number of suspensions for abuse on Answerway!

So why don't they go away? Why do they stay here? It is for destruction, and once there is nothing left to destroy, they no longer have a purpose and must move on. Like cyber-termites.

Tom

Itsdb answered on 06/01/07:

Tom, don't you know those who like to lecture everyone else can't handle it when they get the same sermon? Must be that mote/beam thing...

PrinceHassim rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 05/31/07 - The Profile of a prophet ..............................................


Does Joseph Smith fit the profile of a prophet? This is what Hugh B Brown had to say on this subject:


President Hugh B. Brown Of the First Presidency
Conference Report, October 1967, p.117 ff.

My brothers and sisters who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and my brothers and sisters who are members of other churches, or of none; all who may be listening to the proceedings of this conference, I salute and welcome as my brothers and sisters because I believe in the universal Fatherhood of God and the consequent universal brotherhood of man.

I should like to support and bear witness to the claim that the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was taught by him and his apostles in the meridian of time was restored in the state of New York in 1830 by Jesus the Christ, and was organized under his direction through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I should like to give some reasons for this faith and attempt to justify my allegiance to the Church. Perhaps I can do this best by referring again to an interview I had in London, England, in 1939, just before the outbreak of World War II.

I had met a very prominent English gentleman, a member of the House of Commons and formerly one of the justices of the supreme court of Britain. In a series of conversations on various subjects, "vexations of the soul," he called them, we talked about business and law; about politics, international relations, and war; and we frequently discussed religion.

He called me on the phone one day and asked if I would meet him at his office and explain some phases of my faith. He said, "There is going to be a war, and you will have to return to America, and we may not meet again." His statement regarding the imminence of war and the possibility that we would not meet again proved to be prophetic.

When I went to his office, he said he had been intrigued by some things I had told about my church. He asked me if I would prepare a brief on Mormonism and discuss it with him as I would discuss a legal problem. He said, "You have told me that you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that you believe that God the Father and Jesus of Nazareth appeared to him in vision.

"I cannot understand," he said, "how a barrister and solicitor from Canada, a man trained in logic and evidence and unemotional cold fact, could accept such absurd statements. What you tell me about Joseph Smith seems fantastic, but I wish you would take three days at least to prepare a brief and permit me to examine it and question you on it."

I suggested that, as I had been working on such a brief for more than 50 years, we proceed at once to have an examination for discovery, which is briefly a meeting of the opposing sides in a lawsuit where the plaintiff and defendant, with their attorneys, meet to examine each other's claims and see whether they can find some area of agreement and thus save the time of the court later on.

I said perhaps we could find some common ground from which we could discuss my "fantastic ideas." He agreed, and we proceeded with our "examination for discovery."

Because of time limitations, I can only give a condensed or abbreviated synopsis of the three-hour conversation that followed. I began by asking, "May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?"

"I am."

"I assume that you believe in the Bible -- the Old and New Testaments?"

"I do!"

"Do you believe in prayer?"

"I do!"

"You say that my belief that God spoke to a man in this age is fantastic and absurd?"

"To me it is."

"Do you believe that God ever did speak to anyone?"

"Certainly, all through the Bible we have evidence of that."

"Did he speak to Adam?"

"Yes."

"To Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and to others of the prophets?"

"I believe he spoke to each of them."

"Do you believe that contact between God and man ceased when Jesus appeared on the earth?"

"Certainly not. Such communication reached its climax, its apex at that time."

"Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God?"

"He was."

"Do you believe, sir, that after the resurrection of Christ, God ever spoke to any man?"

He thought for a moment and then said, "I remember one Saul of Tarsus who was going down to Damascus to persecute the saints and who had a vision, was stricken blind, in fact, and heard a voice."

"Whose voice did he hear?"

"Well," he said, "the voice said `I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.'"

"Do you believe that actually took place?"

"I do."

"Then, my Lord" -- that is the way we address judges in the British commonwealth -- "my Lord, I am submitting to you in all seriousness that it was standard procedure in Bible times for God to talk to men."

"I think I will admit that, but it stopped shortly after the first century of the Christian era."

"Why do you think it stopped?"

"I can't say."

"You think that God hasn't spoken since then?"

"Not to my knowledge."

"May I suggest some possible reasons why he has not spoken. Perhaps it is because he cannot. He has lost the power."

He said, "Of course that would be blasphemous."

"Well, then, if you don't accept that, perhaps he doesn't speak to men because he doesn't love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men."

"No," he said, "God loves all men, and he is no respecter of persons."

"Well, then, if you don't accept that he loves us, then the only other possible answer as I see it is that we don't need him. We have made such rapid strides in education and science that we don't need God any more."

And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war, "Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why he doesn't speak."

My answer was, "He does speak, he has spoken; but men need faith to hear him."

Then we proceeded to examine what I may call a "profile of a prophet."

Characteristics of a prophet

We agreed that any man who claims to be a prophet should have at least the following characteristics:

1. He will boldly but humbly declare, "God has spoken to me."

2. His message will be dignified, intelligent, earnest, and honest, but he will not necessarily he a learned person.

3. There will he no spiritualistic claims of communion with the dead, no clairvoyance or legerdemain.

4. Generally he will he a young man such as Samuel; a man having good parentage and associates.

5. His message must he reasonable and scriptural.

6. He will be fearless and positive, unmindful of current opinion and the creeds of the day.

7. He will make no concessions to public opinion or the effect upon himself or his reputation or personal fortune.

8. His message must be current, unusual, but historically consistent.

9. He will simply but earnestly tell what he has seen and heard.

10. His message, not himself, will be important to him.

11. He will boldly declare, "Thus saith the Lord!"

12. He will predict future events in the name of the Lord, events that he could not control, events that only God could bring to pass.

13. His message will be important not only for his generation but for all time, such as the messages of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah.

14. He will have courage, fortitude, and faith enough to endure persecution and, if necessary, to give his life for his testimony, and be willing to seal his testimony with his blood as did Peter and Paul.

15. He will denounce wickedness fearlessly and be rejected and ridiculed therefor.

16. He will do superhuman things, things that only a man inspired of God could do.

17. The consequence of his teachings will be convincing evidence of his prophetic calling: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

18. His word and message will live after him.

19. All of his teachings will be scriptural. In fact, his words, writings, and message will become scripture. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet. 1:21.)

Evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet

I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God because he gave to this world some of the greatest revelations of all time. I believe that he was a prophet of God because he foretold many things that have come to pass, things that only God could bring to pass.

John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, declared, ". . . the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Rev. 19:10.) If Joseph Smith had the testimony of Jesus, he had the spirit of prophecy, and if he had the spirit of prophecy, he was a prophet. I submitted to my friend, that as much as any man who ever lived, the Prophet Joseph had a testimony of Jesus, for, like the apostles of old, he saw him and heard him speak, and like them he gave his life for that testimony. I know of no one who has given more convincing evidence of the divine calling of Jesus Christ than did Joseph Smith.

I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet because he did many superhuman things. One was translating the Book of Mormon, which is a history of the ancient inhabitants of America. Some people will not agree, but I submit that Joseph Smith in translating the Book of Mormon did a superhuman work I ask anyone to undertake to write the story of the ancient inhabitants of America, to write as he did without any source material. He must include in the story 54 chapters dealing with wars, 21 historical chapters, 55 chapters on visions and prophecies (and remember, when the writer begins to write on visions and prophecies, he must have the record agree meticulously with the Bible). He must write 71 chapters on doctrine and exhortation, and here too, he must check every statement with the scriptures or he will be proved to be a fraud.

He must write 21 chapters on the ministry of Christ, and everything the writer claims Jesus said and did and every testimony he writes in the book about him must agree absolutely with the New Testament.

I ask, would anyone like to undertake such a task? I point out, too, that he must employ figures of speech, similes, metaphors, narration, exposition, description, oratory, epic, lyric, logic, and parables. I ask the writer to remember that the man who translated the Book of Mormon was a young man who had very little schooling, and yet he dictated that book in just a little over two months and made very few, if any, corrections.

For over one hundred years, some of the best students and scholars of the world have been trying to prove from the Bible that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, but not one of them has been able to prove that anything in it was contrary to the scriptures, the Bible, the word of God.

The Book of Mormon not only declares on the title page that its purpose is to convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, but this truth is also the burden of its message.

In Third Nephi it is recorded that multitudes of people testified, "We saw him, we felt of his hands and his side, we know he is the Christ. . . ." (See 3 Ne. 11:14-15.)

Joseph Smith undertook and accomplished other superhuman tasks. Among them I list the following: He organized the Church. (I call attention to the fact that no constitution effected by human ingenuity has survived one hundred years without modification or amendment, even the Constitution of the United States. The basic law or constitution of the Church has never been altered.) He undertook to carry the gospel message to all nations, which is a superhuman task and is still progressing with accelerated speed. He undertook, by divine command, to gather thousands of people to Zion. He instituted vicarious work for the dead and built temples for that purpose. He promised that certain signs should follow the believers. There are tens of thousands of witnesses who certify that this promise has been fulfilled.

Joseph Smith, a witness for Christ

I said to my friend, "My Lord, I cannot understand your saying to me that my claims are fantastic. Nor can I understand why Christians who claim to believe in Christ would persecute and put to death a man whose whole purpose was to prove the truth of the things they themselves were teaching, namely, that Jesus is the Christ. I could understand their persecuting Joseph if he had said, `I am Christ,' or if he had said, `There is no Christ,' or if he had said someone else is Christ; then Christians believing in Christ would be justified in opposing him.

"But what he said was, `Him whom ye claim to believe in, declare I unto you.' Paraphrasing what Paul said in Athens, `Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.' (Acts 17:23.) Joseph said to the Christians of his day, `You claim to believe in Jesus Christ. I testify that I saw him and I talked with him. He is the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world. Why persecute me for that?'

"When Joseph came out of the woods where he had this vision, he had learned at least four fundamental truths, and he announced them to the world: first, that the Father and the Son are separate and distinct individuals; second, that the canon of scripture is not complete; third, that man was actually created in the image of God; and fourth, that the channel of communication between earth and heaven is open, and revelation is continuous."

The judge sat and listened intently. He asked some very pointed and searching questions, and at the end of the interview he said, "Mr. Brown, I wonder if your people appreciate the import of your message. Do you?" He said, "If what you have told me is true, it is the greatest message that has come to earth since the angels announced the birth of Christ."

This was a learned judge speaking, a great statesman, an intelligent man. He threw out the challenge, "Do you appreciate the import of what you say?" He added: "I wish it were true. I hope it may be true. God knows it ought to be true. I would to God," he said, his voice trembling, "that some man would appear on the earth and authoritatively say, `Thus saith the Lord.'"

As I intimated, we did not meet again. I have mentioned very briefly some of the reasons why I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

But undergirding and over-arching all that, I say from the very center of my heart that by the revelations of the Holy Ghost I know, and you may know, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. While the evidences I have mentioned and many others that could be cited may have the effect of giving one an intellectual conviction, only by the whisperings of the Holy Spirit can one come to know the things of God. By those whisperings I say I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. I thank God for that knowledge. I pray that you may in humility ask him whether it be true, and I promise you that he will respond and that you will know from the warmth in your heart that what I have said this morning is God's eternal truth, to which I humbly bear witness in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.




Itsdb answered on 05/31/07:

Ronnie,

The short version...

Of course you know I do not believe Joseph Smith fits the profile of a prophet, no matter how grand this discourse may be.

>>I should like to support and bear witness to the claim that the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was taught by him and his apostles in the meridian of time was restored in the state of New York in 1830 by Jesus the Christ<<

This is the first place I have to disagree. Joseph Smith had nothing to do with 'restoring' the gospel. It may have been muddled from time to time but it was never lost. I find it quite far-fetched to think some "Great Apostasy" lasted some 1700 years until Joseph Smith came along.

He will predict future events in the name of the Lord, events that he could not control, events that only God could bring to pass.

And I might add, he shouldn't be making mistakes in those prophecies.

He will do superhuman things, things that only a man inspired of God could do...One was translating the Book of Mormon, which is a history of the ancient inhabitants of America.

Now that is a superhuman task, to translate an unheard of language from missing plates.

He must write 71 chapters on doctrine and exhortation, and here too, he must check every statement with the scriptures or he will be proved to be a fraud.

With all that superhumanness and to simply "earnestly tell what he has seen and heard," why would he need to "check with scriptures" to make sure it all fit?

He instituted vicarious work for the dead and built temples for that purpose.

Did he 'institute' that or was it 'restored'?

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/24/07 - Everyone please read this especially Tom777

This is for Tom777 but I would like all you guys to be my witness that Tom asked me for proof about the "holy spirit" being God's active force and not a person.

I want you guys to see I have answered Toms request, but will he answer my question with answers or more questioins.

There is much more proof but I did not want to give him more then this or he hides behind more of his questions to avoid answering my questions. What do you think Tom will do this time? Time will tell.
**********************************************
Reply to Tom:

Hello Tom777,
Please stop telling me I have not given any proof that the holy spirit is God’s active force. That force enables you and all persons on this earth to have life. Without it you will die. That is your spirit or life force. Jesus himself confirms this at

Luke 23:46: “Jesus called with a loud voice and said: ‘Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit [Greek, pneu´ma´].’ When he had said this, he expired.”

Notice that Jesus expired. When his spirit went out he was not on his way to heaven. Not until the third day from this was Jesus resurrected from the dead.

Then, as Acts 1:3, 9 shows, it was 40 more days before he ascended to heaven. So, what is the meaning of what Jesus said at the time of his death? He was saying that he knew that, when he died, his future life prospects rested entirely with God. For further comments regarding the ‘spirit that returns to God,’

So it is in the case of the spirit or life-force. At death no actual movement from the earth to the heavenly realm need occur for it to ‘return to God.’ But the gift or grant of existence as an intelligent creature, as enjoyed once by the dead person, now reverts to God. That which is needed to animate the person, namely, the spirit or life-force, is in God’s hands.—Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46.

So now that we have explained the spirit of man and seeing that we are all created in God’s image, then God to must have a spirit. God’s spirit is called “holy spirit” and rightly so because God is holy and anything belonging to him is holy.

The Hebrew word ru´ach and the Greek pneu´ma, which are often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion.

The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and that causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired utterances originating with an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s active force, or holy spirit.

Having said this let us now take and examine what the “holy spirit” is.
1) A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as ‘filling’ people; they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be “anointed” with it.
Luke 1:41 (New King James Version)
41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 3:11 (New King James Version)
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire

Acts 10:38 (New King James Version)
38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him
************************************************************************************
Tom777, in the above scriptures for instance in Matthew 3:11, if the holy spirit was a person, did John mean that Jesus would dump a person on top of those he baptized or was he to dunk them inside the holy spirit? It does not make sense unless the holy spirit is “God’s active force” and Jesus would baptize those by giving that force or power to those he baptized.

Tom77, Now take the scripture in Luke, did the “did the “holy spirit the person” jump inside Elizabeth or did she swallow the holy spirit. Now if the “holy spirit” is God’s active force or power, then I could understand that Elizabeth received God’s power or active force and was strengthened by it. Elizabeth became aglow with joy and happiness because when the “babe leaped in her womb”.

Tom777, Now in Acts 10:38, says “God anointed Jesus with “holy spirit”. Now think about this if “holy spirit “ is a person, did God the father pour the body or person of the “holy spirit” on Jesus? How did that happen? Or does this make more sense, God Almighty anointed his son, with “holy spirit” by giving Jesus the active force or power to carry out his fathers will. Remember when the Kings of Israel were anointed they were anointed with oil.; How do you explain this Tom. None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person.
****************************************************

Now Tom777, please don't give me more question until you answer the above questions I have asked you. I have honored you request to give proof and there is just a small amount of proof I have. If I give it all to you at once, You play your question game and I am not in any mood for that today.

Please answer these questions and then we can move on. If you play your games with me, I then will ignore all your responses to any of my posts. I am trying to give you the benefit of me replying to you, thinking you might be serious and are going to really answer my questions. Time will tell.
Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 05/24/07:

>>but I did not want to give him more then this or he hides behind more of his questions to avoid answering my questions. What do you think Tom will do this time?<<

Is that part of your new effort to "be calm, and reply with love and kindness toward all," or is it back to being "just plain condescending while thinking you're being polite"?

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 asked on 05/23/07 - To Peddler

PLEASE NAME THE FIVE PRIME MOVERS OF THE JWs WHO WERE MORMON

Itsdb answered on 05/24/07:

I'd like to see that myself. So Pete, is this why you changed your name? Like the wine you are "Exotic, densely textured, with incredible length and richness. One of the greatest ... of the vintage"? :):)

Steve

Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Fritzella asked on 05/22/07 - BOOK REVIEW NUMBER THREE

"A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason.

At the time George W. Bush ordered American forces to invade Iraq, 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11. Voters in Ohio, when asked by pollsters to list what stuck in their minds about the campaign, most frequently named two Bush television ads that played to fears of terrorism.

We live in an age when the thirty-second television spot is the most powerful force shaping the electorate's thinking, and America is in the hands of an administration less interested than any previous administration in sharing the truth with the citizenry. Related to this and of even greater concern is this administration's disinterest in the process by which the truth is ascertained, the tenets of fact-based reasoning-first among them an embrace of open inquiry in which unexpected and even inconvenient facts can lead to unexpected conclusions.

How did we get here? How much damage has been done to the functioning of our democracy and its role as steward of our security? Never has there been a worse time for us to lose the capacity to face the reality of our long-term challenges, from national security to the economy, from issues of health and social welfare to the environment. As The Assault on Reason shows us, we have precious little time to waste.

Gore's larger goal in this book is to explain how the public sphere itself has evolved into a place hospitable to reason's enemies, to make us more aware of the forces at work on our own minds, and to lead us to an understanding of what we can do, individually and collectively, to restore the rule of reason and safeguard our future. Drawing on a life's work in politics as well as on the work of experts across a broad range of disciplines, Al Gore has written a farsighted and powerful manifesto for clear thinking." Amazon Book Review

About the Author
Former Vice President Al Gore is chairman of Current TV, an independently owned cable and satellite television nonfiction network for young people based on viewer-created content and citizen journalism. He also serves as chairman of Generation Investment Management, a firm that is focused on a new approach to sustainable investing. Gore is a member of the board of directors of Apple Computer, Inc., and a senior adviser to Google, Inc. Gore was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976 and the U.S. Senate in 1984 and 1990. He was inaugurated as the forty-fifth Vice President of the United States on January 20, 1993, and served eight years. He is the author of the bestsellers Earth in the Balance and An Inconvenient Truth. He and his wife, Tipper, live in Nashville, Tennessee. They have four children and two grandchildren.
Product Details

* Hardcover: 320 pages
* Publisher: Penguin Press HC, The (May 22, 2007)
* Language: English
* ISBN-10: 1594201226
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Itsdb answered on 05/23/07:

About all I can say is the left has a helluva lot of chutzpah.

"A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degration of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason.

You mean like these classics?

    “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.” -Ted Kennedy

    "Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management." -Ted Kennedy

    "Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for the dangerous world in which we live." -Harry Reid

    "This development on the Korean Peninsula is further proof that you can't trust Republicans to keep America safe." -Howard Dean

    "The truth is the American people can't trust Republicans with their security." -Howard Dean

    "By any measure, five years after 9/11, America is less safe and more divided because of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld." -John Kerry

    "The bottom line is Judge Alito cannot be trusted on the Supreme Court. We can't trust him to stand up to government abuse of power. We can't trust him to ensure all citizens enjoy equal protection under the law. We can't trust him to protect our right to privacy. We can't trust him to defend mainstream American values." -John Kerry

    The Durbin Classic


And on and on and on...

We live in an age when the thirty-second television spot is the most powerful force shaping the electorate's thinking, and America is in the hands of an administration less interested than any previous administration in sharing the truth with the citizenry. Related to this and of even greater concern is this administration's disinterest in the process by which the truth is ascertained, the tenets of fact-based reasoning-first among them an embrace of open inquiry in which unexpected and even inconvenient facts can lead to unexpected conclusions.

    "The first thing we're going to do is we're going to have ethics come back to Washington again." -Howard Dean


'Nuff said

Gore's larger goal in this book is to explain how the public sphere itself has evolved into a place hospitable to reason's enemies, to make us more aware of the forces at work on our own minds, and to lead us to an understanding of what we can do, individually and collectively, to restore the rule of reason and safeguard our future. Drawing on a life's work in politics as well as on the work of experts across a broad range of disciplines, Al Gore has written a farsighted and powerful manifesto for clear thinking.

And that answer is ... get out your tin-foil hats

Fritzella rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/21/07 - Here is part 2, to think about.

Hello Everyone,


God, in creating man in his image, not only gave man a capacity for intelligence and a moral sense, a measure of his love, justice, wisdom and power, but also gave man a measure of his freedom and corresponding responsibilities. Freedom and responsibility, in fact, are correlatives, the one involves and implies the other. Freedom brings with it the responsibility to choose, and by making a choice one assumes further responsibilities.

Man decides to either choose what is good or what is bad. Then we reap the consequences of our choices. God does not threaten us, we threaten others with words and things that God does not. Why? Only to control others. God is supreme, He does not need to control any of us. Man though because he is not supreme has a need to control their fellow human. Why? What is the purpose? To have a bunch of robots who claim to serve God because they don’t want to burn in a place called hell.

God would never burn people, it is unthinkable on his part. If God would not even think of such a thing, it raises the question: Did Almighty God create such a place of torment? Well, what was God’s view when the Israelites, following the example of peoples who lived nearby, began to burn their children in fire? He explains in his Word:

Jeremiah 7:31 (New King James Version)
31 “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart.”
Now just think about this, If the idea of roasting people in fire had never come into God’s heart, does it seem reasonable that he created a fiery hell for those who do not serve him? The Bible says, “God is love.” 1 John 4:8
Do you really think that a loving God could really torment people forever? Would you do so? Knowing of God’s love should move us to turn to his Word to find out just what hell is. Who go there, and for how long?
Hell is referred to in the scriptures as “Hades or Sheol” It is the common grave of mankind. Not only did Jesus Christ himself go to hell and get out again, but he assured his apostles that the true Church, the true Christian congregation, would imitate him in this respect. When speaking to the apostle Peter in the hearing of the other apostles, Jesus said:

“Thou art Peter [Greek, Petros]; and upon this rock [Greek, petra] I will build my church and the gates of hell [Greek, Ha´des; Latin, infernus] shall not prevail against it.”Matt. 16:18, Douay

Matthew 16:18 (New King James Version)
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Since the dead have no conscious existence, hell cannot be a fiery place of torment where the wicked suffer after death. What, then, is hell? Examining what happened to Jesus after he died helps to answer that question. The Bible writer Luke recounts: “Neither was [Jesus] forsaken in Hades [hell, King James Version] nor did his flesh see corruption.” Acts 2:31
Where was the hell to which even Jesus went? The apostle Paul wrote:
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (New King James Version)
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
So Jesus was in hell, the grave, but he was not abandoned there, for he was raised up, or resurrected. Why would Jesus go to hell is it is a place of torment? What horrible thing did Jesus- do? Jesus did nothing bad nor did he sin.

Hell fire teaching is a human teaching that is used by some religions to control their flock. It also is used to fleece the flocks. If one does not give or fill in the little while envelopes passed out in their churches or when the plate is passed, then they can be threaten with burning in hell , forever. L0L Has anyone ever seen a person burn continuously? I haven’t..
For centuries the dogma of hellfire has been drummed into the impressionable minds of youngsters and thundered from pulpits. What effect has this concept had on people’s hearts? Has it caused them to be kinder, more loving and compassionate in their dealings with others? In fact, the opposite results has been found.
The doctrine of eternal torment has turned many churchgoers into atheists. Even Billy Graham admitted that it was “the hardest of all the teachings of Christianity to receive.” But is this really a teaching supported by the Bible? I say no and I can back up what I say.
The dogma of eternal torment is based on the immortal-soul theory. However, the Bible clearly states in the Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 18:20 (New King James Version)
4 “ Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Also the Ezekiel 18:4; Ezekiel 18:20 (King James Version)
4Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
No where in the bible does it say the soul lives on to suffer anything or feel anything. It really is all not in the Bible. Some may say well the soul lives on, not the person! But is that what the bible says?
Acts 3:23 (King James Version)
23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
And for those who use the (New King James Version) Acts 3:23
23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’[a]

This shows that the soul is the person because it says the “soul” that does not hear the Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” Ask yourself this, if the “soul” is immortal and can not die or is something that floats to heaven, how come it can be destroyed?
Those who are preaching about the hellfire teaching, have made the true God, appear to be a fiend, a cruel monster, instead of what he is: a God of love, “merciful and gracious . . . and abundant in loving-kindness.”Exodus 34:6.
Lovingly, God has made provision to save humans , not from torment, but from being destroyed. Said Jesus: “God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” John 3:16.
If one looses their life, that is their responsibility and their own choice. That is what the Bible teaches. Those who teach a hellfire are just trying to control others to do what they feel is right. However, we are all free to choose the way we wish, right or wrong, we have that choice. If we choose the path that take our life, we will become non-existing, there is no torment.

Notice what the dictionary says for the definition of destruction. “
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destruction

–noun 1. the act of destroying: wanton destruction of a town.
2. the condition of being destroyed; demolition; annihilation.
3. a cause or means of destroying.

So please stop telling the Mormons, JW’s and the Atheists, and any who are not believing the way you do they are going to burn in hell. There is no hellfire a place of torment. Hell is the common place of mankind where they go after they die. Hell is your grave. Nothing more and nothing less. BTW: Those who teach the hellfire doctorine, know who they are, there is no need to mention names. These ones are always sending other to Their place of torment, hell.

Take care, just wanted to set matters straight about the God I serve is loving, he does not torture people.
Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 05/21/07:

Hope,

With all due respect again, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to discuss how each of us make our own choices - then end with "These ones are always sending other to Their place of torment, hell"? I didn't realize any of us had such power.

I must ask though, would a loving God assess a penalty of "complete destruction" (as the Watchtower's Insight entry on 'Gehenna' calls it) to anyone any more than he would send one to hell for eternal punishment? What pray tell is the difference? Either way that's a pretty severe punishment from a loving God, n'est pas?

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/21/07 - Here is something to think about. Part 1

Hello Everyone,

God does not use his authority to exert undue control over others. In this way, he shows unparalleled reasonableness. He carefully limits the number of laws that he makes and prohibits his servants from ‘going beyond the things written’ by adding burdensome laws of their own making.
1 Corinthians 4:6; Acts 15:28; contrast Matthew 23:4.


God never requires blind obedience of his creatures, but usually he provides sufficient information to guide them and puts the choice before them, letting them know the benefits of obeying and the consequences of disobeying. Deuteronomy 30:19, 20 Any loving parent will do the same with their children.

Rather than coercing people through guilt, shame, or fear, he seeks to reach hearts; he wants people to serve him out of genuine love rather than compulsion. 2 Corinthians 9:7 All such whole-souled service makes God’s heart rejoice, so he is not unreasonably “hard to please.”—1 Peter 2:18; Proverbs 27:11; Micah 6:8.

It is remarkable that God, who has more power than any being in creation, never exercises that power unreasonably, never uses it to bully others?

Yet I ask myself, if God gives us choices and does not tell us we will burn in hell if we don’t listen to what he says, why do some humans, so puny in comparison, have a history of domineering one another. Ecclesiastes 8:9

Clearly, reasonableness is a precious quality, one that moves us to love God from our hearts out of love because we get to know Him and what He stands for, His qualities and attributes, and it motivates us to cultivate this quality ourselves, so we can draw close to Him.

Answers these questions please:

1-
If God is love, 1 John 4:8 and wants us to love him and does not constantly threaten us with something to make us love Him, Why do humans use threats to control others?

2-
God says we are given free will and then we will reap the benefits or the consequences of our actions. If God tells us we have free will to choose, who is man to threaten others into doing things their way, or they will burn in a place they call hell? If God gives us free will to choose, do humans have a right to tear apart those who do not choose to believe what they believe?

3-
If God himself is loving and wants us to love him in return, does he want us to love him from our hearts or out of fear? Fear is control. Love is motivated by truly caring for the welfare of the one you love. At John 3:16, we are told that “God loved the world, so much, he gave His only begotten Son.” Would a person who gave their only begotten Son, so we could live, also control us by a dreaded fear?


If God has given us free will to choose which way to believe and go, if we are destroyed or even if we are rewarded with eternal life, is it not our choose which we will receive? That being so, God does not destroy any, each on of us will either live eternally or die. God does not kill any, we kill ourselves by what our choices are in how we choose to live our life that God gives us. God does not control people with dreaded fear, He gives us a choice and if we choose unwisely, that is not God’s fault, but our very own fault.

The Creator has given man a free will and so does not fix or foreordain the path each individual will take
THE WAY OF DEATH
THE WAY OF LIFE
God is a God of love not threats>

Comments;
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 05/21/07:

Hope,

You are correct in that we each make choices and have to deal with the consequences of those choices. But with all due respect, when you ask us to "answer these questions" and then answer them for us, you've done exactly that which you're objecting to - making the choice for us.

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Hwood asked on 05/20/07 - I have a question.

Why are the different faiths talking bad to the others. This is not God's way of dealing with us. Why can't we just follow His rule. Love thy neighbor as thy self. I am not a Mormon, but I do not hate them. I do not hate any denomination. If we are Christians, then we cannot hate anyone and still be Christians.

Itsdb answered on 05/21/07:

Actually Hwood, I really don't see that much interdenominational fighting here except when it comes to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (and the occasional Catholic bashing).

What you have here is what's become two 'protected classes' - LDS and Watchtower adherents - immune from questioning or criticism (of course you can also throw in Islam and gays in that sense).

The members of these protected classes are poised and waiting for any attempt to discuss issues involving their organizations or beliefs with windy narratives and a 'woe is me I'm so oppressed' campaign, along with 3 primary 'enforcers' ready to swoop down and blast all the offenders.

The enforcers of course have no qualms about engaging in the very behavior they condemn in the "anti-Mormons" and other "apostates" when they spew their vitriol toward adherents of orthodox Christian denominations and their beliefs - it's open season on us.

In other words, with a few exceptions, most of us here do not hate other denominations or their members, we'd actually like to discuss and reason things out. But that isn't a possibility since the views of a few have placed orthodox Christianity as the source of all evil and we should therefore shut up and/or submit to their superiority.

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 05/18/07 - BTW: This is to set matters straight in a loving way.

First, I only need appproval from God and as far as Jehovah Witnesse using the Internet, we are cautioned to be careful because of all the negative messages and porn on the Internet. We can use the Internet, to prove this to some who believe otherwise, the Society has a Website at http://www.watchtower.org. Why would they have a website if JW's can't use the internet? Many Jehovah Witnesses use the internet in business, do research and even speaking to people on forums like this one.

We just don't get rude and put others down because they are different. We do not have the right to judge others as to if they are approved by God or not. The Judgement should be left to Jesus Christ, not those who feel they are higher then Jesus.

As for "Fred and Hope applying what my post about being a Christian says." I just wanted to say that that post was for each one of us to apply it to ourselves, not to the other members around them.
After all NOONE is perfect, not one of us.
Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 05/18/07:

Hope, we're certainly all imperfect, but who is this NOONE person? :)

Seriously though, and I say this "in a loving way." I do hope you're taking your own posts to heart here because your history shows plenty of getting rude and putting others down (and don't ask me to show examples because if you do ask, I will).

The only difference between the way you put others down and others around here is you're just plain condescending while thinking you're being polite. So are you done with that?

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 05/17/07 - Family Tree / Genealogy - good news from Zion!

80 billion family files to go online

LDS Church plans to be history 'clearinghouse'
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News

In what officials say will be a quantum leap forward in providing family history information online, the LDS Church has announced a plan designed to eventually help provide access to as many as 80 billion family records on the Web, in addition to the tens of billions of records it is currently indexing out of its own Granite Vault microfilm archives.

The new Records Access program is being announced this week at the annual meeting of the National Genealogical Society (NGS) in Richmond, Va. The announcement details specifics of how the church is creating partnerships with various archives and other records depositories in a move to become the world's premier international "clearinghouse" for family history.

The first cooperative project under the new program will be to digitize and index U.S. Revolutionary War Pension records with the National Archives in Washington, meaning anyone with ancestors who served in that war will soon be able to access details about that family member online.

Steve W. Anderson, manager of marketing for the church's FamilySearch.org, said the church is working to arrange agreements with commercial Web sites and genealogical organizations worldwide to provide digitizing, indexing and online posting for billions of records, many of which have never been indexed at all, let alone been available online.

"Archives all have two things in mind: preservation and making records available," he said. "When push comes to shove, they would rather preserve them than share them, but most would like to do both."

The church is forming agreements with organizations to help film or digitally image their collections, which can be posted on an organization's Web site, as well as on FamilySearch.org. In some cases, FamilySearch will simply provide a link to a specific organization's Web site, where a small fee for access will be charged to view the records.

The program "recruits volunteers from around the world to index a batch of records at a time. They transcribe those pieces of information — names, dates, locations, marriage, death and birth dates — and make an index that allows the record to be searched by name or place or event," Anderson said.

The project not only will provide "vital statistics," but by imaging the documents, users will be able to pull up a digitized image of the actual record itself. "That's a whole different experience, to see an image of the original document," he said.

The program provides the flexibility necessary to work with small archives as well as giant repositories, he said. It helps those without any resources to complete the entire imaging, indexing and online posting process, and those with more resources who may simply need help posting information online or driving traffic to their Web site.

Once the church has signed an agreement to work with a specific organization, personnel there "typically want to recruit their own patrons to help them index. But with imaging the documents — taking digital photos of them — we do that for them in almost all cases. ... They want preservation-quality digital images, and we do that better than anybody. We've been doing it for decades," to produce the 2.4 million rolls of microfilm that now reside in the church's Granite Mountain near the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon, Anderson said.

FamilySearch can also put indexing projects in progress on its Web site, where volunteers can help index public collections of records. The Revolutionary War records are a "perfect example. We're doing the imaging, posting on our site and will recruit volunteers to help index." An online family history Web site called Footnote.com will create electronic indexes of the records and host the actual images there for public access.

The indexes and images of those records will also be viewable at LDS Family History Centers, as well as at FamilySearch.org.

Anderson said "numerous other national and international projects" of a similar nature are now under development and will be announced as agreements are signed or data is published.

As a result of the "affiliate arrangement," Anderson said FamilySearch.org will "have all the indexes for everything. You can think of it more or less like a Google — you go there to find the source of information you're looking for. Sometimes we're the source, and sometimes a third party is the source."

At least one or two similar agreements are expected to be announced this week in Virginia, Anderson said, noting several of the church's family history specialists are presenting at the conference this week.

While some Web sites may eventually use their information as a money-making enterprise, as commercial family history companies now do, Anderson said the church is not charging partners to help them make their records available.

Church officials have been looking to form such partnerships "for some time now," Anderson said, but have had to push forward the development of technology that would allow it to happen with "the way we scan, photo, transfer and archive. Because some of the necessary technology wasn't available, we had to develop it ourselves."

Working with a scanner producer, the church helped develop high-speed scanners that can scan a roll of microfilm in "a couple of minutes," as opposed to an hour or more that traditional scanners required.

New software developed to process that information into images and make it ready for processing, as well as to manage the warehousing of such huge information banks, also had to be created, Anderson said. "Almost every step of the way, there were significant engineering projects or hardware that needed to be developed."

Now that the technology is in place, the Records Access project will mean "at least 20 billion unique new names that will be in those records (to be posted online), but I'm not uncomfortable saying it could be 80 billion." That's compared with a total of about 5 billion names now online, he said.

The new technology and resulting "affiliate" agreements through FamilySearch will "fundamentally change people's ability to find their ancestors and connect with their families online. It's just going to be a real watershed event," Anderson said.

E-mail: carrie@desnews.com

-----------------

Do you have your family tree?


Itsdb answered on 05/18/07:

Ronnie, I do have my family tree, and I know your church does extensive genealogical work, but why? What business does the LDS church have investigating my family tree? Are there not more important things they could be doing with their vast resources?

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 05/17/07 - 'All Of You Must Die' ...................................




...........

Itsdb answered on 05/17/07:

Isn't that what The Iranian Nutjob, ol' Ahm-in-a-jihad said to Israel? Yes I believe it was, but as for the rest of us there are choices to be made...

The 20 Hamburgers You Must Eat Before You Die

500 CDs You Must Own Before You Die

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

50 sporting things you must do before you die

1,001 Gardens You Must See Before You Die

10 Places You Must Visit Before You Die

Or more importantly, choose you this day whom ye will serve ... as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 05/16/07 - Does Doctrine Matter?

I received this from a friend of mine.
MaggieB
----------------------------------------------------

Recently I received a scathing email. In no uncertain terms I was told that sound doctrine has no place in the church, as long as the believer is sincere. I was instructed that doctrine divides and as such was foundationally a bad thing. I was further clearly made to know that Christians should just put their exclusiveness and doctrine aside and embrace everyone. Unity was far more important than being right.

Since there is no doubt that doctrine can be divisive those are noble albeit not biblically sound motives. I agree that a hallmark of true Christian faith is shown by our desire to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength and loving our neighbor as ourselves. I agree wholeheartedly that unity and sincerity are important. BUT.....

All the sincerity in the world is meaningless if you are sincere about the wrong things. I can sincerely believe that I can step off my roof and fly and that the law of gravity does not apply to me. That's fine until you step off the roof and fall.

Truth is not dependent upon whether or not you believe it. It remains true regardless. Being sincere about salvation through any means other than Jesus leads you straight to hell. Sincerity is important, but you need to be sincere about the truth.

We are called by God to hold and teach sound doctrine.

1 Timothy 4:16 NIV
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Titus 2:1 NIV
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.
We are still to love those who hold different doctrinal positions, but that does not mean we compromise our own or allow their errors to creep into the church.

The Word of God by its very nature is divisive. It divides truth from error. It divides darkness and light. It divides the saved and the damned.

Hebrews 4:12 NIV
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
In a world that rejects truth, and is tolerant of anything but truth, sound doctrine is an unpopular thing. It was an unpopular thing in Jesus day and that fact has not changed.

We are to love one another, but we are to hold fast to truth and not waiver in it. It is important to know not only what you believe, but why you believe it. We are dealing with matters of eternal importance when we look at God's truth. We are called to contend for the truth.

JUDE 1:3 NIV
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

We are to know the truth and we are to fight for it, even when it is unpopular and politically incorrect.


Itsdb answered on 05/16/07:

Well Maggie, I'm sure you knew this would be unpopular. The church cannot do without doctrine - even if our doctrine isn't 100% correct. I don't believe any one group has it all right, but without doctrine we have no standards and all we're left with is anarchy.

And here's where it gets interesting I think, anarchy IS the doctrine of the secularists. If you've paid any attention here you've surely noticed they have standards - but they're very flexible and often one-sided. And, some of the most vocal in other religions that condemn the "divisiness" of orthodox Christian doctrine, themselves have the most stringent of doctrines.

And personally, I believe sound doctrine would say when you die, God isn't going to ask you anything. He'll either know and welcome you as one who has trusted in His Son - or He won't welcome you at all. That is the doctrine, or truth, that brings life.

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 05/15/07 - Bloomberg has a Billion Set Aside

"New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times.
"He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it."
Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run.
The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion. Earlier, he told friends he would make a run only if he thought he could win a plurality in a three-way race and would spend $500 million -- or less than 10 percent of his personal fortune.
A $1 billion campaign budget would wipe out many of the common obstacles faced by third-party candidates seeking the White House...."Washington Times on line.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The televised debates would really mean something if Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate.

What effect would his run have on the Christo-Republicans and the Democratic Parties, in your opinion???


Itsdb answered on 05/15/07:

There's no such thing as the "Christo-Republicans" so how would we know? I do know it takes more than money to win.

Since those 'rich Republicans' have no problem raising money and they actually have ideas, it would send more of a chill down the Democrat's spines than the Republicans. It's a little harder to fight a fabulously wealthy non-Republican when you're dependent on the aging hippie dollars and you have nothing but the same failed, repackaged ideas of 40 years ago.

Steve

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 05/15/07 - Rev. Jerry Fallwell is dead at age 73.

Falwell died in his office today of a heart attack.
I hope he rest in peace and I pray that the Lord will have mercy on his soul.
Will you do the same for him?

Itsdb answered on 05/15/07:

May God rest hs soul and comfort his family.

It might also be a good thing if God gave the the Zacharias treatment to those celebrating his demise, too. He wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but he doesn't deserve that kind of pure hatred.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 05/15/07 - HAPPY DAY

It's always a happy day when an evil man dies.

So long, Jerry Fawell, dead forever!



Mary Sue :)

Itsdb answered on 05/15/07:

You know Marychouxan, yours and Pericles' responses are typical of say, a pathetic little twit, someone you might refer to as a waste of human skin. But hey, I guess that's to be expected from small, ignorant people.

Steve

domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 05/11/07 - And Some Say the Islamics here do not have terror on their mind?

USA Today
By Donna Leinwand

WASHINGTON — An alert store clerk suspicious of a videotape exposed the plan of six aspiring Islamic holy warriors who were plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey with assault weapons, the FBI said Tuesday [March 8].

Investigators in court papers described the men as "Islamic militants" who purchased weapons, staked out targets, practiced tactical maneuvers and viewed inspirational jihadist videos.

The 15-month investigation began when the photo-store employee contacted police about a customer who had asked to have a video made into a DVD, court papers say.

A spokeswoman for Circuit City on Wednesday said the clerk was an employee at their Mount Laurel store. Spokeswoman Jackie Foreman said the store is not releasing the employee's name but confirmed the person still works for the company.

"If we didn't get that tip," said U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, "I couldn't be sure what would happen." FBI agent J.P. Weis called the clerk the "unsung hero" of the case.

The video, allegedly taped on Jan. 3, 2006, at a rented house in the Pocono Mountains, showed men in military fatigues shooting assault weapons while calling for jihad, or holy war, and shouting in Arabic, "God is great," court papers say.

The clerk described the video as "disturbing," court papers say.

The men, who were arrested Monday, had viewed Osama bin Laden videos, but investigators found no direct link to his al-Qaeda terrorist organization, White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

"There is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie," Snow said.

Recorded conversations show the men sought a large number of American casualties, FBI agent John Ryan wrote in a sworn statement.

"My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of soldiers," Mohamad Shnewer, one of the men arrested, said in a telephone call recorded by investigators. "You hit four, five, or six Humvees and light the whole place (up) and then retreat completely without any losses."

He rued a missed opportunity to strike at the Army-Navy football game held in Philadelphia, court papers say.

Shnewer and five other alleged plotters also considered Fort Monmouth Army Base and the Naval Air Station Lakehurst in New Jersey, Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and the U.S. Coast Guard building in Philadelphia, court papers show. They eliminated Dover after staking out the base and finding security too tight, court papers say.

They ultimately fixed on Fort Dix because one of the men, Serdar Tatar, allegedly had easy access to the base as a delivery man for his family's pizza business in Cookstown, N.J., court papers say.

Five of the six men are charged with conspiring to kill soldiers at Fort Dix and illegally purchasing firearms: brothers Dritan "Tony" Duka, 28, Eljvir "Elvis" Duka, 23, and Shain Duka, 26, of Cherry Hill, N.J.; Shnewer, 22, of Cherry Hill; and Tatar, 23, of Philadelphia. The sixth man, Agron Abdullahu, 24, of Buena Vista Township, N.J., is charged with aiding the attempt to get weapons.

The Dukas, who work at a roofing business, were born in the former Yugoslavia and are living illegally in the USA, the Justice Department says. Shnewer, a cab driver in Philadelphia, is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Jordan. Tatar, who worked as a convenience store clerk, is a legal permanent resident from Turkey. Abdullahu, a supermarket clerk, is a legal permanent resident born in Yugoslavia.

As the investigation progressed, two FBI informants infiltrated the group and recorded conversations and training, court papers say.

The FBI also copied Shnewer's computer hard drive, court papers say.

The battle for the soul of America is being lost. Intelligence leaders have related to that terrorists fighting in Iraq are planning to head to the U.S. as early as this summer. If those with moral clarity sleep, America’s next president may be presiding over a nuclear 9/11.

The battle can be won, but it has to be fought by knowing the truth (it will set us free), and through prayer.

Millions of praying saints (Daniels and Esthers) can reverse the curse. Esther won the battle:

“If you keep quiet at a time like this, deliverance for the Jews will arise from some other place, but you and your relatives will die. What's more, who can say but that you have been elevated to the palace for just such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14)
Daniel won the battle: “The people that do know their God will be strong and do exploits...” (Daniel 11:28)

Pray for protection as he battles against God-haters and radical Islamic fanatics (9/11 types) that are living among us.

The following site could be an eye opener for all US residents.
www.beyondiraq.com site.

Itsdb answered on 05/11/07:

Maggie,

Good luck convincing anyone here that doesn't already understand the Islamist threat. I think I've finally discovered why that is - the left believes they and the Islamists are on the same side.

Don't you fnd it disturbing that "anti-war" activists can align themselves with terrorists?

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
komyothant asked on 05/11/07 - flashy virus

i have a problem.my pc is infect with flashy virus.how can i remove.can u please tell me which software can remove flashy virus.what did i do?tell me everything how can i remove flashy virus.


Itsdb answered on 05/11/07:

Though this isn't the computer board I'll give it a go. See this page, and if that doesn't work go here, download HijackThis and post the results here or here for someone to analyze.

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Ch.Pétrus.82 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 05/10/07 - Serious Question:



What is religious commitment? (Use any definition of RELIGIOUS that you wish)

HANK

Itsdb answered on 05/10/07:

Well now Hank, that's a tricky question. But fortunately I have a poetic example for you...

Somalia Land of Islam
People of strong Iman
Somalia graveyard of the crusaders
Who never learn from their past mistakes

They came in 93
To bring peace, justice and democracy
And were dispatched in pieces
After they were exposed for their hypocrisy
Uranium and other resources was the motive

Now they are using proxies
Ethiopians and So called Somali's
Puppets and traitors
Slaves once more
Like before
This time paid
To raid their own kind
No dignity or honor

US is clever
Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan
No more land invasions
Maybe they learnt their lesson
Not to mess with Muslims

Divide and conquer
Weaken and annihilate
Back to their old ways
Old tactics renewed
While the Muslims continue to
Fight with small arms
Hitting and running
And blowing up using their own bodies

US aware
Full of fear
Refusing to land troops
Coz they remember Black Hawk down

Mujahideen say
Crusaders welcome
To the land of glory and Islam
People full of dignity and Taqwa
Coz
Islam reached here before Medina

Ready to die in Jihad
Than submit and be humiliated
Motivated and ready

My dear Somali brothers
Forget the divisions of tribalism
Tool of jahaliyah and shaytan
West's biggest weapon
More powerful than a nuclear bomb
More Somalis died
And many widows and orphans cried
Coz of tribalism

Leave this evil
And unite as brothers
Inter-marry and kill it for good
Unite and repel the occupation
Together
Otherwise u will be enslaved forever

Instead of walking
U will be kneeling
And bowing
To the US and its allies

Horn of Africa
Land of Islam
Able to inspire the Ummah
And put fear in the hearts of the enemy

Your ancestors were Mujihideen
Proud and noble
Live up to their glories
Against invaders like the Italians
Don't collaborate or condemn your brothers
Islam brought order
While kufr and tribalism brings disorder

You've seen it in the past
Don't make the same mistake twice
May Allah help u and give u the victory
Establish Islamic rule in state and society.
Ameen.

HANK1 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
TTFNUAS rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 05/10/07 - Catholics, Evangelicals, and Mormons Oppose Bigotry ...............

Catholics and evangelicals leap to Romney's defense

By Lisa Riley Roche
Deseret Morning News

Catholics and evangelicals came to the LDS Church's and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's defense Wednesday, calling on the Rev. Al Sharpton to answer for suggesting Mormons don't believe in God.


Mitt Romney

"Extraordinarily bigoted" was how Romney described Sharpton's comment made during a debate on religion held Monday in New York City, where Sharpton said, "as for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that, that's a temporary situation."

The former Democratic presidential candidate spent Wednesday defending his remark. He told the Associated Press that he was not questioning Romney's belief in God but was attempting to contrast himself with the atheist author he was debating, Christopher Hitchens.

"What I said was that we would defeat him, meaning as a Republican," Sharpton told the wire service. "A Mormon, by definition, believes in God. They don't believe in God the
way I do, but by definition, they believe in God."

Sharpton told CNN's Paula Zahn on Wednesday evening he was responding to Hitchens' claim that Mormons are an example of how religion promotes racism because the church had excluded blacks.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not grant the priesthood to males of all races until 1978.

Sharpton said if Mormons did not in the past see blacks as equal, they're not "real worshippers of God because I do not believe God distinguishes between people. That is not bigotry. That's responding to their beliefs."

It was Hitchens who "attacked the Mormons," not him, Sharpton said. "I'm the one that belongs to a race that couldn't join the Mormons and I'm the one that's the bigot," he said, calling on Romney to explain his views on his church's position on blacks.

Romney, who would be the first member of the LDS Church to serve as president if his race for the White House is successful in 2008, responded earlier in the day to Sharpton on the MSNBC cable network news channel's "Morning Joe" program.


Rev. Al Sharpton


"I can only, hearing that statement, wonder whether there's not bigotry that still remains in America," Romney said, adding that most people "have no interest in applying a religious test or suggesting that God wants one faith or another to succeed in becoming the president."

Romney, who led Salt Lake's successful 2002 Winter Olympics before serving as governor of Massachusetts, called what Sharpton said an "extraordinarily bigoted kind of statement, and I find it really quite extraordinary."

A spokesman for the LDS Church, Scott Trotter, had little to say about Sharpton's comment. "It's just campaign rhetoric and we're referring everyone back to Romney," Trotter said.

The Catholic League called for Sharpton to "be held accountable for his bigoted outburst" and suggesting it "should finish his career," just as Don Imus' recent racist statements resulted in the cancellation of his radio show. Sharpton was among Imus' harshest critics.

Kiera McCaffrey, the New York City-based league's director of communications, said Mormons are experiencing what Catholics did when John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960.

Kennedy, who became the nation's first Catholic president, ultimately had to address the question of whether he would be controlled by his church in a speech made just before the election. Romney's faith has raised similar concerns, especially among evangelical Christians.

"Catholics went through it. Now we see members of the LDS Church going through it," McCaffrey told the Deseret Morning News. "We're not hypocrites. If we're going to defend the rights of Catholics to participate in public life, we're going to do the same across the board."

The Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical minister who heads the National Clergy Council, issued a statement calling on Sharpton to "immediately apologize to Mr. Romney and the good people of the LDS Church and repent before God for such sinful hubris."

Schenck, who has met privately with Romney to talk about Mormonism, also said that "while many other Christian groups may have differences with LDS doctrine, to question someone else's sincerity of belief in God is the height of pharisaical arrogance."

The reaction to Sharpton's comment will help set boundaries for future discussions of Mormonism and other faiths in the campaign, said Kelly Patterson, director of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy.

"You have evangelical groups and Catholic groups now saying that this is a line that has been crossed," Patterson said. "It helps not just Romney but all other candidates."

Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, said the controversy "will have no impact on how people perceive the LDS Church or Mitt Romney. ... This is much more about Sharpton."

He described Sharpton as "equal parts of publicity, pews and politics. I think publicity is driving this. It's another way for him to get back in the center of the storm. I think he enjoyed himself with Imus."

Jowers, a Romney supporter, said there "certainly is some irony and some hypocrisy in that (Sharpton) led the charge to get rid of Imus for an outrageous comment." Imus referred to members of the Rutgers University womens basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a statement that while Sharpton "is eager to play the political correctness card when it suits his purposes, he apparently sees nothing wrong with an offensive attack against Gov. Mitt Romney using his religion."

Sharpton's comment came in first half-hour or so of a two-hour debate on "Is God Great?" as he was explaining the religious roots of the civil rights movement lead by Martin Luther King Jr.

Earlier, Hitchens had offered what he said was a contemporary example of using religion to justify racism. A GOP presidential candidate, he said, was a member of the "so-called Mormon Church" that had taught "that the Bible separates the sons of Ham and makes them lesser."

Sharpton said there was no question about the civil rights movement being faith-based. "Let's not reinvent Dr. King any more than we try to reduce God to some denomination or convention," he said, before launching into his comment on an unnamed Mormon candidate.

According to a tape of the debate, held at the New York Public Library, the audience laughed at what was clearly a reference to Romney before Sharpton continued his defense of religion and God.

Hitchens, his debate partner, has written a new book, "God Is Not Great," that labels the LDS Church "a plain racket" that has turned "into a serious religion before our eyes." The debate was moderated by Slate Magazine's Jacob Weisberg, also critical of Mormons.

Weisberg wrote in the online magazine last December that rejecting a Mormon presidential candidate is not religious bigotry. "I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believes the founding whoppers of Mormonism," Weisberg said in the article.

E-mail: lisa@desnews.com

Itsdb answered on 05/10/07:

The Rev. knows how to backtrack from sticking his foot in his mouth, and he will get a pass as he usually does. But I don't care how much he tries to explain this away it was just wrong - whether he was referring to Mormons or Republicans. And this from the same guy that just crucified Don Imus for his bigotry.

Otherwise, as tomder pointed out he held his own in the debate ... but that doesn't excuse the statement.

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
JesseJamesDupree asked on 05/08/07 - After Holly admitted.........

that I am not any relation to her, I think aton and pericles should apologize for foolishly pursuing this accusation for several weeks. They should especially apologize to the big gal, whose picture pericles plastered all over an internet web site! What say ye???:)

Itsdb answered on 05/08/07:

JJD, it's spring, let's just throw a good ol' fashioned barbecue and have a good time instead - maybe even invite some folks from Peta.



What say ye???

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 05/08/07 - Texas Republican Quotes KKK Leader

Roll Call reports today that a House Republican delivered a foreign policy speech yesterday in which he quoted Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the KKK.

"On Monday, Rep. Ted Poe took to the House floor to discuss foreign policy matters. To make a point, the Texas Republican invoked the words of Civil War Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: “Git thar fustest with the mostest.”

The quotation got some floor watchers’ attention pretty quickly. Forrest is a controversial figure who was one of the Klan’s first grand wizards. Although the Civil War hero (if you were a Confederate, that is) ultimately abandoned the Klan for its violent tactics, he continues to kick up dust.

“Controversial figure” doesn’t quite cut it. Most lists of the **worst Americans in U.S. history** include Nathan Bedford Forrest near the top. That’s what happens when someone creates the KKK to terrorize freed slaves and their allies, after taking up arms against the United States. What on earth would possess a GOP lawmaker to quote Forrest on the House floor?

Poe’s spokesperson told Roll Call, “The reference to Forrest was used in an historical context comparing the request to Congress for support of the Confederate troops to the request that is being made today by our Generals in Iraq.”

First, the comparison doesn’t make any sense. Second, when one bolsters their argument with the words of one of the most controversial Americans ever, rationalizing it as a historical comparison is unpersuasive.

Shouldn’t this be a bigger deal? Given all of the racial problems of the Republican Party, isn’t it rather scandalous for a Republican lawmaker to rely on the words of the founder of the KKK?

Post Script: And, just as an aside, the quote Poe used was wrong.

[A]ccording to historians, Forrest didn’t really say the line that’s so often attributed to him. “Do not, under any circumstances whatever, quote Forrest as saying ‘fustest’ and ‘mostest’,” Civil War scholar Bruce Catton wrote in his 1971 book, “The Civil War.” Catton wrote that Forrest actually believed the essence of strategy — and the proper quote — was “to git thar fust with the most men.”

What’s worse than quoting the founder of the KKK on the House floor? Quoting him incorrectly."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The KKK had a Christian religious component, as we all know.

Any comments about this incident???

Itsdb answered on 05/08/07:

MaryChouxan,

Gotta agree with DK, so what! So he quoted - or misquoted - a harmless quote by a civil war general, who in fact was NOT the founder of the KKK or even IN the KKK at the time he said it.

Compare that to one of this Senate's Democratic leaders, Dick Durbin speaking of our soldiers as no different than "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot," from the Senate floor.

You have to try and tarnish a Texas Republican with a quote from 150 years ago while current Democrats spew their bile on a daily basis, Democrats who align themselves with vile Hollywood celebrities making the crudest anti-American statements one can imagine? How pathetic and juvenile!

Oh, and there is no "Christian" component to the KKK. As part of the church I OBJECT to spreading such misinformation.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 05/08/07 - BIGOTS ----- Does God Need Them ...............................


................................ ? If so, why does He.


Where in the Bible does it give licence to Bigots to spread their venom?

That information is not in the Mormon Bible (The Authorised Version KJ). Where can I buy a Bigots' Bible?



Itsdb answered on 05/08/07:

Where can you buy a Bigots' Bible? Have you tried eBay?

Of course God doesn't 'need' bigots - unless perhaps as an example of how not to act toward others.

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 05/07/07 - Four Objections to Christianity

"There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: (1)that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error (2)it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that (3)it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that (4)it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." Slate an article by Christopher Hitchens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you agree or disagree with any of the four objections to faith? Why?

Comments?

Itsdb answered on 05/08/07:

(1)that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error

I'm assuming Hitchens was there when it all happened?

(2)it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that

Maybe I just don't get what he's trying to say here but to me "the maximum of solipsism" is contrary to religious faith - unless perhaps you practice Christian Science :)

(3)it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that

Bwaaaahaaahaaaaa! This just tells me Hitchens is an ignorant fool that will believe just about anything.

(4)it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.

Who is Hitchens to account for the personal experience of others?

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
holly_ asked on 05/07/07 - Can everyone try to lighten up?

Can we become more welcoming to new visiters?
Can we? That is the sixty four thousand question?
We are loosing to many new comers that come to this Site we do not own this place, can't we just be nice to the new ones?

Itsdb answered on 05/07/07:

As the storm raged, the Captain realized his ship was sinking fast.

He called out, "Anyone here know how to Pray?"

One man stepped forth.

"Aye, Captain, I know how to Pray."

"Good," said the Captain, "you Pray while the rest of us put on our life jackets."

"Were one short."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



How's that? :)

holly_ rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 05/07/07 - A Prophecy of JS Fulfilled ......................................... There are any more ..........




Said the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"The enemies of this people will never get weary of their persecution against the Church, until they are overcome. I expect they will array everything against me that is in their power to control, and that we shall have a long and tremendous warfare.

He that will war the true Christian warfare against the corruptions of these last days will have wicked men and angels of devils, and all the infernal powers of darkness continually arrayed against him. When wicked and corrupt men oppose, it is a criterion to judge if a man is warring the Christian warfare.

When all men speak evil of you falsely, blessed are ye. Shall a man be considered bad, when men speak evil of him? No. If a man stands and opposes the world of sin, he may expect to have all wicked and corrupt spirits arrayed against him. But it will be but a little season, and all these afflictions will be turned away from us, inasmuch as we are faithful, and are not overcome by these evils."

(HC5:139-141)

This day is this prophecy fulfilled in thy sight!


Itsdb answered on 05/07/07:

When wicked and corrupt men oppose, it is a criterion to judge if a man is warring the Christian warfare.

What is the criteria for deeming someone as "wicked and corrupt," and how long is "a little season?"

Steve
P.S. Just curious, do you support Mitt Romney's quest for president?

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Chickadee asked on 05/07/07 - Question

Please answer my question, I am confused. Is this a board for Christians?

I am asking because you guys seem to hate each other. Why? Atheists are people too. Christians are people too. Those who don't have any God are people too.

I am a Christian and I luv all people. Come on now, you all can luv each other if you wheely try.

chickadee

Itsdb answered on 05/07/07:

This is a question and answer board on the subject of Christianity, it is not "a board for Christians," but you seem to get that.

There are a minority of 'experts' here that seem to enjoy the 'sound' of their written voices, extolling the virtues of "tolerance" without practicing the tolerance they preach. They are here merely to assassinate while posing as moral and intellectual superiors.

Mix that in with a few self-righteous know-it-alls of various religious affiliations (or not), a troll or two and a few just here to have a little fun, and the rest of us can't even broach a controversial subject without a smackdown.


(That pair was for you TS)

In other words, sadly things are normal around here.

Steve

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 05/06/07 - Pim Fortuyn

Europe's Champion of Liberty
BY BRUCE BAWER
May 4, 2007
http://www.nysun.com/article/53818?page_no=3

Sunday, May 6, marks the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn was nine days away from an election from which he was expected to emerge as Dutch prime minister. As he walked out of a radio studio near Amsterdam, a left-wing activist named Volker van der Graaf pumped five bullets into his back. Fortuyn died almost instantly.

The killer would later explain that Fortuyn's views on Muslim immigration made him a "danger." It was the Netherlands's first political assassination in over 300 years.

Fortuyn had been an active politician for only a few months but had already shaken things up dramatically. Before him, Dutch politics had been essentially a closed club whose members shared broadly similar views on major issues and abhorred open conflict.

Then along came Fortuyn, a writer and sociology professor who'd grown increasingly concerned about the rapid Muslim influx into the Netherlands — and about the fact that while the Dutch government lavishly subsidized immigrant families, schools, mosques, and community centers, it made little effort to integrate newcomers and refused to challenge the patriarchal, often brutal values that held sway in Muslim enclaves.

Fortuyn recognized the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Europe as a menace to democracy. And he said it straight out — eloquently, forcefully, fearlessly. Back in 1997 he'd published one of the first books anywhere to sound the alarm. Only days before September 11, 2001, he wrote that communism's role as a threat to Western freedom "has been taken over by Islam."

But instead of recognizing him as a prophet, Dutch leaders saw him as a threat. On September 11, Dutch Moroccans gathered in the streets to cheer. But the interior minister, Zaken De Vries, ignoring these enemies within, warned instead that counterintelligence services would "pay sharp attention to persons who want to … conduct a cold war against Islam." Meaning Fortuyn.

In November 2001, Fortuyn became head of a new party, Livable Netherlands, only to be tossed out three months later for being too outspoken. So he started another party. The more he spoke out, the more journalists and politicians smeared him — an openly gay man and life-long liberal — as a right-wing extremist, a racist, a new Mussolini or Hitler.

Yet millions of his countrymen knew better. Accustomed to leaders who shunned controversy and spoke in empty formulas, Dutchmen were stunned and delighted to hear Fortuyn say things they'd long been thinking themselves. Voters from all over the political map became his ardent supporters. He seemed poised not only to transform the Netherlands but also to lead the way for all of Western Europe.

And then, suddenly, he was dead. Van der Graaf's explanation of his motives read like a précis of every lie that had ever been told about Fortuyn. Dutch citizens were justifiably outraged at the journalists and politicians who'd told those lies. Feeling the heat, the Dutch parliament reformed immigration law — to an extent. It overhauled integration policies — somewhat.

Leading the way in advocating these policy changes were two admirers of Fortuyn's — filmmaker Theo van Gogh and Parliament member Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But by early 2007 they, too, were out of the picture.

In November 2004, an Islamist murdered van Gogh. In 2006, in a crisis that brought down the government, Ms. Hirsi Ali was hounded out of Parliament by colleagues desperate to unload this troublemaker. When she moved to Washington, D.C., last year, polls showed that many Dutchmen wouldn't miss her. The elite, it seemed, had reasserted its power, and the Dutch people, tired of conflict, had embraced the status quo ante.

This was confirmed by the March 2006 elections, in which immigration — incredibly — was a minor issue. Five years ago, Fortuyn inspired widespread hope and determination. Today, all too many Dutch citizens seem confused, fearful, and resigned to gradual Islamization. No wonder many of them — especially the young and educated — are emigrating to places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Yes, some politicians, notably Parliament member Geert Wilders, are carrying on Fortuyn's battle. But momentum has given way to malaise. Politicians and journalists who once kept mum on Islamization now openly defend it as preferable to culture clash: Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen has called for "accommodation with the Muslims," including toleration "of orthodox Muslims who consciously discriminate against their women."

Only last week, Mr. Wilders was called in by Dutch intelligence and security officials who, he said, "intimidated" him by pressuring him to tone down his rhetoric on Islam. Fortuyn's brief shining moment seems very long ago.

Many political assassinations leave behind haunting questions. How would Reconstruction have gone under Lincoln? Could the Vietnam debacle have been avoided if President Kennedy had lived? Five years after Fortuyn's murder, it can feel as if Volkert van der Graaf robbed Europe not only of a brilliant champion of liberty, but of its one great chance to save itself before it's too late.

Mr. Bawer is the author of "While Europe Slept" and lives in Oslo, Norway.

Itsdb answered on 05/07/07:

tom,

I guess all these news sources were wrong?

The Telegraph:

    "A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland's first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.

    Volkert van der Graaf, 33, a vegan animal rights campaigner, said he alone was responsible for killing the maverick protest leader last May, days before a general election in which the Fortuyn List party vaulted into second place and shattered Holland's consensus...

    The shaven-headed Fortuyn, who used to sweep across Rotterdam in a chauffeur-driven Daimler with two King Charles spaniels by his side, relished mocking all forms of political correctness, but rarely ventured into the animal rights dispute.

    His chief targets were militant Islam and the persecution of gays and lesbians. He said the emergence in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and The Hague of Muslim ghettoes resisting assimilation threatened Holland's liberal society and national cohesion.


CNN:



NY Times:

    Volkert van der Graaf is sentenced to 18 years in prison for assassination of Pim Fortuyn, right-wing Dutch politician whose death continues to disturb Netherlands; tells court he killed Fortuyn because he felt he was dangerous man 'who abused democracy by picking on vulnerable groups' and who had 'awful ideas' about immigrants, asylum seekers, Muslims and other issues


The Sydney Morning Herald:

    A left-wing activist has confessed in court to the Netherlands' first political assassination in 400 years, saying he shot the maverick Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution.

    Volkert van der Graaf, 33, a vegan animal rights activist, said on Thursday that he alone was responsible for killing the flamboyant gay protest leader last May, days before elections in which the Fortuyn List party vaulted into second place and shattered the Netherlands' consensus.

    Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: "He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself."


Washington Post:



But hey, Perc doesn't make mistakes. I think Perc may be afraid to offend Islamists even though he has no trouble offending Christians. Who can blame him though? Those rabid Baptists bearing tuna sandwiches aren't nearly as menacing as a few Muslims wearing explosive vests.

Steve

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 05/04/07 - The Christo-Republican Ten

Ariana Huffington observes the debate:

"..... The Republican Ten seemed to be competing over: Who would stay in Iraq the longest? Who would cut taxes the deepest? Who would be alright with firing gay Americans from their jobs? Who would jump the highest if Roe v. Wade was reversed? Who would build the biggest fence around America? Who would put an end to stem cell research the fastest? Who would reject evolution most passionately? Stephen Hayes countered that it was a good night for Republicans if they were called Neanderthals by Arianna Huffington. But the problem for the Republican Party as it presented itself to the nation last night is not that it was at odds with my views, but that it is at odds with the views of the American people. By significant majorities, the American people believe in the science of evolution, don't want Roe overturned, don't want to turn back the clock on job discrimination laws, and do want to bring our troops home from Iraq.".....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I watched the debate and the debaters were pretty much unimpressive with one debater shining, Mitt Romney. He had some reasonable views before he FLIP FLOPPED recently to FundiEv positions. So did Guiliani and McCain, but they looked insincere defending their FLIP FLOPPING. The rest of the field seemed so Neanderthalish.

Did you watch the debates of the Christo-Republican Party? What did you think??

Itsdb answered on 05/04/07:

I did not watch the debates, but at least they had the cojones to jump into the Chris Matthews twilight zone as compared to the dems being afraid to debate with Fox News being a co-sponsor along with the liberal Congressional Black Caucus.

If you want "Neanderthalish," look no further than the California Democratic Party Convention that was just held (or is it just typically weird?):

    Candidate: Mike Gravel
    Appropriate career: Shock jock.
    Convention presence: None.
    Followers:. None.
    Speech: Nothing to main convention—spoke during Friday reception while delegates grappled over the free crab cakes and hummus.
    X-factor: Pronounces name with emphasis on last syllable. Sounds French to us. Luckily, support cannot get below zero.
    Grade: A. May have enhanced name recognition.

    Candidate: Chris Dodd
    Appropriate career: Senator. Dude really looks like a senator.
    Convention presence: Not much. Media showed scant interest.
    Followers: One. And we think he's on the payroll.
    Speech: Theme of "When I was young" more likely to generate guilty calls to grandparents than votes.
    X-factor: Never trust a candidate when you can't see his eyes for his eyebrows.
    Grade: C. Why is he running?

    Candidate: Dennis Kucinich
    Appropriate career: Cult leader.
    Convention presence: Ubiquitous. Kucinich and his foxy red-haired Viking of a wife appeared at several of the caucuses and spent all Saturday in San Diego. He didn't spend money on much besides signs. Aging hippies promoted him for free.
    Followers: Somewhat smelly.
    Speech: For Kucinich, speeches are performance art, a full-body dance in which he and his audience rise and fall together. For a few minutes, he owned the room, but then he stopped and the Dems returned to the fluorescent light of reality.
    X-factor: After listening to Kucinich speak for 10 minutes, listeners lose the power of reason and logic. They begin to sway back and forth, muttering the words "Yes, Master."
    Grade: A. The right fit for liberal Californians.


Seen and heard at the convention

    • Quote of the weekend: "Let's all get up and exercise out lower extremities."—State chairman Art Torres.

    • The Kucinich hootenanny wrapped up in just an hour on Friday night. We've been to some hootenannies, we've worked at hootenannies, and, Mr. Kucinich, that was no hootenanny.

    • The Guerilla Media workshop on Friday lasted half an hour and consisted of Dems complaining that Harry Reid had been misquoted when he said we lost the war. Good thing they had a workshop.

    • The Gore-Obama ticket pushed by some dreamers on Friday sounds good to us, but who's the top and who's the bottom?

    • City Councilmember Toni Atkins was a delegate this year. She attended a "small breakfast in La Jolla"with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Atkins said Pelosi told a story about admonishing the president to his face for suggesting "that the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives ‘just stay at home' in his comments about her trip to Syria.”

    • The Progressive Democrats of America offered impeach-mints to passers-by.

    • Does Dennis Kucinich remind anyone else of Mr. Sulu?

    • The Edwards campaign gets the award for the most arrogant theme song. After his speech, Edwards was played off with Foo Fighters singing, "There goes my hero. / Watch him as he goes.”

    • The Lyndon LaRouchians were out in force, but mainly they demonstrated why we need to put more money into our schools. One told CityBeat that "Abe Lincoln kicked the British ass in the civil War."Another argued that folk music is based on rock 'n' roll.

    • Gov. Bill Richardson, in his press conference, made the gaffe of the weekend, one-upping the LaRouchians by telling reporters that Byron White's U.S. Supreme Court stint didn't last past the 60's. White retired in 1993.

    • Democrats have bad hair, but the balding guy with the mullet really took the cake. The business in front closed, and the party in back should have ended long ago.

    • There's never enough free food, but the shortage of free forks at the Friday reception was baffling. Luckily, neither Dems nor CityBeat reporters are above eating hummus with their fingers.

    • This guy at the Progressive Caucus held above his head a sign that read "What is depleted uranium?"for, like, an hour. Talk about a feat of stamina. We were impressed.


Raucous caucus

    • The first motion from the Children's Caucus was to have refreshments at the next meeting. The second was to have soft drinks.

    • The Environmental Caucus turned the lights off for a minute to save energy. Of course, the meeting had to be a minute longer, to finish its work. Also, if you want to get in with that environmentalist hottie you've been eyeing, bring up incandescent light bulbs. It seems to get them in a lather.

    • There was a three-way tie for most lively caucus: Progressives, the LGBT and the old folks in the Senior Caucus. Of course, they may have been loud just so they could hear each other.

    • Only one standing officer survived from the last meeting of the Senior Caucus to the current one.

    • The Progressives are the biggest, and their ranks may have been the most rank, which, trust us, is saying something. Our reporter had to change places several times to find a less aromatic seat.

    • The Business and Professional Caucus had the fewest members. Sure, they had a professional-looking easel with a giant pad, but that does not seem to have lured people from their actual paying jobs.

    • Everybody wants to get with the Labor Caucus. They have rules limiting who can speak, including a requirement that you be a member of the caucus. But they spent so much time recognizing officials in the room who were running for office that they didn't actually get anything done.


One of those attending:



With thanks to the San Diego Union-Tribune

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 05/01/07 - Which Interpretation Is Gods?


I like to address the decided lack of unity among Christians, and the resulting consequences of that.

While some may argue that a lack of Christian unity does not prove it false, it seems to me that since Christianity has set the standard of unity for itself that unity could then be used as a measurement of whether it's true? Christianity has had two thousand years to get this right, but the opposite is true. The more time that passes, the more divisions multiply.

Evangelical Christians hold to the common belief that the Bible is the "divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." Yet with that common belief still comes division after division after division. If each Christian has the "mind of Christ," why aren't they on the same page? Why the divisions? It cannot be impossible to be united, because the Bible demands it. Most Christians know the directive: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought" (I Cor. 1:10). By normal human standards, this is a pretty tall, if not impossible, order. But we're not talking "normal standards" here, this is a requirement when you are a child of God. You can keep your fancy reasons for believing, arguments that justify beliefs that end in fragmentation. For me, it would be evidence that demands a verdict to see that Christianity actually works.

Here's yet another example of division among Christians.

It's hard not be acquainted with Christian eschatology. Tim LaHaye sold 60 million copies in his "Left Behind" series. Even Hollywood has gotten into the act...who hasn't heard of the "rapture" or the "tribulation" or the "antichrist?" Yet, while Christians like Tim LaHaye may speak with great authority on the subject of Bible prophecy, he doesn't actually speak for all evangelical Christians. Surprised? If you want to make certain your not one of those saying, "I wish we'd all been ready," you've got your work cut out for you. On the other hand, maybe knowing what God is talking about is not really about "work."

I wonder which of the following forgot to pray and read their Bible? Why did they reach such different conclusions on what God is saying about these prophecies? It is interesting to note that each is using the same portions of scripture to reach their very different conclusions.

The "Tribulation, Second Coming of Christ, Rapture"

Preterists.
Preterist means past in fulfillment. The preterist believes that prophecies on the second coming of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, have already been fulfilled and are being fulfilled as His kingdom grows. Preterists believe the Bible teaches that Christ would come again in the first century generation, while some of His original disciples were alive, to judge the living and the dead.

Historists.
Historists believe the Bible teaches that the prophesies in Matthew 24 have already happened and don't apply now or in the future. The Antichrist, for example, is not one person but is fulfilled by the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church. The tribulation lasted 1260 years and is now past (some of you out there are no doubt breathing sighs of relief). The 70 weeks of Daniel has already been fulfilled.

Futurists.
Futurists believe that many prophetic events have not happened yet. Futurists believe that stuff like the tribulation, second coming of Christ, millennium, rapture, are yet to come. Futurists divide further into three groups.

Pretribulaionists.
Pretribualtionists believe that the church will be raptured before a 7 year period of tribulation.

Midtribulationists.
Midtribulationists believe that the church will go through 3 1/2 years of a 7 year period called the tribulation, but will escape the really bad stuff.

Posttribulationists.
Postribulationists believe that the church is going to be here for the duration of the 7 year tribulation.

Which interpretation is Gods?

Comments?

Itsdb answered on 05/02/07:

>>unity could then be used as a measurement of whether it's true?<<

Theoretically I suppose, but there's one factor that always seems to be left out in questions such as this, the human factor. We're not perfect - just like everyone else - and we can and do think for ourselves. But when you get down to it, I believe most Christians recognize what we do have in common.

One example, Billy and Franklin Graham. Between them they've been doing this a long time and it's more than a few songs and a sermon at a football stadium. It begins months ahead of time with hundreds of people from churches of many denominations - Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc. - coming together with one mind to work and prepare for the crusade. And it doesn't end when the invitation is over, this same diverse group continues in followup work. But then most people don't know that do they? It's much easier for critics to point to areas of disagreement than to the successes we've had together.

>>Which interpretation is Gods?<<

I don't know and I don't know that it really matters. If I were able to ask John and Daniel and others exactly what they meant I would, but if one is 'in Christ' then that's what really matters.

What gets me is how skeptics want it both ways - they criticize us as people of blind faith that can't think for themselves just before asking us why we don't all think alike.

Steve

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 05/01/07 - A Call for Truth in Advertising Laws

Copied with my thanks from "Daylight Atheism"

I was in New York City the other week, near Penn Station, when I was accosted by a well-dressed man in a business suit attempting to hand out fliers to passers-by. I did not take one, but inside the train station, I noticed one cast aside and lying on the ground. Out of curiosity, this time I picked it up and read it. It turned out to be promoting a revival meeting to be held in Madison Square Garden that weekend by the Korean evangelist Jaerock Lee, sponsored by a host of local churches.

The flier promised rather ominously that this event was "the last opportunity for New York", but did not elaborate on what this meant - the last opportunity for New York to see Lee in action, or perhaps the last opportunity for New York to repent before the city was razed by heavenly fire? These preachers really ought to be more precise.

However, that phrase was not the one that provoked my ire the most. Rather, as readers can see for themselves, the front side of the flier makes the following claim:

Come and experience the wonders and miracles of God through the ministry of Dr. Jaerock Lee. Come and be healed from skin diseases, mental illness and all types of diseases. The mute come to speak, the deaf hear, the blind see, the cripple [sic] walk and those at the edge of death due to accidents and injuries are revived.

and, not to be outdone, the back side elaborated on these promises at greater length:

* The blind can see and the deaf can hear!
* The handicapped are healed and restored!
* The dead are raised!
* Miracle healings from AIDS, Cancers, and other terminal Diseases!

Call me a skeptic if you must, but I highly doubt that anyone was raised from the dead, at this revival meeting or any other. A photo of people getting up off the ground looking woozy does not establish otherwise. Make no mistake, if Jaerock Lee really can cure AIDS, regenerate severed spinal cords, or heal retinas destroyed by glaucoma or macular degeneration, I would welcome him to demonstrate his powers under the oversight of qualified, independent physicians - but I do not think he can do any of those things. I will, in fact, go further and assert that no Christian evangelist in history has ever done any of the things Lee's flier claims he can do. The evidence for such an extraordinary claim simply does not exist. (Interestingly, Lee's "miracles" have been endorsed by none other than notorious creationist William Dembski.)

Why are truth in advertising laws not being applied here? If some pharmaceutical company or herbal supplement manufacturer put out an ad falsely claiming that its products could cure blindness, AIDS and terminal cancer, the FDA and other government agencies would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Why, then, are religious evangelists allowed to get away with making exactly the same claims without offering a shred of evidence? The right to free speech does not extend to allowing a business selling a product to make extravagant unproven claims about the efficacy of that product.

In the end, it boils down to a public-relations issue: government regulatory agencies sue businesses making false claims because they are confident of prevailing in the court of public opinion, but they fear to touch religious hucksters because of the backlash that would inevitably ensue. Make no mistake, Christian evangelists have raised the skill of depicting themselves as the poor, unjustly persecuted minority to an art form, and no doubt an angry horde of true believers would storm the offices of any agency that had the courage to call Lee's fabricated claims what they are. We badly need a truly secular government, one that does not give a pass to false claims just because they are made in the name of religion; but more importantly, we need an educated populace that will not credulously accept ridiculous claims just because they come tagged with the word God.

Interestingly, it seems Jaerock Lee is a controversial figure even among his fellow Christians. Sites such as this one document assertions made by him that, to put it mildly, betray an exaggerated sense of self-worth. To put it less mildly, these claims would be considered delusional if not for our society's tendency to consider any belief emanating from religion as above reproach. It seems likely that Lee's wild and grandiose stories about healing terminal illnesses, raising the dead and so on stem from the same psychological condition that makes him think of himself as virtually equal with God. Regrettably, the fact that millions of people hold very similar beliefs causes them to hail him as a prophet and visionary, rather than encouraging him to seek the psychological help he plainly needs.

Comments?



Itsdb answered on 05/01/07:

I have problems with people like this and their claims, and I'd guess most mainstream Christians do as well. So what's your point? Why do you parade lunatics around as if they represent Christianity? Actually, I know why...

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 05/01/07 - The Necessity of Atheism (3)


Why not to believe :

Part 3 of 3 : Practical Reasons

Practical reasons for atheism: reasons why accepting atheism over theism produces positive overall effects on a person's life.
While these do not in themselves provide reasons to think that atheism is true, if one is already convinced by the evidential and moral arguments in favor of atheism, they provide additional incentive to adopt it and make it one's chosen worldview.

  1. Atheism offers the freedom to live your life as you see fit.
    Most religions offer a strict, tightly conscribed view of what constitutes acceptable behavior. They set restrictions on what sorts of activities their followers are supposed to prefer or reject, what their purpose and goals in life should be, whom they should obey, and what they should derive meaning and satisfaction from. There are long lists of things that their followers, in order to fit in, must do or refrain from doing; sometimes there are restrictions on how they dress, eat, speak and even vote. This effect is especially pronounced in conservative and fundamentalist religious communities where the lives of each person are planned out in advance with little if any regard for what those people themselves may want, and taken to an extreme in cults that attempt to control literally every moment of their members' lives.

    An atheist, by contrast, is free of this confinement. Atheism has no hierarchy of authority or immutable scripture that forces its followers to live a certain way; the essence of atheism is the free choice of the individual. This does not mean that an atheist can behave as they want without regard for others - no one is exempt from the principles of morality. But it does mean that an atheist has the freedom to choose their own purpose, select their own path, and decide for themselves what makes their life meaningful and worthwhile to them. The feeling of deep inner satisfaction that comes from living a fearlessly self-directed life can only be imagined by those forced into the narrow and shallow paths of conventional religion.

  2. Atheism offers the freedom to make up your own mind.
    In line with the last point, most religions put limitations not on just how their believers may act, but what and how they may think. Ancient texts and their modern interpreters in the church hierarchies strictly prescribe how their followers are allowed to view the world, what topics they must approve or disapprove of, and often, what questions they are not allowed to ask. Some religions go as far as to command their followers not to expose themselves to certain knowledge deemed "dangerous". To name an especially egregious example, the one-billion-member Roman Catholic church only several decades ago abolished its Index of Forbidden Books, which for centuries threatened with excommunication any Catholic who read any titles on the list without special permission.

    In contrast to this barrage of prohibition, atheism offers the freedom to think, believe, question and form opinions as one sees fit. To an atheist, there is no forbidden knowledge, there are no prohibited books, and there are no questions that may not be asked. Where the religious mind sees a mental landscape bristling with bars and locks, the atheist sees a wide-open horizon, where nothing is off-limits and the inquiring mind may travel wherever it pleases. Atheists are entirely free to study all perspectives on any topic and decide for themselves what they believe.

  3. Atheism offers the freedom to tolerate others.
    Many major religious traditions, in addition to dictating their followers' actions and beliefs, further instruct them not to associate with those whose beliefs are different. The Christian Bible, for example, commands believers to live apart from non-Christians, "for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). The Islamic Qur'an is similar, with verses admonishing Muslims not to befriend those who believe differently (9:23).

    By contrast, atheism has no such prohibitions. Rather than being limited to a restricted subset of humanity, an atheist can freely associate with anyone they choose, and can find friends and loved ones from any background. Nor is an atheist required to look down on others' actions as "sinful", but can accept them for who they are. Members of such xenophobic religious traditions will never know the many friendly, intelligent, loving, and generous people who come from belief systems other than their own, but an atheist labors under no such restrictions.

  4. Atheism saves time and money.
    A minor point, though not too minor to overlook, is that being an atheist saves one the resources that would otherwise be spent on attending church and other religious services. More conservative denominations often expect members to attend services multiple times a week, sometimes for hours each time; but even just one hour a week gained back by not attending church can be a valuable resource, whether for accomplishing something productive or simply spent in quiet contemplation. Likewise, virtually all denominations expect constant donations, and many expect members to tithe as much as 10% of their income. Being an atheist allows one to use this money for more worthwhile ends than propping up an already wealthy church hierarchy.

  5. Atheism is an education in critical thinking.
    For obvious reasons, most religions do not place a high emphasis on teaching their followers the principles of skepticism and critical thinking, preferring instead to convey the message that unquestioning faith is a virtue. But this way of viewing the world cannot help but have repercussions in other areas. Namely, theists who are taught that evidence is irrelevant and that truth is decided by the strength of one's belief are more likely to be deceived by all manner of false or fraudulent claims. By contrast, an atheist accustomed to being skeptical of extraordinary claims and experienced in detecting common errors of reasoning already has a mental toolkit that will help them see through such impostures.

  6. Atheism relieves the need to defend the indefensible.
    To be an atheist is to be released from the perpetual need to prop up tired, false beliefs with equally threadbare apologetics. Atheists no longer have to make excuses for why they are allowing the millennia-old writings of primitive and superstitious people to direct every aspect of their lives today. Atheists do not have to justify why they are following the moral advice of books that approve of slavery, the inequality of women, and war and genocide in the name of God. Atheists do not have to make excuses for why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity never takes any clear action to help human beings who need it. Atheists no longer have to devote the mental effort to believing in absurd myths of talking snakes, people walking on water, or men being swallowed by giant fish and surviving, when everyone knows such things do not happen in the real world. Atheists, in short, do not have to believe in anything but what is real, verifiable, and provable, and can focus their energies on dealing with the world in which they live, rather than bending their minds to believing in another world of fantasy and miracle.

  7. Atheism offers respite from feelings of worthlessness and guilt.
    Many religions teach that human beings are all sinners, stained and worthless in God's eyes and fully deserving of his punishment and wrath. Others teach that there is a huge number of elaborate and arbitrary rules which people must strictly follow at all times, and that if they transgress they are "dirty" until they subject themselves to rituals of cleansing and absolution. Still others teach that a person's worth is entirely dependent on whether they believe certain things. All such teachings are likely to produce in their adherents feelings of perpetual guilt, shame and self-loathing. Atheism, by contrast, does not teach any of these things. Combined with a humanist philosophy that respects the inherent dignity and worth of each person, it offers a powerful antidote to feelings of worthlessness.

  8. Atheism offers respite from fear.
    For many theists, following their religion is a life of constant fear: fear that the world is conspiring against them, fear that they are constantly under attack by evil spirits, fear that a wrathful God is watching them and will condemn them to Hell if they sin, fear that the world may end at any moment, fear that they will be excommunicated or ostracized by their church community if they put a foot wrong, fear that their friends and loved ones who believe differently will be damned. Atheism, by contrast, offers release from these superstitious and unfounded fears, and in their place offers a credo of hope: there are no supernatural powers arrayed against us, nor must we live in constant fear of judgment. We are human beings, alive and free, and our destiny is in our own hands.

  9. Atheism offers the ability to view yourself and others as equals.
    As already noted, many religions contain morally unacceptable teachings about the inequality of women, homosexuals, minorities, and other societal groups and classes. Many others also contain teachings about how some people are closer to or more favored by God than others, while the rest are lesser in some way. Atheism offers freedom from these pervasive prejudices, granting instead the realization that we are all human beings, alike in dignity. But even beyond this, many religions offer a dire view of the world where many of the people you meet and interact with every day are destined for an eternity of unimaginable suffering in Hell, and where it is every believer's duty to convert these people if possible, where the primary purpose of every relationship with a nonbeliever must ultimately be an attempt to "save" them. But it is impossible to have a deep and meaningful relationship with someone whom you view as a mere target for conversion rather than a human being, and so this belief will in many cases ultimately lead to frustration, loneliness, and unhappiness. Atheism lifts this psychological burden by allowing you to accept other people for who they are without feeling that you need to change them.

  10. Atheism offers happiness.
    The last, and best, practical reason to be an atheist is that it can make possible a life of happiness and contentment. Despite the never-ending barrage of stereotypes from religious apologists who claim atheism offers nothing but darkness and misery, the truth is that this is not so. The process of deconversion is often difficult and emotionally wrenching for people who have had a strong religious upbringing, but on the other side of this transition there is clear air and freedom, and the promise of a peaceful life where all the strife, the confusion, and the wrestling with the insoluble questions of faith have finally ceased. Atheists understand the basis for morality, that simple compassion is a better reason to do what is right than ten thousand commands from on high. Atheists understand their relationship to the rest of the universe and the awe-inspiring cosmic processes that brought us into being here. Atheists appreciate the beauty of the world and the reasons why it is something worth fighting to preserve. Atheists possess the exhilarating freedom to determine their own destinies, chart their own heading in life, and make up their minds for themselves. Atheists know the thrill of a mind free to travel and explore wherever it wishes. And atheists can live lives of purpose, meaning and deep, genuine fulfillment and inner happiness just as well as any theist can.



There is nothing to fear about atheism, and much that it has to offer.
The sooner we all realize this, the better off we will all be.
Sadly, despite all the reasons to do otherwise, the human race seems poised to continue on its religious path into the foreseeable future, and the associated prejudices, injustices, and futile strivings after the unseen will almost certainly continue as well.
However, a day may come when humankind finally grasps the necessity of atheism.
On that day, we will wake from our religious dream and at last see the world as it truly is.
On that day, perhaps, we can finally leave all the old fears and struggles behind and step into the light of the morning for all time. On that day, we will at last be free.


(With thanks to Ebon Musings)


Comments?


Itsdb answered on 05/01/07:

Perc, that's as much BS as I've ever seen. And you know what else? I don't care if you're an atheist or not, I don't care if you're buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or whatever - I respect the right of people to believe - or not - as they choose.

What I don't respect are people like you and this writer that presume to know what it means to be a Christian - from the outside - and then demean and impugn us while telling us how damned tolerant they are. The very epitome of a hypocrite. I can only assume by this and your many simliar posts that an entry should be added to the word 'atheist' in the dictionary; "see hypocrite."

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 05/01/07 - Welcome to the World of Christianity


As a Christian, you are now following THE supreme God who created the universe. The main facts you need to know are these:

Your God is omnipotent (Having unlimited power and authority).
Your God is omnipresent (He is present everywhere).
Your God is omniscient (Having total knowledge).
Your God commands billions of angels of which just one could destroy the world.

As a Christian, you are part of a large and diverse group totalling over 2.1 billion members that has a worldwide budget that totals approximately one half of a trillion dollars.

Satan (a fallen angel) is your main and only adversary who leads a small rag-tag army (1/3 the size of God's) of fallen angels (demons).

Satan has limited power (Only what little control God gives him).
Satan has no earthly members (Just a few "Dabblers").
Satan has no budget.

AND YET...

According to God's own word, the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation), God, with all the above supreme attributes, is losing a battle He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son to win.

For instance, most of humanity will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne of Judgement to "give an account" of why they as mortal sinful creatures with limited understandings, screwed up, and then they will be cast into a Lake of Fire (whose smoke rises forever), i.e., blamed for their loss of innocence and (and/or their great great great ancestor's loss of innocence) for all eternity.

HOW ARE WE TO MAKE SENSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Some people may disagree with some of the above statements, however, many people tangle with the question of how a finite being like Satan could be racking up so many souls compared with God who has an infinite amount of resources and wisdom as His disposal.

With thanks to Harry McCall

Comments ?


Itsdb answered on 05/01/07:

According to God's own word, the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation), God is losing a battle He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son to win?

What warped world do you live in? Exactly where does the bible support this? Exactly?

You know Perc, for all the posturing you've done about Tom and Peddler, you sure spend a lot of time doing nothing but maligning Christians, their God, their beliefs and their bible. But hey, I guess it's to be expected from someone that spent so much effort telling us how moral atheists are and then refuses to adhere to his own Golden Rule.

And you want to know what's worse? I'll tell you anyway, you call others hypocrites - with no supporting evidence - but are blind to your own hypocrisy.

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/30/07 - Devaluation of this board 2 ...............................



Just for those who intend to post about my reactions to our board yokel JackyJDupree :

As long as she keeps posting "Ad Hominem" attacks I will keep posting reactions to that.

Sorry that I can not do that as a reply to her attacks and have to use new topics for that, but JJD blocked that possibility already months ago.

By the way : I do not see many people actually complaining about JackyJDupree's childish and hypocrite behaviour, so you all get what you deserve ....

Comment, if you want.

;)

Itsdb answered on 05/01/07:

Thank you oh moral conscience of the board for once again lecturing we pathetic little Christians on how to behave. I think we've been over this enough times, it's you who feels the need to be repetitive. And thanks for this jewel:

>>On a Q&A it is the power of the argument that should prevail!<<

Actually, we should let the evidence prevail, and the evidence says you don't practice what you preach.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/30/07 - Religious basics ........................................







Comments?

Itsdb answered on 05/01/07:

Perc,

If you're going to accuse you can at least have the decency - as I have - to furnish supporting evidence. I can only conclude you're referring to yourself by using the term hypocrite, as my answer proves.

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 04/30/07 - How can a woman who has any self respect

accept the tenets of a Christianity that has considered her nothing more than inherently evil, a whore, a witch, a "daughter of Satan"??????

Woman have been called, since the time of Peter, "the weaker vessel". And the Christian villification of women reached its clumination in the horrific witch hunts of the Fifteenth to Eighteenth centuries.

Beginning with the Second Century, the church fathers had no hesitation in denouncing women, claiming they deserved the contumely heaped upon them.

"And do you not know that you are an EVE? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are THE DEVIL'S GATEWAY: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the Divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valient enough to attack. YOU destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert--that is, death--even the Son of God had to die" [Clement of Alexandria -Second Century]

"Woman is a temple built upon a sewer" [Boethius: "the Consolations of Philosophy" Sixth Century]

"To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.."[Odo of Cluny-Tenth Century]

Thomas Aquinus avers that God made a mistake in creating woman: "...nothing deficient or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so women ought not to have produced then." [Summa Theologica]

Bishops at the Sixth Century Council of Macon had to vote on whether women had souls!!!!

Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all.

Martin Luther: "If women become tired, or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there."

The infamous "Malleus Maleficarum" (the Hammer of Witches explains why women are more likely to become witches than men: "Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh; because being formed from a man's rib, they are 'only imperfect animals' and 'crooked', whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged."

According to a Dominican of the same period: "woman is the confusion of man, an insatiable beast, a continuous anxiety, an incessant warfare, a daily ruin, a house of tempest...a hindrance to devotion." [Lea: "A History of the Inquisition."]

And, of course, it all started with 1 Corinthians 7:1.

Any comments from you 'insatiable beasts'???? LOL

Itsdb answered on 04/30/07:

Dom,

I suppose I couldn't blame a woman for not accepting the tenets of a man that failed to read Ephesians 5:25, Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/30/07 - Religious basics ........................................







Comments?

Itsdb answered on 04/30/07:

Comments? Yeah, I see you're still refusing to practice your "Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself" morality. Where does intentionally offending others fit into the Golden Rule?

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
sirocco rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 04/27/07 - A big carbon foot-print in South Carolina

A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.

All but Biden, who flew on a private jet, chartered their flights -- a campaign expense of between $7,500 and $9,000.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-campaign-planes,0,4666247,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

The rest of the story is about how the campaigns paid for the flights. So much for fiscal responsibility . Edwards denies that he had an in-flight hair cut.

From the debate :

MODERATOR: Time has expired. Staying on the notion of the environment, which somewhat unbelievably is where that question started, what in your personal life, Senator Obama, have you done personally to make for a better environment? Personal life...


OBAMA: Well, you know, we just had Earth Day. And we actually organized 3,000 volunteers to plant trees, which...


MODERATOR: I mean, like light bulbs...


OBAMA: Well...


(LAUGHTER)


I thought the tree thing was pretty good.



MODERATOR: Well, yes, but...


OBAMA: We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha.

And that was the only reference to the environment in a 90 minute debate.(except for the single inane comment by Kucinich who said we should "move away from global warming and global warring". ) ;Obama planted trees and changed light bulbs.

How can they claim to be stewards of the environment when they would not even coordinate with each other so that one chartered flight was used? I guess an 8 hr. bus trip was out of the question.They could've lived that stap-hanger life style they tell the rest of us to live by taking Amtrack .

The Goracle is shocked ! A Quinnipiac poll suggested Gore would run more strongly against the Republicans than either Clinton or Obama.

Any day now .



Itsdb answered on 04/27/07:

tom, surely you know if the Goracle jumped in the race it would only worsen the impact of global warming. It's not just his jetting all over the world or what is it, $8000/mo electric bill. No, his carbon footprint would increase in other ways...





And by the way, we finally found convincing evidence that global warming is real!

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/26/07 - JackyJDupree photo 02 ...................................




Jacky in her slimmer days ....

Comments?

;)

Itsdb answered on 04/27/07:

Any comments? Yeah, please don't post such disturbing images...

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
powderpuff rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
JesseJamesDupree asked on 04/26/07 - Me in one of my saner moments

Itsdb answered on 04/26/07:

JJD, I saw you in that tour - I believe it was my third Nugent concert. My ears are still ringing...

Steve

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 04/25/07 - Will the literal earth be destroy or burned with fire?

Hello Everyone,

These comments are for those who feel the Bible says the literal earth will be burned up. Please read it carefully before replying. All the Scriptures quoted are take from the “New Kings James Version” of the Bible. I want others to understand that it is not just the Jehovah witness Bible that says these things but also if you look all the Bible say the same thing or I would not be able to use your very own Copies of the Bible. This is not an argument but my personal understanding of the scriptures.

Do you thing that God will destroy the earth by Fire? Let’s see what the New King James version of the Bible says:

Does 2 Peter 3:7, 10 support that view? “
2 Peter 3:7, 10 (New King James Version)
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.[a]

So according to this scripture above it looks like the earth would be burned up but now how is that explained with Revelation 21:1.

Revelation 21:1 (New King James Version)
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

To be correct, the explanation of these verses must agree with the context and with the rest of the Bible, or then it would be difficult to believe anything the bible says. We either believe what it states or we do not. So lets continue our research.

If these texts (2 Peter 3:7, 10 and Revelation 21:1) mean that the literal planet Earth is to be consumed by fire, then the literal heavens (the stars and other heavenly bodies) are also to be destroyed by fire. Such a literal view, however, conflicts with the assurance contained in such texts as:

Matthew 6:10 (New King James Version)
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.

Psalm 37:29 (New King James Version)
29 The righteous shall inherit the land,
And dwell in it foreve

Psalm 104:5 (New King James Version)
5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,

Proverbs 2:21-22 (New King James Version)
21 For the upright will dwell in the land,
And the blameless will remain in it;
22 But the wicked will be cut off from the earth,

Think about this, what effect would fire have on the already intensely hot sun and stars? So the term “earth” in the above-quoted texts must be understood in a different sense. Notice how the scriptures have used the term earth in other places in the scriptures in a different sense or with a different meaning.

Genesis 11:1 (New King James Version)
1 Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.”

Logically this scripture does not say that the literal earth had one language or speech. That would not make sense. So it must use the word earth in a different sense. Does the earth speak a language or do people speak a language?

1 Chronicles 16:31 (New King James Version)
31 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad;
And let them say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.”
Can the earth literally be glad? Or is it people that are glad?

Psalm 96:1 (New King James Version)
1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song!
Sing to the LORD, all the earth.
Be reasonable, can the literal earth sing or do people of the earth sing?

The term “earth” is used in a figurative sense, referring to mankind, to human society. Might that be the case at 2 Peter 3:7, 10 and Revelation 21:1?
Please also take note that in the context at 2 Peter 3:5-6 (New King James Version)
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

And 2 Peter 2:5-9 (New King James Version)
5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,

The scriptures draw a parallel with the Flood of Noah’s day, in which wicked human society was destroyed, but Noah and his household, as well as the globe itself, were preserved.

Also in 2 Peter 3:7 (New King James Version)
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Take note the above scripture says that the ones to be destroyed are “ungodly men.” The view that “the earth” here refers to wicked human society fully agrees with the rest of the Bible, as is illustrated by the texts cited above. It is that symbolic “earth,” or wicked human society, that is “discovered”; that is, God will sear away as by fire all disguise, exposing the wickedness of ungodly human society and showing it to be worthy of complete destruction. That wicked society of humans is also “the first earth,” referred to at
Revelation 21:1 (New King James Version)
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

God’s original purpose for the earth is told in the book of Genesis.
Genesis 1:27-28 (New King James Version)
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

God indicated his purpose to have the earth filled with the offspring of Adam and Eve as caretakers of a global paradise. After God had magnificently designed this earth for human habitation, making it unique among all the planets that man has examined with his telescopes and spaceships, did the Creator simply abandon his purpose, leaving it forever unfulfilled because of Adam’s sin?

Lets read further and see. Isaiah 45:18 (New King James Version)
18 For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:

“ I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Can we be sure that God Almighty sticks to His original Words. Let God answer for Himself at Isaiah 55:10-11 (New King James Version)
10 “ For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Comments???
Take care, Hope12

Itsdb answered on 04/25/07:

Once again Hope you've pretty well said it all so what exactly should we contribute here?

Yes, there is figurative language in the bible, we are not children needing simplistic illustrations to understand that. But how do YOU decide what is figurative and what is literal?

Centuries of doctrine and accepted tradition states Jesus was "crucified," [Middle English crucifien, from Old French crucifier, alteration of Latin crucifgere : crux, cruc-, cross + fgere, to attach;], nailed to a "cross." Yet the Watchtower, whose teachings you adhere to, interprets these centuries of accepted understanding as a literal "torture stake."

No other denomination that I'm aware of confuses Michael with Jesus, yet the Watchtower, whose teachings you adhere to, translates I Thessalonians 4:16 as the "voice of the archangel" literally being Jesus.

The bible says NOTHING about lifesaving human blood transfusions, yet the Watchtower, whose teachings you adhere to, interpets prohibitions on blood quite literally.

So which should we take literally and which should we not take literally and who decides?

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
darleneclemintine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
timelessone asked on 04/25/07 - What gives???????

What exactly do you any of you hope to gain with this constant bickering over religions?

An altruistic answer that you want to 'save' such and so is a hypocritical answer, so don't bother.

The way some of you carry on here, shows you don't give a crap over who believes what - what seems to matter is the fight, the bickering, the repetitious nonsense and nuisance over who can write the longest, quote the most from the bible - show the most bigotry – excrete the most offensive garbage [JJD] and who can bombast the loudest, the longest etc.

So, again what exactly do any of you hope to gain in this so called forum whose name is a misnomer, it should be called the spiritual cesspool.

Itsdb answered on 04/25/07:

"spiritual cesspool?" I prefer Dennis' moniker for it, the "Everyone Hates Christianity" board, or Elliot's "Christian-inanity" board.

I think most of us have long ago given up on making this a meaningful place. Even if the Christians began to have a more civil debate there would always be the skeptics to come along and provide plenty of comments about our VINDICTIVE GOD with lots of !!!!!!!, along with your freethinker jihads on Christians.

So kick back, ignore the ones you want to ignore and speak out where you feel you need to speak out, cuz it don't look like it's gonna get any better. It ain't quite as fun as a hockey game but you get some of the same action...



Steve :)

timelessone rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 04/25/07 - I have a serious question:

Hello Everyone:

My question is, according to the Bible only those who have been “born again,” can share in the heavenly prize. Does that mean that if one is not born again will see death?
Notice the below scriptures:
John 1:12-13 (New King James Version)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
“As many as did receive him” does not mean all humans who have put faith in Christ? Notice who is being referred to, as indicated by verse 11 [“his own people,” the Jews]. John 1:11 (New King James Version)
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
The same privilege has been extended to others of mankind, but only to a “little flock.”


What will they do in heaven?
Revelation 20:6 (New King James Version)
6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Now here is another question:
Can a person who is not “born again” be saved? What do you say according to the scriptures below:
Revelation 7:1-17 (New King James Version)
1 After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying, “Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.” 4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:
5 of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed;[a]
of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed;
6 of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed;
7 of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed;
8 of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying:
“ Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom,
Thanksgiving and honor and power and might,
Be to our God forever and ever.
Amen.”

13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
14 And I said to him, “Sir,[b] you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. 16 They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; 17 for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters.[c] And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”
Notice after John heard the number of those who would be “born again,” those who would make up spiritual Israel and would be with Christ in heaven;
Romans 2:28-29 (New King James Version)

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
Galatians 3:26-29 (New King James Version)

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
After listing many pre-Christian persons of faith, Hebrews 11:39, 40 says:
Hebrews 11:39-40 (New King James Version)
39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.
Who are here meant by “us”? Hebrews 3:1 shows that they are

Hebrews 3:1 (New King James Version)
1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus,
Take note: “partakers of the heavenly calling.” The pre-Christian persons who had faith, then, must have a hope for perfect life somewhere other than in heaven, otherwise they would not have used the words “heavenly calling.” Everyone would have the hope of going to heaven. But this scripture shows that there was a different calling for some. What was that calling?
According to scriptures they speak of those who will possess the earth and reside upon it forever. Why are these scripture in the bible if everyone needs to be born again to enter into heaven. The question then arises, “Do all good people go to heave? Do all have to really be Born again” if their hope is to live on earth?
Note these scriptures:
Psalm 37:11 (New King James Version)
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalm 37:29 (New King James Version)
29 The righteous shall inherit the land,
And dwell in it forever.

Isaiah 45:18 (New King James Version)
18 For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:

“ I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Notice the earth was formed by God to be inhabited. That being said my question is if everyone who is saved is going to heaven, who will inhabit the earth?

Matthew 6:10 (New King James Version)
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven


Why would God’s will need to take place on earth, if every good person is going to heaven and all bad persons are going to hell? Who and why would God’s will need to take place on earth and who will be here to do God’s will?

Is it possible for a person to have God’s spirit and yet not be “born again”?
Regarding John the baptizer, God’s angel said: Luke 1:15 (New King James Version)
15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
And Jesus later said: Matthew 11:11-12 (New King James Version)
11 “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.

Why did Jesus say that the least one in the Kingdom of heaven is greater then he? Because John will not be in the heavens and so there was no need for him to be “born again”
The spirit of God was “operative” upon David and “spoke” by him 1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 23:2, but nowhere does the Bible say that he was “born again.” There was no need for him to be “born again,” because,
as Acts 2:34 (New King James Version)
34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

David did not ascend to the heavens.

To my understanding of the Scriptures:

Salvation and being “born again” are different and for different people; Being born again I believe allows these ones a very special privilege of being heirs with Christ, and have a heavenly calling. This is what I feel the definition of being born again means:

(Being born again involves being baptized in water (“born from water”) and begotten by God’s spirit (“born from . . . spirit”), thus becoming a son of God with the prospect of sharing in the Kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5) Jesus had this experience, as do the 144,000 who are heirs with him of the heavenly Kingdom.



Salvation is needed but different then being born again. Here is what my understanding of salvation means or being saved.

Preservation or deliverance from danger or destruction. That deliverance may be from the hands of oppressors or persecutors. For all true Christians, God provides through his Son deliverance from the present wicked system of things as well as salvation from bondage to sin and death. For a great crowd of faithful servants of God h living during “the last days,” salvation will include preservation through the great tribulation.

Just my understanding, please feel free to comment on anything said above. I will respond to all polite and respectful replies. Please don’t tell me what the Watchtower says, I am only quoting from the New King James Bible and what my understanding is. Please only comment on what I have personally stated above.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you all.
Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 04/25/07:

Hope, with all due respect it might be easier to answer your "serious question" if you hadn't already used 1764 words, comprised of 7749 characters spread over 158 lines of text in answering it for us.

Where exactly do our answers fit in here?

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/25/07 - Religious infighting ....................................


It slowly but surely becomes rather embarrassing to see the infighting on this board between Christians to continue, and even stepping up.

Toms, the peddlers, Mad Doggie, PrinceHatred, and several others continue attacking those who openly "dare" to disagree with their PERSONAL religious views.

As far as I know the idea of "spreading the word" is to pass on the Christian ideas to other non-Christians.

As far as I know it is not intended as a pissing contest on Christians with other personal views.

As far as I know it is the idea that validation of anyone's personal views and deeds are part and parcel of the Final Judgement, something humanity may be glad to know that neither Toms, nor the peddlers, Mad Doggie, PrinceHatred, and several others here are involved in.

As far as I know it is every Christians mission to be AND behave like a Christian. And pissing on other Christians personal views is not part of Christian behaviour.

If all that deliberate NEGATIVE energy would be transformed into something POSITIVE, what a joy that would be!

And for peddler : yes : an atheist may provide his opinion on all you people here who seem to have lost the way. Everyone may provide that. Because it has nothing to do with the Christian Faith, but all with bigoting intolerant hypocrites!

Any comments?

;)

Itsdb answered on 04/25/07:

Perc,

>>If all that deliberate NEGATIVE energy would be transformed into something POSITIVE, what a joy that would be!<<

Will you lead the way instead getting such great satisfaction from posting your own negative energy? You see Perc, people that demand a standard of behavior while exempting themselves is what is commonly known as hypocrisy.

Sure, you can say "well I'm not a Christian so I don't have to meet that standard," but then you're caught in this trap of claiming an innate sense of morality that comes down to the golden rule, "DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU DO NOT WANT OTHERS DO TO YOU."

Do you want others to go on an an endless quest to publicly reveal your "phoniness and emptiness," especially when you won't even acknowledge the most intolerant and dangerous answers to your questions as more than "rubbish?"

Do you want others to publicly welcome you as an adherent to an idea/belief/theory, etc. we know you probably find repugnant on an intentional assumption?

I could go on all day with example, after example, after example, after example, after example, after example, after example, after example, after example, after example of you exhibiting behavior I someone how think you would object to if it were directed at you.

When will YOU live the golden rule you claim as your own instead of continuing your jihad on Christianity?

Steve

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
richturner rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 04/24/07 - Profitable Afternoon of Begging!

I am happy to report that I was successful in my "begging adventure" this afternoon. My Occupational Therapist was here this afternoon checking on my progress and setting a fire under my butt to finish the work we started last month. I have to get a fancy bath bench so I can bathe often, but Medicare doesn't pay for bathing equipment. I had a freakish accident several months ago..... anyway..... :D

So, I found an agency that will pay for my sophisticated bath bench to the tune of $113.13.

I have to thank all the social agencies in my area that serve the elderly and handicapped.

Happy Day!!

Itsdb answered on 04/24/07:

Well it's good to know you can now bathe often ... especially if you plan on taking Sheryl Crow up on her "one square" suggestion.

Steve

MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 04/24/07 - DNA vs The Book Of Mormon!

The Book of Mormon dogmatically teaches that the ancient israelites are the principal ancesters of moder day native Americans.But new discoveries in DNA researchcantradict that claim.In recent years ,thousands of native Americans from more than 150 tribes have been geneticaly tested to determine there ancestry.If native Americans as proven are not deccended from Israelites as the book of mormon claims then does not this prove that book to be untrue and unreliable .DNA presents clear and compelling evidence that even when pre columbian remains of native americans
was tested ,the DNA showed 100% asian ancestry was the origin.There is simply no indication of Hebrew or even middle eastern ancestry in the DNA of any native American s as the book of mormon claims Thus if this is a lie is not the whole book supect ???

Itsdb answered on 04/24/07:

Dorothy,

Here are my questions in all of this...

Are the people of the Book of Mormon real or are they fabricated?

What non-LDS, mainstream scientists, historians, anthroplogists, geographers, etc. acknowledge the people and places of the Book of Mormon?

What external evidence exists for the people and places of the Book of Mormon?

Is there any Jewish history or recognition of Lehi?

Limited or hemisperic? Ronnie says, Careful reading of the text has led to the clear conclusion that the text deals with a limited geographical scope, and it appears to best fit within a small part of the hemisphere in Mesoamerica.

To this day the official LDS website quotes Spencer W. Kimball as saying:

    With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.

    Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years—six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ—a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here.

    The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others.
    It is a large group of great people.


Do the "Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo" know about their Lamanite heritage?

Does my asking these questions make me an "anti-Mormon?"

Steve

revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 04/24/07 - toms if you want to check roots

try my link in Peddles seer glass post
hurry the ebay time is about up

here is a list of what the book contains

RARE!

HARD TO FIND!

OUT OF PRINT!

"SEER AND SEER STONES"

I DID NOT KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE IN CHURCH HISTORY HAD SEER STONES. I WILL SHARE ONE STORY FOR THE BOOK BUT THERE ARE SO MANY, ANYWAY A FAMILY HAD A SEER STONE IN JOSEPH SMITHS TIME AND ONE OF THE KIDS LOST THERE HAMMER AND LOOK IN THE HAT AT THE SEER STONE AND SAID OK I KNOW WHERE IT IS... WENT OUT AND FOUND IT, AND A KID IN THE SAME FAMILY LATER LOOKED IN AND SAID I WANT TO SEE THE DEVIL AND THEY DID AND THE STONE NEVER WORK AGAIN. THERE IS STORY AFTER STORY ABOUT SEER STONES, THIS BOOK IS PACKED WITH INFO!

ANALYSIS OF MANY LITTLE KNOWN FACTS REGARDING SEER STONES, THE URIM AND THUMMIM, AND THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH!

(BOOK CONTAINS 7 RARE PHOTOS, ILLUSTRATIONS AND DRAWINGS)

THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE VOLUMES ON SEERS AND SEER STONES EVER PRODUCED - INCLUDES ANALYSIS OF OVER 20 DIFFERENT TOPICS REGARDING THE GIFTS AND POWERS OF SEERSHIP

"SEERS AND SEER STONES" is a compilation of the writings, thoughts, journal entries, discourses and revelations by previous prophets and church leaders.

The most unique aspect of this book is that most of the information comes directly from hard-to-find and inaccessible writings by many early members such as, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Parley P. Pratt, Wilford Woodruf, John Taylor and others.

PACKED WITH MANY NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED STATEMENTS & DISCOURSES FROM CHURCH LEADERS & PROPHETS

Some of the material included in this volume is distinctly new even to experienced students of the church.

THIS VOLUME CONTAINS NUMEROUS OLD RARE PHOTOGRAPHS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS

The following is a list of Chapter Headings and subjects covered throughout the book:

THE PROPHETS, SEERS, AND REVELATORS

The Ways to Receive Revelation
The Definition of Revelators
The Origin of Prophets
Seers
The Unqiue Gift and Responsibilities of Seers and their Purpose in the Plan
The Difference Between Prophets and Seers
The material covered in this chapter is derived from the writings of George Q. Cannon, Doctrine and Covenants Section 100 & 125, The History of Joseph Smith, and the Writings of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon.

THE MIRACLE OF SEERSHIP AND THE HISTORY OF SEERS

The Gifts and Power of Seers
Why Some Receive the Gift and Not Others
Seer's Rod
Urim and Thummim
Prophets Who Used the Urim and Thummim
Crystal Stones - Seer or Fraud?
Clairvoyance - Does it Exist
Crystal Balls - Ancient Tool or Modern Hoax
The material covered in this chapter is derived from the an Interview with Joseph Smith and William P. Smith on March 9, 1882, the writings of Orson Pratt, discourses of John Taylor, Joseph Begins his Work, the Book of Jasher, Smith's Bible Dictionary, Masterful Discourses of Orson Pratt by N.B. Lundwall and Writings in the Book of Mormon.

THE PURPOSE OF SEERSHIP

Protection
Direction
Translation
Genealogy
Lost Articles
New Knowledge of Plantes and Kingdoms
Construction
All Temporal and Spiritual Affairs
The material covered in this chapter is derived from the Doctrine and Covenants Section 124, Writings of Orson Pratt, History of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Lucy Mack Smith, Antiquities of Jews, Millenial Star, Discourse of David Whitmer to All Belivers of Christ, Interview with Martin Harris in 1859, Writings and Research of N.B. Lundwall, Orson Hyde, and John Taylor.

JOSEPH, THE SEER

Attempts to Destroy His Life and Work
Accusations of Being a Glass Looker and User of a Peepstone
Over 40 Trials and Charges Brought Against the Prophet for His Gifts as a Seer
Jospeh was Chosen and Foreordained to Serve as a Seer
The material covered in this chapter is derived from the Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, Fraser's Magazine February 1873, A New Witness for Christ in America by BYU Professor Dr. Francis Kirkham, Historical Records of Martin Harris, The Seer by Orson Pratt.

SEER STONES

Can There Be More than One Seer at One Time on the Earth?
The Use of Seer Stones - Who Possessed Them? Do They Exist Today?
Characteristic and Qualities of Joseph Smith's Seer Stone
Location Today of the Seer Stone
The Sameazer Stones
The Hiram Page Stone
The Edwin Rushton Stone
Elias Pulsipher Stone
The David Whitmer Stone
The Philo Dibble Stone
The William Titt and Other STones
Who Should Possess a Seer Stone?
Are Seer Stone Still Used Today in the Church?
The material covered in this chapter is derived from the Cumorah's Gold Bible by Cecil McGavin, Naked Truths about Mormonism, Joseph SMith by Lucy Mack SMith, Hoseah Stout, Comprehensive History of the Church by B.H. Roberts, Doctrines of Salvation, Wandle Mace Diary, Historical Background of the Doctrine and Covenants by Cecil McGavin, Refiner's Fire by Alvin Dyer, Urim and Thummim by Arch S. Reynolds, Edwin Rushton Journal.

THE POWER OF SEERSHIP

Revelations Received by Joseph Smith through the Seer Stone
Stones Used by Followers of Lucifer
Prophet and His Story of James Collins Brewster
Warnings Joseph Received as a Seer
The material covered in this chapter is derived from the discourses of Brigham Young, History of Joseph Smith, Millenial Star, Writings and Discourses of Orson Pratt.

THE URIM AND THUMMIM

Physical Properties of the Urim and Thummim - Color, Weight, Material
Circumstances Surrounding its Discovery by Joseph Smith
Antiquity of the Tool
Who Could Use the Urim and Thummim
Was it the Same Urim and Thummum and Seer Stones Used by Noah and Other Propehts?
Who Handled or Viewed the Urim and Thummim and What Records Do We have From These Witnesses
The Connection between the Liahona and the Urim and Thummim
Will the Urim and Thummim Be Used Again and If So - By Whom and When?
The material covered in this chapter is derived from the Millenial Star, Discourses of Orson Pratt, Reminiscense of the Prophet Joseph by Stevenson, The History of Joseph Smith, Life of Wilfrod Woodruff, Discourses of Heber C. Kimball, Various Interview with David Whitmer.

This book is extremely well-prepared, highly readable and carefully documented. As mentioned earlier It is a compilation of many rare writings by persons who have studied the Prophet Joseph Smith and his mission as a Seer intemately.





TIGHT BOOK!

CLEAN TEXT!

VERY NICE COPY!

**PLEASE BE SURE TO LOOK AT MY OTHER AUCTIONS FOR MORE LDS RARE BOOKS

Itsdb answered on 04/24/07:

Wow, gen-u-ine pics of seer stones, like this one of Hiram Page:



Did he hold it up like binoculars? How do them thangs work anyway?

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 04/23/07 - Tom777 You know how, stop pretending:

Click on your Name= Tom777
it will take to to you profile.
Click on blue that says additi0nal info of tom777,
then click of "answer archive" then it will have a remove button that allows one to remove any answer to a reply given. You can not remove a post but just a reply you have given.

But you already knew that, didn't you Tom777???

You, Tom777, are pathetic,
Thinking that your words will make us feel small.
Nobody cares what you say,
Everybody here will stand up tall.

Your words are just that:
Pathetic, hurtful but meaningless;
We are worthy human beings;
Are to important to, yes!

So take your insults, buddy,
And shove 'em where the sun don't shine!
We don't care anymore,
'Cause unlike you, Tom777, we are just fine!!

Itsdb answered on 04/23/07:

Hope,

I just tried that and it did not work. It removed the answer from my archive but not the public board. Plus, I fail to see how this little poem of yours is any more edifying than what you're complaining about.

Steve

hOPE12 rated this answer Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Toms777 asked on 04/23/07 - How Can we delete Posts?

hOPE12 and domino have accused me of deleting my posts as a mean of explaining why they cannot find any evidence for their accusations against me:

http://www.answerway.com/viewques.php?pgtitle=Christianity&category=633&msection=0&quesid=60855

http://www.answerway.com/viewans.php?pgtitle=Christianity&expid=domino&category=633&msection=0&quesid=60855&ansid=286921

I am interested in knowing if anyone on here knows of any way in which a person can delete, or indeed even alter their own posts?

I ask because I have never found one, and if there is a way, then why have people not used it to delete inadvertent multiple entries, or typos?

Itsdb answered on 04/23/07:

I wish I could say you can't Tom, but actually you can remove your own questions, sort of. Go to "Previous Q&A's and you have the option to "remove." It doesn't always work - I've tried it before and nothing changed. I tried it just now and if I copy the URL the question shows up publicly but no answers.

However, I know of no way to remove replies to someone else's question without hacking. A more likely explanation for their inability to find something is they aren't looking hard enough. You can only go back 10 pages with AW's links at the top of the page - and that doesn't go very far on this board.

You CAN go waaaaay back by clicking on one of the page number links above, then increasing the last set of numbers in increments of 20 per page. Here are pages from September of last year acquired the same way.

My guess is they're not trying very hard or just don't care.

Steve

darleneclemintine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 04/23/07 - How was your weekend?

Here's what ours looked like:

"Photo


And the big one: (no, that's not a rain wall as I first thought. That is a big honkin' tornado.)

"Photo

We had a whole mess of these things Saturday, all within about a 100 mile area (our local weather coverage area). Luckily, at this time, there are no major injuries, and no deaths, which is a miracle considering the size of the one that hit Tulia square-on. A few teachers I work with live in area towns that were hit, and they're off today, picking up the pieces.

If you're so inclined, you might drop a word to The Man for some comfort and help for these folks. A little mercy wouldn't hurt either, since there's a pretty good chance of more storms today and tomorrow.

I don't know how things turned out further north, but I bet Steve will let us know.

DK

Itsdb answered on 04/23/07:

Dennis,

All I got was a little rain and some thunder, but here's what happened an hour due north and an hour due south:

Cactus:







Tulia:







Lots of damage, several injuries, no fatalities as of yet. Don't you love Springtime in the Texas panhandle?

Steve

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/22/07 - Religious Zealot Quiz


The following quiz is to test your ability to distinguish the rhetoric of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Usama bin Laden.

Below are 20 statements made by these individuals. See if you can identify who made each statement. Record your answers! I will post the correct answers in a couple of days!

  1. "In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression."

  2. "America is polluting the whole world."

  3. "The government is com- mitted to supporting God's religion, the country remains a strong bulwark for religion, and the people are among the most protective of God's religion, and the keenest to fulfill His laws."

  4. "One-world opinion is tak- ing the side of the Palestinians, not the side of Israel."

  5. "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world."

  6. "The government does not cease to cry over matters affecting religion, without making any serious effort to serve the interests of the religious community."

  7. "We are on the brink of our destruction, and if we do not awaken now, it will be too late. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders."

  8. "The media strives to keep the people occupied with minor matters, and to stir their emotions and desires until corruption becomes widespread among believers."

  9. "There is no way that a United Nations, treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another."

  10. "We have allowed ram- pant secularism.... We have insulted God at the highest levels of government."

  11. "One particular report described the gaps and the shortcoming in the philosophy of the government, the situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is lawful and unlawful regardless of divine law as instituted by God."

  12. "Priorities of spiritual work are lost while blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the government."

  13. "America is in imminent peril... rotting from within."

  14. "The American people have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. The American government is leading the country towards hell."

  15. "The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."

  16. "If America is not suffer- ing the irrevocable judgment of God, she is dangerously close.

  17. "Americans have com- mitted unprecedented stupidity. We anticipate a black future for America.

  18. "If the judges appointed by man will not deal with those who take innocent human life, then God is going to enter in and bring justice. And when that happens many of the innocent will suffer along with the guilty."

  19. "All these crimes and sins committed by Americans are a clear declaration of war on God."

  20. "A condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."


Itsdb answered on 04/23/07:

I got Ŕ out of 20," here are the answers in context.

1. In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression. They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. -May 1998 interview, Frontline



2. America is polluting the whole world.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

    God in his great mercy has blessed America, and made this a haven for Christians and Jews alike. But we've gone away from our Christian heritage. And God has little obligation at the present time to spare America, because we are polluting the world with our television programs, our movies and so forth, our books. We are polluting the whole world. We've made the world drunk, if you will, with the wine of our fornication. The whole world has been affected by Hollywood. -The 700 Club, December 7, 1995



3. The government is committed to supporting God's religion, the country remains a strong bulwark for religion, and the people are among the most protective of God's religion, and the keenest to fulfill His laws.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    All gratitude to Allah, our relationship with our brother Mujahideen in Afghanistan is a deep and broad relationship where blood and sweat have mixed as have the links over long years of struggle against the Soviets, it is not a passing relationship, nor one based on personal interests.

    They are committed to support the religion approved by Allah, and that country remains as the Muslims have known it, a strong bulwark for Islam, and its people are among the most protective of the religion approved by Allah, and the keenest to fulfil His laws and to establish an Islamic state. -November 1996 interview, Nida'ul Islam


4. One-world opinion is taking the side of the Palestinians, not the side of Israel.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Jerry Falwell

    Since the Antichrist will not be revealed before Jesus comes, I believe conditions are falling in place, i.e., one-world government, so he can rule the world after Jesus comes. But we're moving toward a one-world government through the United Nations, through the world court and a growing world opinion. The problem is that the one-world opinion is taking the side of the Palestinians, not the side of Israel. -"What is Next in the End-Time Drama," 9/9/01



5. There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

    There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy moneychangers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top? -The New World Order



6. The government does not cease to cry over matters affecting religion, without making any serious effort to serve the interests of the religious community.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    The external policy of the Saud regime towards Islamic issues is a policy which is tied to the British outlook from the establishment of Saudi Arabia until 1364 ah (1945 ac), then it became attached to the American outlook after America gained prominence as a major power in the world after the Second World War.

    It is well known that the policies of these two countries bear the greatest enmity towards the Islamic world.... The regime does not cease to cry in the open over matters affecting the Muslims without making any serious effort to serve the interests of the Muslim community apart from small efforts in order to confuse people and throw some dust into their eyes. -November 1996 interview, Nida'ul Islam



7. We are on the brink of our destruction, and if we do not awaken now, it will be too late. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Jerry Falwell

    In spite of all these outward worldly signs of our national success, we are actually on the brink of our destruction, and if we do not awaken now, it will be too late.

    We have never been so prosperous. Yet, we have never been so secular and pagan. We are becoming both amoral and immoral. We are making secularism our national religion. The government and the courts have become, not neutral to religion as the Founders intended, but openly hostile to Christianity.

    And, as we look with sadness at our internal demise, we cannot any longer ignore that external enemies are growing. This administration has given our military and nuclear secrets to the Chinese and they to other American foes. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders. -"A National Rebirth Needed," 8/6/00



8. The media strives to keep the people occupied with minor matters, and to stir their emotions and desires until corruption becomes widespread among believers.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    It is not a concealed fact that the police states in the Arab world rely on some foundations in order to protect themselves. Among these organisations is the security organisation as they spend generously on it, and its foremost mission is to spy on its own people in order to protect the person of the ruler....

    The media sector is in the same category as it strives to beatify the persons of the leaders, to drowse the community, and to fulfill the plans of the enemies through keeping the people occupied with the minor matters, and to stir their emotions and desires until corruption becomes widespread among believers. -November 1996 interview, Nida'ul Islam



9. There is no way that a United Nations, treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

    There is no way that a United Nations, a League of Nations, peace treaties, disarmament treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another. A lasting peace will never be built upon man's efforts, because man is sinful, vicious, and wicked. Until men are changed and Satan's power is removed, there will not be peace on earth. -Answers to 200 of Life's Most Probing Questions


10. We have allowed rampant secularism.... We have insulted God at the highest levels of government.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

    [on the September 11 terrorist attacks] We have allowed rampant secularism and occult, etc. to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say 'why does this happen?' It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us. -"The 700 Club," 9/13/01


11. One particular report described the gaps and the shortcoming in the philosophy of the government, the situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is lawful and unlawful regardless of divine law as instituted by God.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    One particular report, the glorious Memorandum Of Advice, ... described the gaps and the shortcoming in the philosophy of the regime and suggested the required course of action and remedy. The report gave a description of .... the situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is Halal and Haram (lawful and unlawful) regardless of the Shari'ah as instituted by Allah. -The Ladenese Epistle: Declaration of War, Dec 1996



12. Priorities of spiritual work are lost while blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the government.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    In the shadow of these discussions and arguments truthfulness is covered by the falsehood, and personal feuds and partisanship created among the people increasing the division and the weakness of the Ummah; priorities of the Islamic work are lost while the blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control over the Ummah. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the Ministry of Interior. -The Ladenese Epistle: Declaration of War, Dec 1996


13. America is in imminent peril... rotting from within.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Jerry Falwell

I do not believe the Republicans or the Democrats have the solution to America's moral and spiritual dilemma. Only a pervasive and national spiritual awakening can prevent us entering the post-Christian era as we go simultaneously into the 21st century. I believe America is in imminent peril. We are rotting from within. -"Rebuilding America's Walls," 7/6/97


14. The American people have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. The American government is leading the country towards hell.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    I say to [the American people] that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration ... . We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Ministry of Exterior and the Ministry of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world, especially the Islamic world....

    The American government is leading the country towards hell. ... We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. -May 1998 interview, Frontline


15. The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

    It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation. -New York Magazine, August 18, 1986



16. If America is not suffering the irrevocable judgment of God, she is dangerously close.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Jerry Falwell

    America is living by a standard of relative morality. Young people who do not know what is right will follow their animal nature. If young people do not believe in absolute truth and absolute morality, they will fornicate, rob and indulge their selfish pleasures. Absolute truth and absolute morality are the basis of the Declaration of Independence. These are selfevident truths and inalienable rights.

    If America is not suffering the irrevocable judgment of God because she has broken her covenant with God, then I believe she is dangerously close. -"America Made a Deal with God," 7/6/97



17. Americans have committed unprecedented stupidity. We anticipate a black future for America.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    We are certain - with the grace of Allah - that we shall prevail over the Jews and over those fighting with them. Today however, our battle against the Americans is far greater than our battle was against the Russians. Americans have committed unprecedented stupidity. They have attacked Islam and its most significant sacrosanct symbols.... We anticipate a black future for America. Instead of remaining United States, it shall end up separated states and shall have to carry the bodies of its sons back to America. -May 1998 interview, Frontline


18. If the judges appointed by man will not deal with those who take innocent human life, then God is going to enter in and bring justice. And when that happens many of the innocent will suffer along with the guilty.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

    [on abortion providers] The word I got is that if the judges appointed by man will not deal with those who take innocent human life, then the Lord is going to enter in and bring justice. And when that happens many of the innocent will suffer along with the guilty. -"The 700 Club," January 1, 1996



19. All these crimes and sins committed by Americans are a clear declaration of war on God.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Usama Bin Ladin

    All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries.... On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. -Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, February 23, 1998



20. A condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.
Your answer:
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

    [on Gay Day at Disney World] "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor." -"The 700 Club" June 6, 1998


Now, how many of them actually issued a ruling to kill the others?

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/21/07 - What a bunch of idiots ...............................


I left 24 hours and upon return - looking at the board - I can see from the fresh questions that it seems "war" has openly been broken out between believers in the various Christians myths : Fundi-creo's fighting Mormons fighting Roman Catholics fighting Jehovah Witnesses fighting "normal" Christians, etc.

Believers targeting their energy on other believers to aggresssively "prove" them wrong ("prove" in a funny sense, as the last thing they have is PROOF!)

What a group of totally insane bigoted intolerant idiots you people really are ....


;)

Itsdb answered on 04/21/07:

At least we stick to words as opposed to the sword to make a point.

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Rosekeeper rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Jesushelper76 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/20/07 - To all Christians who want "to spread the word" .......


Please be assured : till I get serious answers from the majority of you , I'll do my best to make this post a very VERY frequent board topic : just to show the general "christian" phoniness on this Q&A board.



THE FACTS :

I asked for any objective support for God's existence, but nothing has been forthcoming.


MY OBSERVATIONS :

1. There is no proof for God's existence.
2. All religion is based on belief only.
3. Note : the worst abusers of religion are other religious believers.


MY QUESTIONS :

a. Why should I BELIEVE in something that does not exist?

b. Why should I BELIEVE in something that does not seem to exist?

c. Why should I BELIEVE in something that has no reason to exist?

d. Why should I ACCEPT that something "that has no reason to exist and for who's existence there is no support what-so-ever" created everything - though there is a perfectly logical reason for everything to exist without that something anyway ?

Can I have an answer on these questions please?





Replies received so far :




TS

Domino

Bobbye

kindj

Mary Sue

PrinceHassim

clere

itsdb





thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

a non-answer

a non-answer





;)




Itsdb answered on 04/20/07:

Ah, post no. 7 now in your Jihad against Christians. As for your repeated claims of my 'non-answer' I did answer it thusly:



Do I really have to spell it out for you or isn't a bit redundant to say the exact same thing?

Rather than just repeat what Dennis said, I think I'll again allow someone else to answer...

    The Entire Earth Must Be Subjected to Islam

    "How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that his nation was created to stand at the center of leadership, at the center of hegemony and rule, at the center of ability and sacrifice? How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that the [divine] rule is that the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah - not to the East, not to the West - to no ideology and to no path except for the path of Allah?…" -Al-Qa'ida spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith

    If the objective and subjective circumstances materialize, and there are soldiers, weapons, and money - even if this means using biological, chemical, and bacterial weapons - we will conquer the worldhttp://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1135, so that "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" will be triumphant over the domes of Moscow, Washington, and Paris. -Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Al-Baghdadi

    They do not know that the law of Allah cannot be changed or replaced. "You shall not find a substitute for the law of Allah. You shall not find any change to the law of Allah." Today, the Arab and Islamic nation is rising and awakening, and it will reach its peak, Allah willing. It will be victorious. It will link the present to the past. It will open up the horizons of the future. It will regain the leadership of the world ... Tomorrow, our nation (Islam) will sit on the throne of the world. -Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al

    This religion. We must first of all, accept that Allah commanded us to spread this religion worldwide. It should be spread by calling to Allah's religion - using words, friendliness, and good deeds. By letting people hear Allah's words and showing them Allah's true religion. But if there is someone who obstructs this path and wants to prevent religion an light from reaching people, such a person must be fought. This is why Allah said: "Fight them so there is no strife and religion is professed for Allah alone."

    I am not one of those who deny this completely and say this religion doesn't use the sword. No. This religion uses the sword when this is necessary. Therefore, wisdom, as the religious scholars say, is to put everything in the right place. If there is need for the sword, then it is wise to use the sword, and if there is need for good deeds and preaching, then it is wise to use them. -Saudi Cleric Musa Al-Qarni


Believe or else, how's that?

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/19/07 - To all Christians who want "to spread the word" .......


Please be assured : till I get serious answers from the majority of you , I'll do my best to make this post a very VERY frequent board topic : just to show the general "christian" phoniness on this Q&A board.



THE FACTS :

I asked for any objective support for God's existence, but nothing has been forthcoming.


MY OBSERVATIONS :

1. There is no proof for God's existence.
2. All religion is based on belief only.
3. Note : the worst abusers of religion are other religious believers.


MY QUESTIONS :

a. Why should I BELIEVE in something that does not exist?

b. Why should I BELIEVE in something that does not seem to exist?

c. Why should I BELIEVE in something that has no reason to exist?

d. Why should I ACCEPT that something "that has no reason to exist and for who's existence there is no support what-so-ever" created everything - though there is a perfectly logical reason for everything to exist without that something anyway ?

Can I have an answer on these questions please?





Replies received so far :




TS

Domino

Bobbye

kindj

clere

itsdb





thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

a non-answer

a non-answer





;)




Itsdb answered on 04/19/07:

Six times now is it Perc? Feel better? Does it make you feel like a man to engage in the same sort of harassment you complain of in others? Come on Perc, I had already granted you what you wanted - to not "spread the word" to you when it isn't wanted - before these intolerable and intolerant posts of yours.

If YOU can't see the evidence for the existence of God there is nothing I can do to make it clear to you and I'm not even going to try. Isn't that exactly what you wanted?

Steve

Rosekeeper rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/19/07 - To all Christians who want "to spread the word" ......


Please be assured : till I get serious answers from the majority of you , I'll do my best to make this post a very VERY frequent board topic : just to show your "christian" phoniness and emptiness where and when it really counts !



THE FACTS :

I asked for any objective support for God's existence, but nothing has been forthcoming.


MY OBSERVATIONS :

1. There is no proof for God's existence.
2. All religion is based on belief only.
3. Note : the worst abusers of religion are other religious believers.


MY QUESTIONS :

a. Why should I BELIEVE in something that does not exist?

b. Why should I BELIEVE in something that does not seem to exist?

c. Why should I BELIEVE in something that has no reason to exist?

d. Why should I ACCEPT that something "that has no reason to exist and for who's existence there is no support what-so-ever" created everything - though there is a perfectly logical reason for everything to exist without that something anyway ?

Can I have an answer on these questions please?





Replies received so far :




TS

Domino

Bobbye

kindj

clere





thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

thank you for your answer !

a non-answer





;)


Itsdb answered on 04/19/07:

Pericles,

Thank you for an opportunity to make a point or two. I can only agree with kindj's response, therefore I generally do not approach you with the "religious fanaticism," that "spreading the word" after being told that more "word" is not wanted nor appreciated as you've defined it.

You may see it otherwise, but do you see those of that have approached you in that manner? Your mind seems to be made up so why hammer you with the gospel? It's your decision, and if it so happens that something you've read or heard afterward prompts a change of heart then great, but there's no point and no responsibility on our part to force it down your throat ... which leads to the next point:

    Please be assured : till I get serious answers from the majority of you , I'll do my best to make this post a very VERY frequent board topic : just to show your "christian" phoniness and emptiness where and when it really counts !


If you object to having our "word" spread after it's no longer wanted, why then do you give us ultimatums such as the one above? That is the height of hypocrisy, to tell us our message is not wanted while threatening us with a fanatical, recurrent, unwelcome message for the sole purpose of degrading us.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Bobbye rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jjgoss asked on 04/17/07 - ..Too much bacon 'bad for lungs'...

..(BBC) Eating large quantities of cured meats like bacon could damage lung function and increase the risk of lung disease.

A Columbia University team found people who ate cured meats at least 14 times a month were more likely to have COPD - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

COPD, which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, kills around 30,000 people in the UK each year.

The report, in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, said nitrites in meat may be to blame.


Dr Rui Jiang, leading the research, said high levels of nitrites are used in cured meats such as bacon as preservatives, anti-bacterial agents and colour fixatives.

He said reactive nitrogen species, molecules that can damage body tissues, might be the key.

He said: "Nitrites generate reactive nitrogen species that may cause damage to the lungs, producing structural changes resembling emphysema."


The researchers looked at 7,352 American individuals who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted between 1988 and 1994.

They compared the results of lung function tests and the risks of developing COPD in participants and found those who ate the meats more often had worse lung function and were more likely to have COPD.

COPD is a term used for a number of conditions, and results from chronic bronchitis and emphysema, two inflammatory lung diseases.

It leads to damaged airways in the lungs making breathing more difficult, and is a major cause of disability and death.......

Itsdb answered on 04/17/07:

>>The researchers also found that high consumers of cured meats were more likely to be male, of lower socio-economic status, to smoke and to have low intakes of fruits, vegetables and vitamins.<<

Of course they also say "adjustment for these risk factors did not significantly change the results."

I can only conclude then that eating bacon, sausage and hot dogs is worse for your lungs than smoking and an otherwise poor diet.

Steve

jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 04/17/07 - Virginia Holocost

I want to take this time to pay special homage to Professor Liviu Librescu ,himself a Holocost survivor ;who sacrificed his life yesterday at Virginia Tech on the very day that Jews worldwide honored the memory of the Holocost victims .

His daughter Marlena was told by his students via E-Mail that he "blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee" .While he took the bullets of the killer ,his students escaped through the classroom windows.

There is plenty of time to debate the politics of the incident . Today it seems to me is a day to honor and reflect on the victims and in this case the heroes of the day .

Itsdb answered on 04/17/07:

Amen, tom. Unfortunately some here can't even allow a tribute to a hero such as Prof. Librescu to go without spewing their uneducated, bigoted bile.

Thank God for people like Professor Liviu Librescu, may he rest in peace and may God comfort and strengthen all who've suffered from this tragedy.

Steve

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/17/07 - Uncomfortable truths for Bigots (2) .....................

Ref. PrinceHassim topic "Uncomfortable truths for Bigots".

In that topic PH asks bigots :

"Are you willing to admit that your brand of Christians has demeaned black people of African descent and denied them equal status as human beings with souls and the potential for salvation?"

From what I have seen on my varous visits to the US and from what I see in the news, the entire US society is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and (im)morally reckless - including the "only we matter" attitude.

That is why your army invades countries without proper reason, why your society (see Blacksburg) is so full of self-interest, of violence, of hatred, of contempt of interests and rights of others, of bigotry, of intolerance, of hypocrisy!

A "Christian" or a "Bigot" stamp of approval is irrelevant here. With or without that stamp the situation is the same, though it seems that being Christian and/or Bigot "helps" to WORSEN the situation.

;)

Any comment?



Itsdb answered on 04/17/07:

>>From what I have seen on my varous visits to the US and from what I see in the news, the entire US society is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and (im)morally reckless - including the "only we matter" attitude.<<

It's obvious you haven't been seen much here. And you know what's sad about your accusation? It isn't the "Christian bigot" that drives whatever problem we have in those areas, it's the race-baiters (like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Malik Shabazz), moonbats (like Rosie O'Donnell, Ted Rall, Michael Moore, Bill Maher), liberal politicians (like Al Gore, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid) and other angry at everything activists that perpetuate these problems.

Their "unite to destroy" philosophy against all they disagree with, their hypocritical intolerance, and bigotry toward all things conservative and/or Christian is a far worse problem and a sadder reflection on society than all the so-called "Christian bigots" combined.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/17/07 - Blacksburg Va

No need for me to explain what happened there. Others already did that. Some even asked to pray for the victims.
Personally I do not see any need to pray here. And that is not because of my religious views.
Of course : my thoughts are just as well with the parents and friends of those who got killed or injured by these bullets. But America has called this massacre off over themselves. The majority of it's population insists that each and every total idiot can buy a gun and ammunition in a shop. So now live and deal with that and the consequences of that decision.
I do not see huge protest meetings in the streets of major American cities protesting against weapon possession.

Put the BLAME for these murders where it belongs : with your own government that refuses to put firearms were they belong : in a blast furnace, where they can be converted into steel with a better use.
Or even better still : put the blame more with yourself for NOT protesting in the streets to stop sales of firearms and start controlling firearm possession, and for not forcing your government in the election booth to adopt a new stance on gun control.
You people had more than enough warnings : Columbine was just one of many warnings, but nobody did anything.
So it happened again, bigger and more effective. 32 victims I understand from the news media ...

---

Why don't we have these massacres here in W. Europe?
Because you can not just buy a firearm nor ammunition in a shop! Only those who require a weapon for their job as (night) guard, police, etc. are provided with weapons under strict controls and regulations.
If anyone here wants a weapon for firing at a weapon range you have to do a training course, get a certificate, get a police permit before you can even purchase a gun, and you have to follow strict instructions on where to store that gun and the ammunition (on the range and NOT at home).

---

In a society that is so full of SELF-INTEREST ABOVE ANYTHING ELSE, of VIOLENCE, of HATRED, of CONTEMPT of interests and rights of others, of BIGOTRY, of INTOLERANCE, of HYPOCRISY : what else did you expect to happen? It's a real miracle that it does not happen weekly !

---

Any American views on this?


Itsdb answered on 04/17/07:

Yeah it's simple, our constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

You seem to be under the impression that America is as the BBC so disgustingly calls us, The United States of murder - even though according to the latest statistics listed by NationMaster the US isn't even in the top 10.

    #1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
    #2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
    #3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
    #4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
    #5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
    #6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
    #7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
    #8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
    #9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
    #10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people


#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

Go ahead, tell us you'd rather live in Columbia, where the murder rate is 14 1/2 times higher, or South Africa, where the murder rate is 11 1/2 times higher.

You also seem to be under the impression that guns are the primary factor in homicide rates. The World Health Organization reports "No single factor can explain why one individual, community or society is more or less likely to experience violence. Violence is the result of a complex interaction of factors ranging from the biological to the political."

And, further statistics I've pointed out earlier:

Since the UK introduced the supposed "toughest gun control laws in the world," gun crime has doubled according to the Telegraph.

Even more facts for you. In 1994, the year before Texans were given the right to carry concealed weapons, there were 129,838 incidents of violent crime among our population of 18,378,000.

In 2005 that number fell to 121,091 incidents of violent crime among our population of 22,859,968.

Our population grew by 4,481,968 while incidents of violent crime fell by 8,747 since we were allowed to carry concealed weapons. Murders FELL from 2,022 in 1994 to 1,407 in 2005.

In Australia the level of homicides has remained fairly level, but the number of assaults have risen from 114,156 in 1996 to 158,629 in 2003, an increase of almost 30%. Sexual assaults rose from 14,542 in 1996 to 18,237 in 2003, an increase of almost 23%.

So thanks for your words of sympathy, now go and solve someone else's problems.

Steve

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 04/16/07 - Leslie

In March, Hank posted that Leslie went to **YALE**. lol!!

Now, it's Harvard.

Maybe next month it will be Princeton, and she was Einstein's student assistant!!!

The thing about lying all the time is that a person has to remember EVERYTHING they say!!!

Itsdb answered on 04/16/07:

Yep, today has got to be a great day for Doris. :):)

domino rated this answer Average Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 04/16/07 - I had to fire Doris

Doris will now be working for someone(s)else effective today, and Wendy is starting tomorrow. My care giver needs have changed a lot since Christmas, and Doris can't fulfill these new needs.

Very difficult to do!

Mary Sue

And, how was your day???? :)

Itsdb answered on 04/16/07:

Mary Sue, you seem to enjoy calling people dufus, apes throwing feces and any number of offending things, seems this may be a great day for Doris.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jjgoss asked on 04/16/07 - ..Gunman Kills 21 on Virginia Tech Campus!!!!!!!!...

..BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - A gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech on Monday, killing 21 people in the deadliest campus shooting rampage in U.S. history. The gunman was killed, bringing to death toll to 22, but it was unclear if he was shot by police or took his own life.

"Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions," said Virginia Tech president Charles Steger. "The university is shocked and indeed horrified."

The name of the gunman was not immediately released, and investigators offered no motive for the attack. It was not immediately known if the gunman was a student.

FBI spokesman Richard Kolko in Washington said there was no immediate evidence to suggest it was a terrorist attack, "but all avenues will be explored."


The bloodbath took place at opposite sides of the 2,600-acre campus, beginning at about 7:15 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston, a coed dormitory that houses 895 people, and continuing about two hours later at Norris Hall, an engineering building, authorities said.

Police said they were still investigating the shooting at the dorm - and the campus was under lockdown, with students to stay indoors and away from the windows - when authorities got word of gunfire at the classroom building.

Some of the dead were students. One student was killed in the dorm, and the others were killed in the classroom, Virginia Tech Police Chief W.R. Flinchum.

Up until Monday, the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history was a rampage that took place in 1966 at the University of Texas at Austin, where Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower and opened fire with a rifle from the 28th-floor observation deck. He killed 16 people before he was shot to death by police. In the Columbine High bloodbath near Littleton, Colo., in 1999, two teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives.

The deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was in Killen, Texas, in 1991, when George Hennard drove his pickup into a Luby's Cafeteria and shot 23 people to death, then himself.


Founded in 1872, Virginia Tech is nestled in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southwestern Virginia, about 160 miles west of Richmond. With more than 25,000 full-time students, it has the state's largest full-time student population. The school is best known for its engineering school and its powerhouse football team.

The rampage took place on a brisk spring day, with snow flurries swirling around the campus, which is is centered around the Drill Field, a grassy field where military cadets - who now represent a fraction of the student body - once practiced. The dorm and the classroom building are on opposites sides of the Drill Field.

A gasp could be heard at a campus news conference when the police chief said at least 20 people had been killed. Previously, only one person was thought to have been killed.

Investigators from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives began marking and recovering the large number of shell casings and will trace the weapon used, according to an ATF official who spoke on condition of anonymity because local authorities are leading the investigation.

A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia.


"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said

After the shootings, all entrances to the campus were closed, and classes were canceled through Tuesday. The university set up a meeting place for families to reunite with their children at the Inn at Virginia Tech. It also made counselors available and planned a convocation for Tuesday at the basketball arena.

After the shootings, students were told to stay inside away from the windows.

"There's just a lot of commotion. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on," said Jason Anthony Smith, 19, who lives in the dorm where shooting took place.

Aimee Kanode, a freshman from Martinsville, said the shooting happened on the fourth floor of West Ambler Johnston dormitory, one floor above her room. Kanode's resident assistant knocked on her door about 8 a.m. to notify students to stay put.

"They had us under lockdown," Kanode said. "They temporarily lifted the lockdown, the gunman shot again."

"We're all locked in our dorms surfing the Internet trying to figure out what's going on," Kanode said.

Madison Van Duyne, a student who was interviewed by telephone on CNN, said: "We are all in lockdown. Most of the students are sitting on the floors away from the windows just trying to be as safe as possible."

Police said there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks by authorities but said they have not determined a link to the shootings.

It was second time in less than a year that the campus was closed because of a shooting.

Last August, the opening day of classes was canceled and the campus closed when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area. A sheriff's deputy involved in the manhunt was killed on a trail just off campus. The accused gunman, William Morva, faces capital murder charges....

Itsdb answered on 04/16/07:

Terrible, terrible tragedy. If reports are true, it seems odd the university's warning to students came via e-mail messages. Reuters reports campus loudspeakers warned of a gunman on campus around 9:00 AM, almost 2 hours after the first shooting and their e-mail dispatch. I don't know about you, but if I'm at school getting ready for class and there's a gunman on campus I don't want to find out by e-mail...

Steve

jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 04/16/07 - Is Benny Hinn an authorised Priest of God?

Where does Benny Hinn stand in relation to his priesthood before God?

Itsdb answered on 04/16/07:

Ronnie, I guess that depends on who you ask. Does he claim to be an "authorised Priest of God?" I'm sure the Catholic church didn't authorize him, I'm certain the LDS, the Watchtower or the Greek Orthodox church either.

But then again, if you believe Peter, all who have been "called ... out of darkness into his marvellous light" are "a royal priesthood," so I suppose one would have to answer the questions has Benny Hinn been called out of darkness into God's marvelous light? That's not for me to say ... but I'm no fan of Benny Hinn.

Steve

PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jjgoss asked on 04/12/07 - ..Christian author says UN resolution against criticism of Islam a farce..

..A Christian author says the United Nations' call for a global prohibition on the public defamation of Islam is "a joke." The resolution recently approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

The resolution was authored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which claims there has been a "campaign" of defamation against Muslim minorities and the Islamic religion since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States. The measure was pushed through by Muslim nations still angry over the publication of cartoons in a Danish newspaper depicting Islam founder Mohammed.

Dave Hunt is author of the book Judgment Day! Israel, Islam and the Nations (The Berean Call, 2006). He says the statement by the U.N. Human Rights Council affirms the world will tolerate anything except truth.

"Every day in Muslim countries around the world, there are cartoons far worse," Hunt contends. "They depict Jews as Nazis, even; as vermin, as rats," he says. "They're anti-Christian, anti-West, and these hypocrites have the audacity to complain and riot and kill because of some mild cartoons -- really very mild -- in a Danish newspaper."

The Christian author feels no credence should be given to the resolution passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, which condemns "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations." He says Muslims cannot provide him with one example of an instance in which their religion has brought peace.

Islam is violence, Hunt asserts. "It takes over by the sword," he says. "They're doing it in Indonesia, burning down churches. They've burned down more than 3,000 churches in the last three years in Indonesia. It's happening everywhere.

"And what are they doing in Iraq?" the author continues. "They're killing one another, the Sunnis and Shiites," he says. "And they say this is not Islam -- that Islam should not be associated with violence?"

Hunt says there ought to be "an international cry of outrage against Islam and what it does."

~By Jim Brown

Itsdb answered on 04/12/07:

This is nothing new, just about everything the UN does is a farce ... lots of 'deploring' and little of substance. To be fair the resolution does 'note' and 'expresses concern' about discrimination and intolerance toward any religion, but specifically "Islam and Muslims in particular" (Word document). What's also disconcerting besides the emphasis on Islam and Muslims in particular, is the resolution 'emphasizes' freedom of expression may be "subject to limitations." Except of course I'm sure, things such as the winners of the Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Contest like these:







jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 04/11/07 - So we are accused of hating Muslims?

I wonder why?


Time to stop all the anti-Western hatred

By Andrew Bolt

April 11, 2007 01:00am
Article from: Herald-Sun


MAYBE this time, I thought. Maybe this first Australian Islamic Conference would at last show us the moderate Muslim leaders we've searched for.

God, we need them. Look at the latest doings of the hate-preachers we have now.

Take the Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali, who has just given interviews in Iran demanding Muslims stand "in the trenches" with its hostage-taking regime, and is now being investigated for allegedly giving $12,000 to a Lebanese propagandist linked to terrorists.

Meanwhile, the head of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which pays him to preach at Australia's biggest mosque, has had to seek police protection for suggesting this fool had best shut up.

Yet, even now, the Federation of Islamic Councils, which made Hilali mufti, refuses to sack him, though he's vilified Jews, praised suicide bombers as "heroes", called the September 11 terrorist attacks "God's work against oppressors", excused convicted pack rapist Bilal Skaf and said raped women should be "jailed for life".

The greatest pity is that Hilali isn't the only hate-preacher in our mosques.

Other radical sheiks have been accused of telling followers not to pay taxes to this infidel Government.

Worse, the Howard Government sidelined its Muslim Community Reference Group after finding a third of the 14 "moderates" it handpicked actually backed the Iranian-backed Hezbollah extremist group, notorious for its terrorist wing.

So, after all this and more, we desperately need to hear from those moderate Muslim leaders we keep telling each other must surely exist. Must.

Was it so dumb to think Mercy Mission would at last provide them - Muslim leaders who would demonstrate (in the mission's own words) that they "benefit the communities in which they live"?

You may have dared to hope, given this new group's leaders include the highly educated Tawfique Chowdhury, a Bangladeshi-born and Australian-raised IT project manager, and Adel Salman, who so impressed his employers at Cadbury Schweppes that he was selected for the prestigious Asialink leaders program.

It was Salman, so polished, who organised for Mercy Mission its first annual Australian Islamic Conference at Melbourne University over the Easter weekend.

The odd timing was surely just an innocent coincidence, because the conference had a noble aim: to "present a true picture of 'Islam in action' to the wider community" and convince Australians that "Islamic values are universal values".

So who, among all the Muslims in the world, did Mercy Mission choose to fly in to give us this "true picture" of a moderate Islam?

Of the six international speakers it advertised, let me introduce you to two.

The first is Bilal Philips, a Jamaican-born Canadian who was a communist and worker for the Black Panther terrorist group before converting to Islam and becoming a preacher.

His message is uncompromising: "Western culture led by the United States is an enemy of Islam." Which makes him an odd choice as speaker at a conference to reassure us that "Islamic values are universal values".

But the choice of Philips is even odder given the United States named him as an "unindicted co-conspirator" over the 1993 bombing of New York's World Trade Centre, and our own security agencies judged him such a threat he was banned from coming here.

Philips insists he rejects terrorism and considers al-Qaeda a "deviate" group. But from his own website and interviews you'd see why some might not take him at his word.

He freely admits he was hired by the Saudi air force during the first Gulf War to preach to American soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia and convert them to Islam.

He says he succeeded, and "registered the names and addresses of over 3000 male and female US soldiers".

Philips didn't just take down their names; he also visited them back in America. "My role was confined to encouraging them to train Muslim-American volunteers and go to Bosnia to help the mujahidin and take part in the war (against Serbia)," he boasted. That worked, too.

Philips says his name was dragged into the investigation of the first World Trade Centre bombing, in which six people were killed, because some African-American soldiers he'd converted were offered by someone else to Sheik Abdel Rahmen, spiritual head of the terrorists behind the attack. These ex-soldiers would be great for domestic sabotage, the sheik was told.

But Clement Rodney Hampton-El, an al-Qaeda-trained American bombmaker now serving a 35-year sentence for the World Trade Centre bombings, claimed Philips also gave him the names of soldiers who were about to leave the military and who might help the Bosnian jihadists.

To repeat: Philips denies any links to al-Qaeda, and swears he is opposed to terrorism, although he does say Muslims are entitled to defend their faith by force.

But given his support for jihadists, his past contacts with jailed terrorists and the allegations against him, why on earth did Mercy Mission choose him to preach here?

To invite one such extremist speaker might seem like bad luck, but to invite two might make you think Mercy Mission wouldn't know a moderate Muslim if he blew up in their face.

I say that because also high on Mercy Mission's guest list was another convert, British journalist Yvonne Ridley, with a much nastier line in preaching.

Ridley didn't just marry a colonel in one terror group - Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organisation - but has been busy since defending others like it.

Some highlights:

Soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks Ridley actually accused Islamic sheiks of going soft.

"Muslims have lost confidence since September 11," she complained. "Something as simple as suicide bombers being martyrs is being denied by prominent sheiks."

That's one of her mantras. At a Belfast meeting of Islamic students, she insisted there were no innocent Israeli victims in suicide bombings. Not even children.

"There are no innocents in this war," she reportedly raged, because Israeli children could grow up to become Israeli soldiers.

She even hailed as a "martyr" the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev, who planned the attack on the Beslan school in which 333 hostages - many of them children - were killed. An "admirable struggle", she called his life's work.

Ridley has never called on Muslims to boycott such terrorists, but instead demanded British Muslims "boycott the police and refuse to co-operate with them in any way, shape or form".

And when relatives of al-Qaeda's then leader in Iraq, the head-hacker Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, denounced his bomb attacks on three hotels in Jordan, she was livid.

"While the killing of innocent people is to be condemned without question, there is something rather repugnant about some of those who rush to renounce acts of terrorism," she sneered.

True, among the 61 dead were many members of a wedding party, she conceded, but some of them "were part of Jordan's upper echelons of society", and "others had flown in from America".

What's more, the "bars (were) serving alcohol", and the evil Jordanian regime "provides backing, support and intelligence to the American military".

Having proved to her satisfaction the guilt of the dead civilians, she asked: "I wonder if you see that attack on the Jordanian hotels in a different light now?"

And she concluded: "I'd rather put up with a brother like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi any day than have a traitor or a sell-out for a father, son or grandfather."

What, in Ridley's foul incantations of hatred and her defence of child-killers and wedding bombers, makes her the kind of Muslim who would "benefit the communities in which they live"?

What does it say about Mercy Mission that Ridley - and Philips - were hired as speakers to tell us "Islamic values are universal values" and we have nothing to fear?

Oh, and about that fear.

It was this same Ridley - happy to "put up with a brother" like Zarqawi, once filmed cutting off the head of American hostage Nick Berg - who last week accused Australians of being among the worst haters of Muslims.

How like her to condemn the fear her own words rightly provoke. And how disturbing that Mercy Mission holds her up as the kind of Muslim who does us good.

Or - I hesitate to ask - is this really the best our Muslim leaders can offer? Is this really their "true picture" of Islam?

I beg of them. Prove it isn't. Until you do, I'm afraid I shall take you at your grim word.

Itsdb answered on 04/12/07:

Clete,

Unlike what some think, it's an entirely reasonable request to ask Muslims to "show us the moderate Muslim leaders we've searched for."

It's entirely reasonable to be outraged by bringing in a speaker that considered the Beslan school massacre an "admirable struggle," to a conference aiming to "present a true picture of 'Islam in action' to the wider community."

If this is how the Islamic community in Australia wishes to represented at a "Mercy Mission" conference they deserve every ounce of criticism they get. The question remains, will moderate Muslims stand against and purge these radicals and show us this "peaceful religion" we keep hearing about? And no, raising the issue of the Crusades will not intimidate me, Christians as far as I know are not blowing themselves up in crowded markets or flying jets into skyscrapers shouting "Hail Mary full of grace" - nor are any of us guilty of participating in The Inquisition.

Steve

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
CeeBee2 asked on 04/11/07 - The Don Imus thing revisited.

In today's Chicago Sun-Times, a black female columnist said Imus' comment wasn't racist, but just a stupid old white guy's effort to be "hip" and "with it" (and failing miserably, since he has no experience with or understanding of black culture).

The columnist decided the insult was worse because of the "nappy-haired" adjective. Black women, she said, pride themselves on their hair, since hair control is such a challenge for most of them. "Nappy-haired" are fighting words!

Also, she wondered why Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aren't as upset over rappers' use of "bitch" and "ho" when they describe black women. It's okay, she questioned, if BLACK men call black women that--and make money doing it? What a double standard!

(There is no real question here. I just had to vent along with the columnist.)

Itsdb answered on 04/11/07:

As I've said elsewhere, Imus did a stupid thing but blacks need to purge the Fat Joe and other hip-hop standard bearers and set a better example. Just my opinion, but it's hard to whine about being "scarred for life" as one the Rutgers gals said when "bitches and hos" has become the standard vernacular in much of the black community.

Steve

CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 04/11/07 - Imus and Racism and Morality

"Imus' references to the Rutgers team as "nappy headed hos" is the real thing, pure racism--and Imus, as intelligent as he can be about many things, including the war--is a racist. The past reference to the estimable Gwen Ifill as a "cleaning lady" is an Imus "classic." His producer, Bernard McGuirk, makes clear his distaste for black people with his constant sneers and asides, his ugly sarcasm and his outright viciousness. Racist talk is, in the end, generally the product of racist minds. (And the "everybody does it" whine, even black people, does not make Imus and McGuirk's racism any less immoral.)

While trying to make sense of this incident, here are four points to keep in mind:

1. For some reason, people who make no secret of the fact that they despise Al Sharpton feel that they are doing something meaningful by engaging with him at times of crisis on racial issues. In going to him, they are seeking out someone who they think is disliked by large portions of the white audience, which they think puts them at an advantage. In the long run it doesn't.

2. There is nothing like authentic truth tellers to cut across media gamesmanship. In this case, the eloquence of the Rutgers teammates and coach were so refreshingly genuine and heartfelt--and morally clear-- that it should shame not only Imus but his high profile defenders. This was a nasty, bullying attack by an incredibly powerful broadcaster on these excellent young women who showed more class and grace than anyone else in this saga.

3. I remain astounded by the defenses of Imus' racism by people who obviously know better, starting with the usually excellent Tom Oliphant, as well as Howard Fineman (who seemed to lose sight of the fact that this is a **moral issue**, not a damage control, tactical issue.). And by the way, Imus is not being attacked for the good things he has done, which appear to be numerous, but for his racism, which appears to be pervasive. Al Roker's response today is so much more forthright and direct than anything coming from Imus' gang.

4. Finally, its hard to believe that much of the media is trivializing the whole thing by going with the "Can Imus Hang On" (CNN) line. I have no idea if he will lose his job or not. And I have no interest in the armchair issue of what strategy and media management techniques he should use next. I do know that if he and McGuirk keep their jobs, not one of the friends of Imus should go on his show again without taking him on relentlessly on the issue of his racism--and this should include Doris Kearns Goodwin, Frank Rich, Michael Beschloss, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Craig Crawford, Joe LIeberman, Tom Friedman and all the rest. Because it is perfectly clear that he and McGuirk don't get it yet and I suspect (although I can't know) that they don't really want to. JOn Landau, blogging

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Racism is a moral issue.

Itsdb answered on 04/11/07:

Was there some doubt that racism is a moral issue? Hey, I got no defense for Imus - it was stupid - but as one of the Rutgers players said she's afraid it will "scar her for life?" Come on, I guess she's never listened to Fat Joe. When blacks get fed up with gang-banging hip-hoppers and purge the "bitches and hos" and "niggas" from their own vocabulary perhaps they can set a better example for Mr. Imus.

Steve
P.S. I wonder how scarred for life the Duke Lacrosse players will be?

MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
madddawg asked on 04/11/07 - What is the meaning of life?
The meaning of life

The last words of Aldus Huxley (humanist) were:
"It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than try to be a little kinder."
That is all there is to life for the humanist. What do you suppose the real meaning of life is?

Itsdb answered on 04/11/07:

What do you suppose the real meaning of life is?

Dessert - like a white chocolate blondie from Applebee's

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
madddawg rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 04/11/07 - Perk I unconditionally apologize to your wife.

No one deserves what she has to go through and I say that openly,unconditionally and without remorse.

Itsdb answered on 04/11/07:

I must have missed where did I stepped off the Answerway Christianity board and onto the Jerry Springer show...

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pete. asked on 04/10/07 - Other than Flavius Josephus...peddler is correct

There are no historical, non-biblical references to Jesus Christ....Unless you know different:)

Itsdb answered on 04/10/07:

Pete,

Read here and here.

Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
TTFNUAS rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 04/09/07 - For Tom777, In reply to your post to me:



Hello Tom777,
I am responding to your responses. I am using the KJV and the NKJV. I HAVE NOT USED THE NEW WORLD TRANSALATION FOR ANY OF MY RESPONSES. I have only used the Bible and my own words. Please have that same respect and only use the Bible and your own word, clear and to the point. We both feel we have what is the Truth, Right? Then we do not need anything else to answer Bible based questions or to back up what we believe. The Bible can do the work for us.

We also do not need to bring religion or anyone else’s articles or website information into our discussion, if we are fully aware of the Scriptures and what they truly say. Remember what we are told at 2 Timothy 3:16,17

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (New King James Version)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So Tom777, let us set all matters straight and reproof and even correct our thinking if we are proven wrong, After all let us do as Ephesians 6:17 (New King James Version)

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

Why??? Because of what Hebrews 4:12 (New King James Version)
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
So let us discern together and let the scriptures teach me if I am wrong. God’s word is from God so therefore who needs anything else to discern the facts? If the Bible is truly God’s word, and I certainly believe it is, we do not need website, or articles or anything else to explain our beliefs or why we believe the way we do. God’s word the Bible should be sufficient, don’t your agree?
Having said that let us get to the responses you sent me.
You Wrote:
Question Details Asked By Asked On
RESPONSE to hOPE 12 Toms777 04/08/07
hOPE,

First, though you would do well to read my website, based upon your email, it appears that you have not read my posted answers which are based entirely on scripture either.

My Reply: to reading your website is that I would like to discuss with you just what the Bible says. I will also use your Bible. Is the NKJV 0kay? If not let me know and I will just use your Bible. Now what any other writer or article says, we will stick just to the Bible. Okay?
****************************************************************
You wrote:
1) John 20:17, Matthew 26:39

Jesus was on earth as a man, and to be sinless as a man He had to submit Himself to the Father (Phil 2:8).

My Question is:
My question here is how does one submit to themselves and why should Jesus if he is God have to submit to anyone?

You wrote:
Now you might want to consider - why did Jesus here and elsewhere always refer to "my God" or "your God" but never "our God"? That is because His relationship with God by nature from our relationship with God by adoption.
My Reply:
Jesus does refer to “Our God, Take note Please:

1-
Mark 12:28-29 (New King James Version)

28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving[a] that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
JESUS REFER TO THE LORD OUR GOD’!
2-
Genesis 1:26-28 (New King James Version)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Here again Tom777, at Genesis 1:26, for example,
“Let us make man in our image,” the claim that the use of the word “us” implies three persons in one God, although the verse does not indicate how many persons were meant by the word. Some insist that this scripture fits doctrine of the Trinity.
First of all Tom777, If Jesus is God who was he speaking “Let us make man in our image.” Himself?
The one to whom the Creator was actually speaking was his first creation, his only-begotten Son, is testified to by the Bible at Colossians 1:15, 16: Now notice closely
Tom777 What the NKJV of the Scriptures say:
Colossians 1:15-16 (New King James Version)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.”
TOM, Notice verse 15, “He (one person, Jesus) is the image of the invisible God,
(Two points to take notice of, one that He is the Image of the invisible God) Why would God need to have an image of Himself? Logically no one can be an image of another and still be the same person)
God is said to be invisible God.)
(Also in that same verse it states: “The firstborn over all Creation.” Now Tom777, reason on that, how can one be and yet be created? Does not the scriptures teach that God has no beginning nor end? If Jesus is God and the first born of all Creation, Who created Him?

Now take notice of this scripture found in the NKJV:
2 Corinthians 4:4 (New King James Version)
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
Why does it state that “the glory of Christ, who is the (image) of God? An image of God means with God’s qualities. A Son can be the image of a father.

Here is another one Tom777: LET US GET BACK TO THE ISSUE OF JESUS REFERING TO GOD AS ‘OUR GOD’.
HERE IS ANOTHER SCRIPTURE:
Matthew 6:9-11 (New King James Version)
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.

Notice that again Jesus shows us how to pray and starts the prayer with the words “OUR FATHER!”
This following example really says it all:
Acts 5:29-35 (New King James Version)
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Then in the KJV it says:
Acts 5:29-35 (King James Version)
29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
And again another example:
Acts 5:29-35 (American Standard Version)
29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree.
31 Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.
32 And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Tom777, these are all Bible’s that you use. How can I be misinterpreting the scripture or even misunderstanding it. Does this scripture tell lies?

Note: All three quotes for NKJV, KJV, and ASV all say the same thing. “The God of our fathers, raised up Jesus.”
It speaks of God as raising Jesus up. If Jesus Were God, Did he raise himself up???
Back again to Jesus referring to God as our God:
John 19:7 (King James Version)
7The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
Why would Jesus refer himself as the “Son of God.” And not God?
*****
Romans 1:7 (King James Version)
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Why the comma if this scripture is speaking of one person. Notice, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ?” Sounds like two separate but united persons to me!
****
Romans 5:1 (New King James Version)
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have[a] peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Again Tom777, this is Not my Bible, speaks of God as the one who gives us peace by means or through our Lord Jesus Christ. Two person’s not one!
Romans 15:6 (King James Version)
6That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Okay here Jesus himself is not saying our God, -but look what it does say Tom777.
“That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God,
even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:3 (King James Version)
3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Again if Jesus is God, Why is it worded this way???
********************************************************************1 Corinthians 1:9 (New King James Version)
9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
‘God is faithful is one, His son, Jesus Christ is two persons, not 0ne Tom!
***************************************************************
2 Corinthians 1:3 (New King James Version)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,

2 Corinthians 11:31 (New King James Version)
31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
***
Galatians 1:3 (New King James Version)3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
***
Ephesians 1:3 (New King James Version)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

Ephesians 1:17 (New King James Version)
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him,



Matthew 3:16-17 (New King James Version)
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Tom777’
At Jesus’ baptism, when Jesus came out of the water, and the spirit of God descended as a dove. Then a voice from heaven was heard and the voice said, ““This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Now if Jesus is God, was the voice from heaven , that said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” was this Jesus speaking to himself?? Why would Jesus if God Almighty call himself his beloved son. That don’t make sense Tom!
John 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Tom notice how God again is the one who send Jesus to earth, Jesus was sent to the earth to serve as a ransom to redeem us from sin and death.
Now notice this: In the Lords prayer Jesus taught his disciples to pray to “our Father” then in John 14:6 Jesus speaks and say he is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him?
If Jesus is God why would Jesus say this himself? He is here showing that God is higher then he is because one has to go past Jesus or through Jesus to get to the Father who is God Almighty!
John 14:6 (New King James Version)6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
HERE IS ANOTHER GOOD ONE WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN IT TO ME???
Luke 1:30-35 (New King James Version)
30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”
*****

Tom777, Why does this say in verse say that the Son should be named Jesus and he shall be called the Son of God.” Not God, but the Son of God??????
You Wrote:


2) John 17:1-3

This was dealt with a number of times, including earlier today. For the sake of keeping this post to a short length, I will simply give a link to the earlier message.

John 17:3 response
If you continue to ask, I will post it once again.
*** My reply is:
Tom777, Please post your reply not from links or websites, just using the Bible as I have. Thank you!
**********************************************************************

Here you quoted me:
3) YOU SAID
----------
John 8:17-18 (New King James Version)
17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”

So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father, here, didn’t he???
--------------
Your response was:
Nope. Two persons of the trinity.

My response to your response is:
You did not answer the question, My questions was in reference to John 8:17-18 and the question was:

So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father, here, didn’t he???
Please answer it Tom777 using the Bible:
************************************************************************
You wrote “
“4) Mark 13:32

Again, Jesus humbled Himself to be as a man, and made Himself fully dependent upon the Father while He was on earth (Phil 2:8)

My response is:
This is not an answer Tom777
Notice again what Mark 13:32 says in the (New King James Version)
No One Knows the Day or Hour

32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Then you answered with Phil 2:8 Tom777. Let us see what it says: But let us quote from Philippians 2:`1-10 and that way we take it into context.

Philippians 2:1-10 (New King James Version)
1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
Now notice how Christ humbled and exalted himself:
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,”

First notice the words in verse 6: “who, being in the “form” of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, and then verse 7 states, ”taking the form of a bondservant.” Now what is a bondservant Tom777? The dictionary says this:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
bondservant
–noun 1. a person who serves in bondage; slave.
2. a person bound to service without wages.

Then in verse 9 states: “9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,”

Why would the sovereign of the Universe need to be exalted and given a name above other name, if this scripture is speaking about Jesus. If Jesus was God, would he need a name higher then all others names? If Jesus was God Almighty, he would have been the highest ever and have the highest name already, Can you explain this to me Tom777????
You wrote:

5) Matthew 20:20-23

Your logic here is confusing. Why do you see this as supporting your opposition to the Biblical teaching of the trinity?
My reply is this:
This again is my reason for Not supporting your position that this is a Biblical teaching of the trinity. Notice why:
First let’s see what the scripture states:

Matthew 20:20-23 (New King James Version)

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.
21 And He said to her, “What do you wish?”
She said to Him, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.”
22 But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”They said to Him, “We are able.”
23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”


Tom, if Jesus is God then why does it say in verse 23 “but to sit on My right hand and on my left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by my Father.”

If, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”? If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”,both God and man, not one or the other, would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation? Does not Matthew 20:23 rather show that the Son is not equal to the Father, that the Father has reserved some prerogatives for himself?
***********************************************************************************
You wrote:

6) John 14:28

Again, Jesus humbled Himself to be submitted to the Father. This was a explanation of the roles and relationship between Jesus and the Father. Jesus was clear about His equality to the Father (Phil 2:6), but He was submitted to the father while he was on earther as a man.”

Keep in mind that in business a manager is referred to as a superior, but that does not mean better, just positional authority, which is what we see here.
My Reply –to this is:
First lets see what the scripture says:

John 14:28 (New King James Version)

28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[a] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. “

Tom 777, notice that despite his highly exalted position, Jesus told his apostles: “The Father is greater than I am.” John 14:28 Some people say that was true only because Jesus was still on earth and that it is no longer true now that he has ascended to heaven. But that is not what the Bible says. Take note of these scriptures After Jesus’ ascended to heaven:

Romans 1:7 (New King James Version)


7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:3 (New King James Version)
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:2 (New King James Version)
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:3 (New King James Version)
3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ephesians 1:2 (New King James Version)
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philippians 1:2 (New King James Version)
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to Philppians 2:6
Philippians 2:6 (New King James Version)
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
First of All Tom777, If Jesus were God, why do it say that he was in the form of God, and not that he was God?
Second, If Jesus was God, why would he need to be equal to himself? And why would a thought such as Robbery come to his righteous mind. Jesus would never commit robbery, would he????? Not the Jesus I know.
So in conclusion Tom777, I have tried to be respectful and stick just to the Scriptures and I did not quote articles or religion. Just plain scriptures from the Bible. Could you please do the same Tom777. Let the scriptures do the talking and if we both know our Bible, then nothing else is needed. The Bible can do the talking for us. So, let us continue and show others exactly what the Bible says by allowing God’s word answer these questions. Not any website or organizations, but the Bible.
BTW Did you notice I followed each response that you gave and kept them in order. Could you please do the same. If you truly love me as you said you do, you will take the time to answer each question and with using only the Bible and you own words Tom777.
Thank you,

Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 04/09/07:

Hope,

Since you've already dealt with this, try something different...

Rev 1: says of Jesus, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him." How do you reconcile that with Watchtower claims of seeing Jesus' return in 1914 because only they have "eyes of understanding?"

Matthew 24:27 says of Jesus' return, "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Can you think of anything more noticeable than lightning that shines from the east to the west? How does that reconcile with an 'invisible' return? How did so many people miss such a spectacle?

Rev 22:12 says of Jesus' return, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Did you get your reward?

Phillipians 2:9-10 says "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." According to a strict interpretation of this passage, which name is the "name above every name," Jehovah or Jesus?

Explain Matthew 10:28: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Shall we go on?

Steve

hOPE12 rated this answer Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 04/09/07 - Bible questions, not questions about anyones religion:

This is for those who can not simply answer my questions.

There are those on this board who insist on not answering questions in a direct and logical way. I will again ask these quesiton, please state the answers logically and to the point. Why quote a bunch of scriptures that do not answer my questions? These are Bible questions, not religion question but strickly about the Bible, please keep it that way.

Here are those scriptures and my questions. There should be no need to bring into your answer the watchtower or any other article. If you all love me as you claim, why not teach me the correct answer and as you would a new Bible student?

Just answer the question using the Bible. That is simple. If you post a whole bunch of stuff it may be because you do not know the answers. Which is it? Can you answer my questions logically and simply and direct and back it up with one or two scriptures?

*****************************************************
Notice this is the –New King James version and the King James Version:::
John 20:17 (New King James Version)

17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”

Now for the King James Version: Not my Bible the NWT
John 20:17 (King James Version)

17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 17:3 (King James Version)

3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Now answer these question for me Please?
1- Who is the Word? If you believe the Word was God, then How can God be with himself?

Verse 2 again, "The same was in the beginning with God>"

Are you saying that God is the Word and he was with himself?

If so, then why does the other scripture like John 17:3 speak of God sending forth his Son?

Can you answer these questions if Jesus is God? ALL SCRIPTURES ARE TAKEN FROM THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION OF- THE BIBLE

Matthew 26:39 (New King James Version)
39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

Why would Jesus if he was God, pray to himself?

Why if Jesus is God would he have to ask himself the above, ““O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” And If Jesus is God, why would he say, “Not as I will, but as you will?” If Jesus is God, He would know his own will.

If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.
*********************************************************************
John 8:17-18 (New King James Version)
17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”

So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father, here, didn’t he???
**********************************************************************************************************************
Mark 13:32 (New King James Version)
32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Why would only the Father know if Jesus were God?

Would not Jesus then also know the day and the hour?

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?

Matthew 20:20-234 (New King James Version)
20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.
21 And He said to her, “What do you wish?”
She said to Him, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.”
22 But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”[a]
They said to Him, “We are able.”
23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;[b] but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”

How strange, if, as claimed, Jesus is God! Was Jesus here merely answering according to his “human nature”?

If, as Trinitarians say, Jesus was truly “God-man”—both God and man, not one or the other—would it truly be consistent to resort to such an explanation?

Reason on this, notice verse 23. and ask yourself if Jesus is God why was it not his to give?

Here is shows that the Father has reserved some prerogative for himself.

Why if Jesus is God?

********************************************************************************************

John 14:28 (New King James Version)
28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[a] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.

Why would Jesus say this if he was God?

Was part of God better then the other part? Or is Jesus in the Bible you all use lying?

For what purpose would Jesus say this?


John 17:1-3 (New King James Version)
1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should[a] give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

Why does Jesus pray to himself, if he is God?

If Jesus is God why would he need to be glorified?


Please in a seriousness answer these question in an orderly and logical way and in the 0rder of which I have asked them, and without books and articles and a whole bunch of stuff. If your Trinity is true you should be able to answer these quesiton simply and directly and without posting pages and pages of website information. You should be able to answer with one of two scriptures and explain it in your own words.

Tom777 especially I do not want to read your website information. I want an answer from you using JUST the Bible please.


Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 04/09/07:

Hope,

These questions have all been dealt with numerous times on this website and many other places. Your questions are not just " strickly about the Bible," they are specifically on the subject of the Trinity. If all questions about God can be answered in a strictly logical way - that is according to human logic - then we have nothing much to discuss. And, if your God is so constrained as to be able to manifest Himself in but one way the he doesn't sound like much of a God.

Nevertheless, if you want to read some deep discussion on the nature of God, follow this link.

Steve

CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Jesushelper76 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 04/09/07 - To whom does Hilter belong?

Adolf Hitler claimed he was Christian!

Evangelical Christian leaders supported Hitler greatly; even Baptists were split over whether Hitler was truly Born Again. Listen to Adolf's testimony:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior" - Speech, 12 April 1921

Adolf Hitler professed faith in Jesus Christ and claimed to be a Christian! He affirmed the Christian faith, never shut down a Christian church, and claimed that his actions during World War II were fully consistent with Biblical teaching and commandment.

Adolf Hitler claimed to be Christian. He regularly invoked the name of "God" and "Lord", he regularly called upon "faith in the Almighty", and he regularly stated the importance of the Christian faith as a foundation for the entire nation!

A German woman wrote a letter to a friend just weeks before Hitler's suicide in 1945. She expressed outrage because she finally believed the 'rumors', that the "SS" had been systematically murdering Jews all during the war. She said, "This is totally outrageous and must stop. Why, someone should tell Adolf"!

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior... I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Speech, 12 April 1921

"Hitler is reported to have spoken, glowingly, about raising the 'treasures of the living Christ,' the persecution of the 'true Christians and sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man and to turn away from the anti-Christian , smug individualism of the past,' and 'to educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers!" [Turner, "In Hitler-- Memoirs of a Confidant", Ch. 23;]

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might ..."

"Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross."

"As a Christian ..."

"For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

"When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."

"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." ["Memoirs" Albert Speer, p. 95]

Later on this same page, Albert Speer noted that Hitler strongly believed that the Christian church was indispensable in political life.

"We don't want to educate anyone in atheism. ["Hitler's Table-Talk", p. 6]

"God is with us" - [Calic, Edouard, Ed., "Secret Conversations With Hitler," The John Day Company, p. 6:

Hitler repeated this phrase exceedingly often in his speeches, and he always drew the applause.

"We do not forget the influence of the churches"

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" [Hitler, Mein Kampf]

"The established Methodist church paper, the Friedensglocke, vouched for the authenticity of a story about Hitler where he invited a group of deaconesses from the Bethel Institutions into his home at Obersalzberg .. The deaconesses entered the chamber and were astonished to see the pictures of Frederick the Great, Luther, and Bismarck on the wall ...

One sister could not refrain from saying: 'Herr Reichkanzler, 'from where do you get the courage to undertake the great changes in the whole Reich?' Thereupon Hitler took out of his pocket the New Testament of Dr. Martin Luther, which one could see had been used very much, and said earnestly: "From God's word." [Helmreich, Ernst Christian, "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979, p., p. 139]

"The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service. It has not exercised any pressure upon the doctrine nor on the profession of faith of any of the Confessions. In the National Socialist State anyone is free to seek his blessedness after his own fashion...." [Hitler, a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939]

"I am absolutely convinced of the great power and the deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion (Religionsstifter) ... I will protect the rights and freedom of the church and will not permit them to be touched. You need have no apprehensions concerning the freedom of the church.
[Hitler, quoted from "The German Churches Under Hitler", p.241]

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. From our point of view as representatives of the state, we need believing people."
[Hitler, quoted from The German Churches under Hitler, p.241]

" 'Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain'.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.... We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans."
[Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933]

"... the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion." [Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)]

"...that is why the prophet seldom has any honor in his own country." [Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf); referring to Jesus' words, John 4:44]

History records that many Evangelical, and even Baptist, preachers, teachers, and leaders went over to Hitler's "morality."

"If anyone can lay claim to God's help, then it is Hitler, for without God's benevolent fatherly hand, without his blessing, the nation would not be where it stands today. It is an unbelievable miracle that God has bestowed on our people."
[Evangelical Minister Rust, in a speech to a mass meeting of German Christians on June 29, 1933 [Helmreich, Ernst Christian, "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979, p. 138]

"Other pastors openly welcomed the Nazi's, believing that the reintroduction of government by Christian authorities, affirmed St. Paul that 'the power that be are ordained by God'." (Romans 13:1) ["Christianity in Europe during WWII", by Jim Walker, 1 June, 2000]

"... a number of U.S. Baptists wrote sympathetically of Hitler's Germany. I came to this conclusion while writing an article on the Baptist World Alliance congress in Berlin in 1934. An immense Nazi flag, hung where the congress met, was a vivid reminder of the bloody purge executed only a few weeks before by anti-Semitic fascists.
["U.S. Baptists said surprisingly nice things about Hitler", Baptist Standard, by Professor Lloyd Allen - Church History at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky -- May 27, 2002]

"John Sampey, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, cautioned against hasty judgment of a leader (Hitler) who had stopped German women from smoking cigarettes and wearing red lipstick in public.

The Watchman-Examiner carried a letter by Boston pastor John Bradbury. Of the congress, he wrote, "It was a great relief to be in a country where salacious sex literature cannot be sold; where putrid motion pictures and gangster films cannot be shown."

Professor Allen lists some other specific reasons these Baptist leaders gave Hitler such a pass on the clear evidences of spiritual disaster:

"This focus on [Hitler's] personal piety resulted partially from a frontier religious ethic. On the American frontier, where Baptist strength arose in the Second Great Awakening, the most crucial ethical decisions were personal--alcoholism, spousal abuse and violence. Few complex social structures existed on the frontier to attract a sustained moral critique. Baptists equated eliminating the sins of the flesh with Christian living."

"Mass evangelism was a second factor in Baptist blindness to the Nazi evil. Some Baptists believed that evangelism and the world order were two circles that never intersected ... "Evangelical Christianity transcends all political and social systems," according to an Alabama Baptist article that appeared that same year. As long as governments, even fascist governments, did not interfere with soul-saving, they could be tolerated." [Ibid.]

What would Jesus say in response to this nonsensical line of argument? "Ye blind guides, filtering out a gnat, and gulping down a camel." Matt 23:24; Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary]

Professor Allen explains in another article, "How Baptists Assessed Hitler, written in September, 1982:

"Surely a leader who does not smoke or drink, who wants women to be modest, and who is against pornography cannot be all bad, or so the reasoning went. As M. E. Aubrey of England observed in the Baptist Times, Hitler had “brought almost a new Puritanism, which makes its appeal to our Baptist friends, and for the sake of which they can overlook much that cuts across their natural desires.” Baptists from the United States ignored the fact that interpreters were barred from even rendering the word “democracy” in Aubrey’s speech. Priority was placed on personal habits, to the detriment of larger, more vital issues."

M.E. Aubrey admitted there was much about Hitler that was of great concern to Christians, but he smoothed that problem over by stating that Hitler's "new Puritanism" is so strong that Christians can "overlook much" about him that gives them great concern! In other words, Christians who had personally compared Hitler's spiritual fruits against Bible doctrine, and had concluded he was evil, could "overlook" their conclusions because of Hitler's supposed "new Puritanism"!

Professor Allen records for posterity that the numbers of Baptists who felt positive about Hitler was far more than a few radical fringe types:

"“Quite a number of correspondents of our Southern Baptist papers writing about the BWA seemed to have a kindly feeling and a good word for Hitler and his regime,” Wrote R. H. Pitt in "Religious Herald."

Victor I. Masters of the Western Recorder went even further, writing, “Most of the testimony we have from our brethren who went to the [1934] Baptist World Alliance in Berlin has seemed with great spontaneity and readiness to accept the opinion that all is well in Germany."

Did you catch that phrase, uttered even as Hitler was beginning to secretly murder Jews: "all is well in Germany".

Professor Allen drops a bombshell in identifying the major issue blinding Baptists to Hitler: he had them focussing on one major issue:

"A final reason for Baptist vulnerability to Hitler’s 1934 policies was a single-issue criterion for appraising foreign governments: anticommunism. In 1934, if a government was anti-Communist, it deserved recognition and support. Dr. Leek wrote:

'Our observation is, that while Hitlerism is doubtless not the ultimate end, for Germany directly or Europe indirectly, it is for Germany a safe step in the right direction. Nazism has at least been a bar to the universal boast of Bolshevism'
[Alabama Baptist XCIX 36 (September 6, 1934)]."

Another Baptist leader, Dr. Daddy, stated: "Hitler was not perfect, but at least he was anti-Communist."

Therefore, because Hitler strongly opposed Communism, as did international Baptists, it was all right to ignore all the spiritually rotten fruit coming from Hitler and his National Socialist regime!

"I do not remember even a single occasion when Hitler gave any instructions that ran counter to the true Christian spirit and to humaness.
[Wagener, quoted in "Turner, Jr., Henry Ashby, "Hitler-- Memoirs of a Confidant," Yale University Press, 1978, p.147]

Hitler wanted to combine all the regional Protestant churches into a single and united Reich Church. In 1933, a few Protestant Pastors, namely Martin Niemöller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and others formed the "Pastors Emergency League" which later became known as "The Confessing Church" to oppose the state controlled Nazi Church.

"It bears some importance to understand that Germany did not recognize the Confessing Church as an official Church. Not only the Nazis, but all other Protestant Churches condemned the Confessing Church. They thought of it as a minority opposition that held little power. The vast majority of German churches supported Hitler and his policies against the Jews."
["Christianity In Europe During World War II, by John Walker June 2002].

Many Evangelical and Baptist leaders supported Hitler, especially during the early years, 1921-1939, when their determined opposition might have made a difference.

Evangelical and Baptists supported Hitler because he claimed Jesus as his Lord and Savior.


Adolph Hitler was never a Mormon. Tomsmeddlingdawg can have him back.


Itsdb answered on 04/09/07:

To whom does Hitler belong? Well he certainly doesn't 'belong' to Baptists or Mormons.

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 04/09/07 - Benny Hinn more off his rocker

while looking for sites on necromancy for Hank I ran across an article on Benny Hinn getting into spiritism

Hinn relates another vision he had "I saw myself walk into a room and there stood Kathryn Kuhlman. And I've not seen Kathryn in a dream or a vision [in] years. I knew she had died and it was on the news that same morning. … And there she was standing in this room… And she said, 'Follow me.' … And I followed her to a second room. In that second room stood the lord. When the lord, uh-when-when I saw the lord, Kathryn disappeared. She was just gone ... And now the lord looked at me and said, 'Follow me.' And I followed him to a third room."(Ibid.)

Hinn is so infatuated with this woman of who he models his preaching and mannerisms after that he is seeing her along with Jesus. He conducts his meetings almost exactly like hers. Why change such an effective model if it works.

Hinn is practicing and promoting spiritism at best and at worst necromancy, secret knowledge communicated by someone who has died. Direction is sought from the other side. However, the Bible reveals that the real source of the information can be demonic entities or evil spirits who impersonate the dead, not the dead themselves. Why? Because the dead are not allowed nor able to communicate with us. It doesn't matter whether we are believers or not their is no advantage.

Benny Hinn's obsessions )

Itsdb answered on 04/09/07:

Was Benny ever on his rocker?

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 04/05/07 - Book of Real Tex-Mex Cooking

The has served as a language arsenal in a great many of the social, cultural, and political conflicts in Western history. Over and over, Tex-Mex Cooking has stirred some dangerous men and women to act out their own private apocalypses. Above all, the moral calculus of Tex-Mex Cooking--the deionization of one's enemies, the sanctification of revenge taking, and the notion that lunch must end in catastrophe--can be detected in some of the worst atrocities and excesses of every age including our own.

And, indeed, in a small scale on this Board.

We see Atheists such as Mary Sue demonizing the Martha Smith Cookbook for her own pleasure and aggrandizement. Perkie acting out his own personal apocalyptic view of the Vegan Movement and slipping into psychosis, and Ronnie demonizing his "enemies" through constant, endless lying.


There is none of Real Tex-Mex Flavor in Tex-Mex Cooking on this Board.

Is it over involvement in the spicy flavor portrayed in the Book of Real Tex-Mex Cooking that causes most Atheists here to lose any character they may have had at one time in their lives?

Itsdb answered on 04/05/07:

Alright Peddler, them's fightin' words. Leave my Tex-Mex food out of this.

Steve - a Tex-Mex loving, Tex-Mex cooking Texan from the home of the best Tex-Mex money can buy. Steak and Enchiladas so good it'll make you wanna slap your mama. And the the Alambre ... that might even make you wanna dance with Pericles...

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/02/07 - Easter and it's miracle revealed ........................


How are Easter eggs made ???

Want to know? Click Here!

Comments?

Itsdb answered on 04/02/07:

Well that was crude, lol.

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 04/02/07 - THE GREAT DEBATE .................................


Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to leave Italy. There was, of course, a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal. He would have a religious debate with a leader of the Jewish community. If the Jewish leader won the debate, the Jews would be permitted to stay in Italy. If the Pope won, the Jews would have to leave.

The Jewish community met and picked an aged Rabbi, Moishe, to represent them in the debate. Rabbi Moishe, however, could not speak Latin and the Pope could not speak Yiddish. So it was decided that this would be a "silent" debate.

On the day of the great debate, the Pope and Rabbi Moishe sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Rabbi Moishe looked back and raised one finger. Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head. Rabbi Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope then brought out a communion wafer and chalice of wine. Rabbi Moishe pulled out an apple. With that, the Pope stood up and said, "I concede the debate. This man has bested me. The Jews can stay."

Later, the Cardinals gathered around the Pope, asking him what had happened. The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and the wafer to show that God absolves us of our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"

Meanwhile, the Jewish community crowded around Rabbi Moishe, asking what happened. "Well," said Moishe, "first he said to me, 'You Jews have three days to get out of here.' So I said to him, 'Up yours'. Then he tells me the whole city would be cleared of Jews. So I said to him, 'Listen here Mr. Pope, the Jews ... we stay right here!"

"And then?" asked a woman.
"Who knows?" said Rabbi Moishe. "We broke for lunch."


I know it's an oldie, but fitting the board !
Any comments?

Itsdb answered on 04/02/07:

Love it :)

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pete. asked on 04/01/07 - Fred Phelps

I have just watched a TV film about Fred Phelps, made by Louis Theroux.

What is your opinion on Fred?

I would love to see your comments.....Remember I am in the UK!


Pete

Itsdb answered on 04/02/07:

Pete,

I didn't watch the film but I do consider Fred Phelps a vile, despicable, dangerous man. He is the poster child for what Christianity is NOT.

What concerns me however is that so many see someone like Phelps and treat other undeserving Christians as the same - just as we are often accused of doing toward all of Islam. Fred Phelps speaks for Christianity no more than Osama bin Laden does for Islam. I would hope fair-minded people can see the difference on both sides.

Steve

Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/31/07 - Importance of the Cross-examination .....................


I refer to topic "Importance of the Crucifixion", and several other topics regarding Toms views on the Jehovah Witnesses and Toms wild claims towards their contacts with Hitler in the early 1930's.

One can indeed spend time on the subject of Crucifixion and it's religious meanings, but I ask myself if Toms would not be better of Cross-examining himself and his topics before posting, and adding some value to his topics instead of all these wild claims - with which he ABUSES all Jehovah Witnesses in general and Hope in particular.

That is why Toms could make good use of some Cross-examination : By considering BOTH SIDES of an argument before drawing conclusions, the weighing up of different sides may result in more valid and valuable arguments with less hypocrite content.

---

I find it extremely offensive to see all these personal hypocrite attacks by Toms in one post - often without any supportive evidence of any value - and than in the next pious post a lot of references and quotations from the Bible.

---

Question specially for Toms : you often refer to others as "ABUSERS".

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP ABUSING THIS ENTIRE BOARD WITH YOUR HYPOCRITE, UNFAIR, AND UNCHRISTIAN ACTIONS ???


Your actions are not spreading any word other than your own moronic intolerant hypocrisy.

.

Of course others may react to this topic too !

.

Itsdb answered on 03/31/07:

Pericles,

You know I gotta ask, what exactly is unfair, hypocritical and abusive about examining the evidence and questioning the claims of a religious group? Seems you do it all the time, so if it's abuse when tom does it what is it when you do it? Examples here, here, and here.

Not only do you question the claims and beliefs of Christianity, you draw conclusions for us in spite of the fact that you are speaking as an outsider. So if you ask me - and I know didn't - you are guilty of the same unfair, hypocritical and abusive behavior you accuse others of displaying. And I have to take stand that Tom has been far more fair and civil than you have.

The only thing that seems to be fair game on these boards and in society is attacking traditional Christianity, especially conservative evangelical Protestants. Damn the member of a traditional Christian denomination that dares to question a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness that without a doubt does not teach the same Jesus the scriptures and the church have affirmed for 2000 years.

Damn that Christian the questions finding now missing golden plates containing an account of Jesus in the new world, teachings of lands and people unheard of by ANY mainstream archaeologist, geographer or historian - so much for scientific primacy, eh?

Damn that Christian that questions a religion with countless failed 20th century prophecies, that claims it is impossible to understand the bible without their organization.

Damn that Christian that dare mention "Islam" and "terror" in the same sentence, in spite of the fact that the majority of current terrorist atrocities are carried out in the name of Allah with no mention of Baptists beheading infidels or Lutheran suicide bombers.

It's time for open season on Christians to be closed.

Steve

Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
PrinceHassim asked on 03/30/07 - A question for Christians who believe they must share the gospel with others.


Please give this some thought.

If you ask me for a piece of cake, would you prefer to receive it from me

(A) served on a silver platter with social niceties and a wish for your enjoyment, or will you be satisfied

(B) if I grasp a handful of Black Forest Gateaux, squish it between my fingers, and smear it all over your face?

Is it preferred for Christians to share the gospel with others using method A or method B?

What would Jesus do? References to Jesus cleaning the temple and/or slagging off the Pharisees for their hypocrisies must not form part of your answer.

How do you think (chapter and verses please) Jesus wants his Gospel Gateaux presented to make it attractive to those yet to decide for him?


Itsdb answered on 03/31/07:

>>How do you think (chapter and verses please) Jesus wants his Gospel Gateaux presented to make it attractive to those yet to decide for him?<<

As plain, sincere and recognizable as piece of cake on a plate - with frosting on top. If you'll notice, presenting it this way results in both difficulty recognizing the cake and the recipient seeing what you're offering...



But then again, some people need a bit more 'encouragement' than others.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
PrinceHassim rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jjgoss asked on 03/30/07 - ..Call Me Infidel: An Ex-Muslim Speaks Out......

..(CBN)A shocking new documentary is calling attention to the very real threat of terror attacks against the U.S.

It's called, Obsession: Radical Islam's War against the West.

Canadian film-maker Raphael Shore produced the movie. He believes that Americans and Westerners must comprehend how radical Muslims view this war.

"'Obsession' is an attempt to reveal and educate the American public on what the aims, the goals and the strategies of the radical Islamists are," Shore said.

That is something that author Nonie Darwish understands very well. Darwish, the author of "Now They Call Me Infidel", grew up in an Egyptian family in the Gaza Strip.

She learned firsthand what it was like to live in an atmosphere where jihad ruled.

But Darwish became disillusioned and left the Islamic faith, later founding the anti-terrorist, pro-Israel group Arabs for Israel.

She states her mission is to "promote reconciliation, acceptance and understanding" between Israelis and Arabs.

Although there have been death threats leveled against her, that has not stopped her from speaking out against terrorism.

Born in Cairo, Egypt, Darwish moved to Gaza in the 1950s when her father, Lt. General Mustafa Hafez, was sent by Gamal Abdel Nasser to serve as commander of the Egyptian Army Intelligence in Gaza, which was then occupied by Egypt.

Hafez founded the Fedayeen, armed Palestinian militia who launched raids across Israel's southern border.

In July 1956, when Nonie was only 8 years old, her father became the first target of the Israeli Defence Forces, killed in response to Fedayeen attacks. He became a martyr, or "shahid."

Afterwards, during a speech, Nasser vowed that all of Egypt would take revenge for Hafez's death.

Nasser asked Darwish and her siblings, "Which one of you will avenge your father's death by killing Jews?"

Darwish explained, "I always blamed Israel for my father's death, because that's what I was taught. I never looked at why Israel killed my father. They killed my father because the Fedayeen were killing Israelis. They killed my father because when I was growing up, we had to recite poetry pledging jihad against Israel. We would have tears in our eyes, pledging that we wanted to die. I speak to people who think there was no terrorism against Israel before the ཿ war. How can they deny it? My father died in it."

In 1978, Darwish moved to the United States with her husband, and eventually became a U.S. citizen.

Living in the free atmosphere of America, she began to realize the horrific impact and evil indoctrination that she and all Arab children are subjected to.

She no longer practices Islam because she feels that even mosques in the U.S. have a radical, anti-American and an anti-peace message.

About a year after the 9/11 attacks, Darwish began writing columns about radical Islam and the culture of hate and violence upon which it thrives....


...Any comments??????........

Itsdb answered on 03/30/07:

>>Living in the free atmosphere of America, she began to realize the horrific impact and evil indoctrination that she and all Arab children are subjected to.<<

You can't say that can you? And here I thought Christians were the worst threat to society. I mean after all we shouldn't fear radical Islamic terrorists, they're just mothers and fathers.

Steve

jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 03/29/07 - Dinosaur Extinction Little Effect on Mammal Evolution

"The extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago had little effect on the evolution of mammals, according to a study in the journal Nature.

One theory had suggested the rise of the mammals was directly linked to the disappearance of the dinosaurs.

The evidence challenging the connection comes from the most complete family tree compiled for mammals.

It shows how different groups, such as primates and rodents, are related and when they diverged.

An international team compiled the mammal "supertree" from existing fossil data and from genetic analyses.

Throughout the Cretaceous Period, when dinosaurs walked the Earth, mammals were relatively few in number, and were prevented from diversifying and evolving in ecosystems dominated by the ancient reptiles.

Explosive evolution

According to the established view, the extinction of the dinosaurs removed this constraint, allowing mammals to diversify and flourish, and placing them on course to their present position of dominance on Earth.

Under this model, placental mammals split into major sub-groupings, which originated and rapidly diversified after the mass extinction event - thought to have been caused by an asteroid or comet striking Earth 65 million years ago (a point in time recorded in rocks and referred to by geologists as the K-T boundary).

Co-author Kate Jones, from the Zoological Society of London, told the BBC Radio 4's Leading Edge programme: "The meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs has traditionally been thought to have given mammals the edge they needed."


Some mammals did benefit from the demise of the dinosaurs

More details
However, the supertree shows that the placental mammals had already split into these sub-groups by 93 million years ago, long before the space impact and at a time when dinosaurs still ruled the planet.

After the origin of these sub-groups - or orders - the rate of mammal evolution fell and remained low again until the Eocene Epoch, 55 million years ago.

The start of the Eocene was marked by rapid global warming and an explosion in the diversity of mammal lineages.

"The [supertree] is a new way of showing all the mammal species on the planet, starting with a common ancestor. Species relationships can be inferred from morphological characteristics and genetic sequences," explained Dr Jones.

"If we had done this from scratch, we would have had to get molecular and morphological data for 4,000 different species.

"What we did instead was use already published information from hundreds of researchers around the world. We used a new technique called supertree construction which allows us to get all the information that's out there, re-code it and re-analyse it as if it's all part of one dataset."

'Straw man' theory

The composition of rocks and marine sediments laid down at the boundary between the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs show that global temperatures rose by around six degrees Celsius in less than 1,000 years - an event known as the thermal maximum.

Dr Rob Asher, an expert on mammalian phylogeny at the University of Cambridge, said: "Palaeontologists have known for over a hundred years that not all modern placental mammal groups appear right after the K-T boundary.

"Most orders of placental mammals - what I mean by that is cats and bats and whales and people - appear at the Eocene. On the flipside, not all dinosaurs disappear at the end of the Cretaceous.

"There was a period of several million years at the end of this period which witnessed several extinctions of non-avian dinosaurs. So the old textbook idea that at the K-T boundary dinosaurs disappeared and mammals appeared is a bit of a straw man."

But the idea that mammal fossils from the Cretaceous represent ones ancestral to today's mammals was a controversial question, said Dr Asher."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evolution is fascinating, isn't it? So many breakthroughs every year.

Can anyone display the supertree here?

Itsdb answered on 03/29/07:

>>Evolution is fascinating, isn't it?<<

Absolutely, the theory is constantly evolving. Here I thought this was all settled and along comes a study that completely dismisses the consensus. It appears we've been taught wrong all along, right?

Steve

MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
kindj asked on 03/28/07 - Why is it.......?

This morning during advisory period (what we used to call "homeroom"), we announced that we were kicking off a money-raising campaign for March of Dimes. I explained to the students (7th graders) about premature births and the health problems associated with it. They asked a lot of questions. In the words of Jimmy Buffett: "Some I know the answers to, and some I'm looking for suggestions."

Then a little while ago, I was walking past the teacher's lounge on my way to get whatever passes for lunch in the cafeteria. One of our custodians, a dear lady who has always looked out for me and helped me with things, was hanging up the phone in tears. I stopped, sat down next to her, and asked what was wrong. She told me that they had found cancer in one of her breasts. I talked to her for a while and comforted her as best I could.

But now, as my kiddos are reading a couple of stories about Zeus and his buddies, I'm thinking.

Why is it that we have cars now that can tell us not only where we are, but where we have been, where we are going, and the best way to get there?

Why is it that we have computers that can do things that science fiction hadn't even dreamed of 20 years ago?

Why is it that we can build houses today in days rather than weeks, and these houses have robotic-this and remote-controlled-that, just like the Jetson's?

Why is it that we can put a man on the moon, send probes into the vastness of space, and have telescopes that can give us close-ups of things literally light-years away?

Why is it that we can launch a missile from Podunk, Idaho and have it fly 10,000 miles and land within three feet of where we wanted it to?

Why can we do these things, but little kids are born with crippling disabilities and diseases that seal their fates before they've ever even had a chance to live.

Why can we do these things, but kids still get cancer and die?

Why can we do these things, but wonderful people like the custodian (whose name I know, by the way) get their cars broken into and hundreds of dollars worth of stuff stolen or damaged the same morning they are told they have cancer?

And you know what? I really don't wanna hear the Christian party line, either. Sorry if that bugs some of you, but lately, the whole "free will/sin entering the world" shit isn't quite cutting it for me. Im sure it is true, but it doesn't give these kids hope or cure this lady's cancer.

I also don't really want to hear all the political BS about how the Republicans cut this and the Democrats de-funded that. I also know about that. Blaming another group is just a lame-ass excuse for not getting the job done yourself.

My point is: we humans have done a remarkable job in advancing science in certain directions. We can kill people with startling efficiency these days. And yes, sometimes there are people that probably need to be killed.

Why isn't that same zeal applied to saving lives? To preventing needless and unnatural deaths?

I could ponder more, but unfortunately I've just been made aware of a plot hatched by a student to kill our principal and a couple of key teachers.

What a freakin' world......

Itsdb answered on 03/28/07:

Don't know Dennis, I've been there, done that, made many similar remarks ... but I'm sure it has something to do with money.

Steve

kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
powderpuff rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 03/27/07 - If you meet someone here in heaven who would you want that to be?

Of course the right answer is everyone but seeing Domino there would be my greatest wish.

Itsdb answered on 03/28/07:

Well Peddler, I wouldn't exactly call this place heaven (think about it), but I think it would be a kick to meet Domino and Pete. I'm not sure I could take them both at the same time, but if Pete would treat us to some Chicken Jalfrezi I think I could manage. Maybe Elliot and tomder could come along and really spice up the conversation. :)

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/27/07 - Peddler

Since you SEEM to believe ALL atheists have the same morals (or should I say lack of) and insist they all
believe the same way about everything including what
serial killers say.
That is like saying ALL Christians believe exactly the same.
So do you agree 100% with

Pat Robertson
Benny Hinn
T.D. Jakes
Chuck Smith
Charles Stanley
Dean and Mary Brown
Tammy Faye
Billy Graham
Adrian Rodgers
Joel Osteen
Jerry Falwell
Michael Youssef
Chuck Swindoll
Hal Lindsey
R.W. Shambaugh
Jimmy Swaggert
Oral Roberts
Joyce Meyer
Kaye Arthur
Jack Van Impe
John Hagee



I did included SOME decent ones in there, but my point is they do not all believe the same or have the same morals so how can you claim that Perk and other atheists have the same beliefs as a serial killer?

If they all think the same as you suggest, >no insist<
what keeps Perk and other atheists from being serial killers?

Thank you for your explanation rather than your flippin that I am just like them so I must be one of them because I ask.

Itsdb answered on 03/27/07:

Sapph, you forgot my favorite, Robert Tilton.

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/27/07 - we are missing

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hank's wedding

Itsdb answered on 03/27/07:

Were we invited? Can we watch it on Youtube?

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pete. asked on 03/26/07 - Divine names


I think we have a new name for the god of the crazy guys. His name is CONTEXT and all taken out of him shall go to hell.........or is that hades, I'll ask daft Tom , he specializes in mythological trivia;)

Itsdb answered on 03/26/07:

Pete, you mean like when Domino says "Abraham also screwed his wife's slave, and then threw her and her son out into the desert. He also LIED twice about Sarah being his sister, ONLY to save his own butt!!!"

It seems to be a rather contagious affliction affecting people of all walks :)

Steve

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/25/07 - More on morality : divorce


To be more precise : the Secular Humanist Morality and Crime and Divorce.
Let's have a look at the fundamentalists' claim that secularism is responsible for all of society's ills, particularly the high divorce rate and rising youth crime rates. As the religious bigots say, today's youth don't go to church so they don't respect law and order, and marriage is weak unless it is strengthened by mutual faith in God. Lets discuss each claim separately.

---

Youth crime:
The problem of youth crime is a difficult one, and psychologists have proposed any of a huge number of contributing factors. These would include parents spending too much time at work, lenient legal systems, the glorification of the criminal sub-culture in television and movies, etc.
But why think about all that complicated stuff when we can just pick a convenient scapegoat and blame the atheists? That kind of thinking is oversimplistic and can be self-defeating. Since Christian fundamentalism has actually been on the rise in America since the 1970's, one could just as easily correlate that with the crime rate.
Moreover, since atheist youths are no more likely to commit crimes than Christian youths, one can only imagine that the connection between atheism and youth crime is the result of recreational drug use or an active fantasy life, rather than any sort of rational thought process.

---

Violent crime?
Do we need the threat of a Supreme Being in order to cow us into civilized behaviour and prevent violence? That's doubtful, to say the least.
If atheism allows violent tendencies to run amok,     THAN WHY     does Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-7) have its lowest murder rate while the United States (the most Christian nation in the G-7) has its highest?
Japan used to have much stronger religious faith, and a state religion; were they even more pacifistic back then? Hardly. In fact, Japan was remarkably aggressive and militaristic when "Shinto" was at its peak, and during WW2, its Emperor was regarded as a God.
And what about America? Does atheism correlate to violent crime in America? If so, then why does Louisiana, with America's highest church attendance rate, have twice the national average murder rate? Why is the same true for Texas?
If atheism causes violence, why are right-wing fundamentalists unable to find a shred of statistical evidence to back that claim up? It would be unfair to use these statistics to claim that Christianity causes violence (cause and correlation being entirely separate concepts), but one could certainly say that there is no truth to the fundamentalist lie that atheism causes violence.

---

Divorce rate:
Is marriage strengthened by mutual faith in God? Are marriages weak without religion? The Barna Research Group conducted a poll of Americans in 1999 in an attempt to show that religious faith reduces the likelihood of divorce.
The results shocked them: Atheists had the lowest average divorce rates (defined as the percentage of people who had been divorced at least once in their lives), at 21%.
Christian divorce rates averaged about 24% (higher for "born-again" Christians, ie- fundamentalists, at 27%), and even higher for Jews, at 30%.
They also collected racial and geographical data, which showed that the white Southern Baptist fundamentalists have no reason to crow about their "family values".
Not only did the Southern Bible Belt have the highest divorce rate in the country, but whites as a race are the most likely to split: 27%, as compared to 22% for blacks, 20% for Hispanics, and only 8% for Asians like me (and you thought I was just blowing hot air about that "till death do us part" stuff).
UPDATE: interestingly enough, Barna Research later edited that article to lump all "non-born-again adults" into a single category, thus "accidentally" obscuring the embarrassing fact that atheists had the lowest divorce rates.

---

How can this be? Anti-atheists expressed shock at the figures but offered no real explanation (their usual charges of secular lies were useless since Barna is a Christian marketing research company which aggressively promotes Christianity). George Barna himself admitted that they have never been able to find significant differences in moral behaviour between theists and non-theists despite numerous efforts (which says something about their agenda, since they've obviously been trying to produce statistical support for anti-atheist bigotry), except for this shocker.
He stood by his study, saying that the Church needs to do more to strengthen the family (even though the Bible itself is rather dismissive of family loyalty, with Abraham being praised for his willingness to kill his own son, and Jesus ignoring his mother and brothers because his apostles were his new family).
David Popenoe at Rutgers University greeted the data with disbelief, spluttering that Christian marriages are based on a bond that "the secular world doesn't have," but he's simply wrong (not to mention bigoted; does he think secular marriage is invalid?).
The secular world does have such a bond; it is a bond between a man and a woman, without a third seat for God. Many atheists have suggested that high Christian and Jewish divorce rates are due to the inequities of the patriarchal family models that are favoured by fundamentalists of both faiths (although this explanation is far from conclusive, it would help explain why the Christian fundamentalist divorce rate is higher than the general Christian divorce rate).
Sexual equality, after all, is a modern humanist idea that has no support in the Bible. Another potential culprit is sexual repression, since a healthy sex life is a key component to a healthy marriage.
But whatever the root causes, atheists are actually less likely to divorce than Christians. So much for the idea that atheism leads to divorce!

---

Are atheists responsible for rising crime and divorce rates? It sure doesn't seem that way. It sounds more like fundamentalists have a knee-jerk reflex to blame atheists for everything that they don't like in society.
However, that is nothing new; fundamentalists have always demonized every group that didn't agree with them. Nothing new about that !!!

Any comments?


(With thanks to Michael Wong!)

Itsdb answered on 03/26/07:

>>even though the Bible itself is rather dismissive of family loyalty, with Abraham being praised for his willingness to kill his own son, and Jesus ignoring his mother and brothers because his apostles were his new family<<

Don't you guys have any better argument than that? I guess Jesus didn't buy into that 5th commandment, eh? I suppose it's irrelevent that Abraham is praised for his faith - not his "willingness to kill his own son?"

I don't know who all these Christians blaming atheists for divorce are, but neither did I know Christians were sexually repressive patriarchal goons.

Steve

domino rated this answer Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/25/07 - More on morality : Sex


To be more precise : more on Secular Humanist Morality : Sex

Fundamentalist puritanism doesn't stop with our children, whether they be prepubescent or approaching high school graduation. The fundamentalists don't even think that adults should be permitted sexual freedom, and they are constantly trying to enact laws which will force their narrow-minded sexually repressive attitudes onto the rest of the population.
Young mothers who breast feed their children in public are given dirty looks and accused of being "indecent".
Women who wear thong bikinis are used as examples of "immorality" and decaying values.
People are expected to feel guilt over the mere act of entering an adult video store.

---

It gets even stranger; in Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, possession of sex toys (eg. vibrators) is a crime.
Unbelievably in the 21st century, a woman who is found in possession of a vibrator in Alabama may be subject to as much as a $10,000 fine and a year of hard labour.
Of course, firearms are not subject to any such prohibitions, which means that, in effect, the Alabama courts consider a vibrator more dangerous than a gun!

---

The real question here is : Why is sex considered "unclean"?
Why should we be made to feel guilty for enjoying it, or experimenting with it? Why is premarital sex (as opposed to extramarital sex, ie- adultery) immoral?
Why is pornography immoral? Why is prostitution immoral? Whose rights are being violated when two consenting adults have sex? Whose rights are being violated when consenting adults make pictures or movies of their sex acts and then sell them for profit?
Whose rights are being violated when two consenting adults decide to exchange sex for money?
Some of this might not be what we want for ourselves, but why is it immoral for others?
Why must the state use the threat of force to prevent "immoral" actions between consenting adults which harm no one, and which should be no one's business?

---

The problem here is not humanist "immorality", but Christian sexual repression.
Christian moderates can usually agree with humanists on on matters of human rights, or what classical philosophers described as the "dignity of Man", but they often agree with their fundamentalist peers when it comes to sexuality.
Christians tend to view sex as a love of the flesh which draws people away from God and is therefore immoral (since allegiance to God is paramount in their moral code).

---

However, the rest of us can't relate to any of this, and we want to know: what the Hell is so damned bad about sex?

(Christian) fundamentalists are notoriously narrow-minded, and they tend to assume that their bizarre equation of "sex=immorality" is universal.
However, this is completely untrue, even among religions. Not only do atheists uphold sex as natural and beautiful, but Taoists uphold it as part of their religion, and many polytheistic religions even have special gods or goddesses devoted entirely to sexuality!

---

Unlike Biblical value systems, the humanist moral code is utterly unconcerned with "closeness to God".
It is concerned only with ethics, not bizarre prohibitions against physical pleasure.
Therefore, as long as the acts are consensual and do not involve children, it contains no prohibitions against nudity, sex, kinky sex, enthusiastic sex, sex on Sundays, sex in interesting positions or unusual orifices, pornography, or even prostitution. And why should it?

Where is the "morality" in sexual puritanism? The answer is: nowhere. If you want to demonstrate your morality, then show kindness and consideration to your neighbour, rather than telling him what to read, what to watch, and what to do in the privacy of his own bedroom.


Any comments?



(With thanks to Michael Wong!)


Itsdb answered on 03/26/07:

Actually, SELLING vibrators in Texas is illegal but POSSESSION is not - unless of course you have six or more and then you are "presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same. But as a lifelong resident of Texas I didn't know that until now :)

I could go on and on about why I believe the Christian view on sex is better, but I'll leave it at I don't believe sexual promiscuity can be good for society. I have no intention of telling two consenting adults what they can or can't do sexually in their bedroom - or kitchen, bathtub, closet, coffee table - no matter how disgusting I may find it. If someone wants to feel guilty about walking into a porn shop that's up to them. If they want to go into little rooms where their shoes stick to the floor and do their business - whatever, even though that's just nasty.

However, if people can't refrain from satisfying themselves in public places, or folks like Planned Parenthood undermine parents by encouraging sexual activity among kids while telling them "There are no right or wrong answers to these questions," that's more than I can stomach.

Steve

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 03/26/07 - Anger Brings Biting words:

Hello Everyone,
(I post this not for me to receive more anger but to try and help all of us (encluding myself) to think of what is being posted and is it really helping anything or accomplishing anything? Really, time and life is so precious, why waste it. Some will always be angry and hostile towards others who are different. These ones will never, ever change, so why waste time and effort. Let's move on and try to be peacable and kinder to others. This world has so much hatred and hypocrisy and liars, why let them take up time and energy that can be used for encouraging others with positive information and words.
This is just my thoughts on what is going on here. Tom777 and Peddler will never change. Let them think they are superior and righteous. God know though who are truly pure in heart and truly his servants.


Through raging words of anger

We do not often think

Of the people we are hurting

In misery of life we sink.

Spewing from our mouth

Come the biting words of pain

Not caring whom they hurt

Just lashing out in vain.

Sinking lower in our stupor

With no remorse in sight,

Listening more to the anger

Looking for another fight.

So when raging words of anger

Seem to find your heart and soul,

Look for ways to fight them

So your mind and heart, can be in control.

Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 03/26/07:

Hope, if you are "to try and help all of us (encluding myself) to think of what is being posted and is it really helping anything or accomplishing anything," why didn't you think a little longer before you posted?

What is it accomplishing to join in on calling Tom and Peddler hateful, hypocritical liars? Seems to me you're just 'looking for another fight' as your little poem says.

Steve

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
powderpuff rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 03/23/07 - Science Proves Conclusively-No Vampires

This is the proof that there are absolutely no such thing as a human vampire:

"If a single vampire fed on a single human in the first month, this would create two vampires -- and decrease the human population by one, leaving it at 536,870,911 - 1 = 536,870,910. In the second month, those two vampires would each feed, transforming two people into vampires -- so you get four vampires and a human population of 536,870,911 - 3 = 536,870,908. So you can see where this is headed. The vampire population is increasing in a geometric progression, and the population of humans is similarly decreasing -- and at that rate, the authors calculate, the entire human population would be transformed into vampires in only 30 months. QED!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can put that myth to rest!!!!

Comments?

Itsdb answered on 03/23/07:

What concerns me is "science" would still be researching vampires. And I'm supposed to be very afraid that man is giving the earth a fever? Now if they can just put Nessie and Bigfoot to rest...

Steve

MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pete. asked on 03/23/07 - Heaven

What do you expect to feel, as Christians, when you or your loved one is diagnosed with a terminal disease

Itsdb answered on 03/23/07:

Pete,

Interesting question. Personally, I would expect to feel devastated. I have no platitudes about "being in a much better place soon," "we'll see each other on the other side" or "he/she's already 'got the victory.'"

I don't believe 'most' Christians are any different than anyone else in that regard. We get sad, nervous, scared just like others do. I was terrified last year when my wife's heart doc gave her a preliminary diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension - nasty stuff.

That however is where the Christian's 'power' comes into play, prayer. I sincerely believe that in spite of our fears, prayer is what led to a good report on subsequent testing. I don't recall thoughts of heaven entering my mind, I wanted to keep a healthy wife around as long as possible. :)

Steve

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/23/07 - rat poisoning

ALBANY, N.Y. - Rat poison was found in the pet food suspected of causing kidney failure that killed at least 16 cats and dogs, but scientists still don't know how it got there, state officials said Friday. The toxin was identified as aminopterin, which is used to kill rats in some countries, state Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker said.

Aminopterin is not registered for killing rodents in the United States, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency, though it is used as a cancer drug. State officials wouldn't speculate on how the toxin got into Menu Foods' now-recalled pet food but said no criminal investigations had been launched.

Scientists at the New York State Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell and at the New York State Food Laboratory tested three cat food samples provided by Menu Foods and found Aminopterin in two of them. Hooker said they would test individual components of the pet food, as well. The early test results were released to give veterinarians a better idea of how to treat sick animals.

"Any amount of this product is too much in food," Hooker said.

Aminopterin, also used as a cancer drug, is highly toxic in high doses. It inhibits the growth of malignant cells and suppresses the immune system.

In dogs and cats, it can cause kidney failure, according to Donald Smith, dean of Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine.

The
Food and Drug Administration has said the investigation into the pet deaths was focusing on wheat gluten in the pet food. Wheat gluten itself would not cause kidney failure, but the common ingredient could have been contaminated, the FDA said.

Bob Rosenberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the National Pest Management Association, said he had never heard of the substance before Friday.

"It would make no sense to spray a crop itself with rodenticide," Rosenberg said, though he said grain shippers typically put bait stations around the perimeter of their storage facilities.

The pet deaths led to a recall of 60 million cans and pouches of pet food produced by Menu Foods and sold throughout North America under 95 brand names. There have been several reports of kidney failure in pets that ate the recalled brands, and the company has confirmed the deaths of 15 cats and one dog.

The company, already facing lawsuits, planned a media teleconference for later Friday, a spokesman said. It is majority owned by Menu Foods Income Fund of Streetsville.

A complete list of the recalled products along with product codes, descriptions and production dates was posted online by Menu Foods and is available at http://tinyurl.com/2pn6mm. The company also designated two phone numbers that pet owners could call for information: (866) 463-6738 and (866) 895-2708.
----

Why are we hearing increasingly more stories of food poisoning and so forth Chi Chi's, Sheetz, spinach,

Are we getting more careless? Filthier?

If you suspect food poisoning these are some things
you can keep on hand to take ---as you call 911

food poisoning
• Activated Charcoal

2 caps 2 to 3 times daily for up to a week. Activated charcoal is readily available in most pharmacies or grocery stores, and certainly in health food stores. It is not anti-microbial, but will help absorb the toxins created by the intestinal infection. It also helps to absorb the not-so-lovely odors that sometimes accompany rectal evacuations.

• Goldenseal (Hydrastis Canadensis)

Take 20 drops of tincture or glycerite twice daily, or 3-4 caps twice daily. Goldenseal is one of the best disinfectants of mucous membranes. Your entire digestive tract, along with the lining of the bladder and the eyes, is a mucous membrane. This versatile herb is very bitter, so I prefer the glycerite form, especially for use with children.

• Mint (Mentha Piperita)

Drink 3 to 4 cups of strong tea daily or take 2-3 enteric-coated caps of mint oil twice daily. The common mint, distinguishable from other herbs by its square, not rounded, stem, not only tastes delightful, but also is antispasmodic (soothes cramps), anti-emetic (reduces nausea and vomiting) and carminative (aides digestion). Almost always available, mint is also cooling so can help bring down a fever, even when taken as a hot tea.

• Slippery elm (Ulmus Fulvus)

Slippery elm can be found in many herbal teas and throat lozenges. It is also available as a loose herb in most health food stores, or you may find it in capsule form. Take up to 8 capsules daily for a few days, or drink 3-4 cups of tea brewed with 1 tablespoon of herb to 1 cup boiling water. Slippery elm is very soothing to an irritated digestive system (and throat).

For Food poisoning, diarrhea, ulcers
1 cup boiling water to ½ cup of peppermint leaves, steep 10 minutes strain & sip
Goldenseal root tea (Cherokee Indians)



Itsdb answered on 03/23/07:

Besides losing faith in the pet food industry, it kind of makes you leery of Chinese wheat, eh? We very nearly purchased some of the affected food a couple of weeks ago but went with something else. What really irritated about the whole thing is Menu Foods' recall notice seemed more concerned about shareholders and retailers than our pets. I'm not happy about that.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/23/07 - Was Hitler a Christian or Atheist?


The following question was brought up to this board several times, but hardly ever properly addressed.
So here it goes. Seriously : Was Hitler a Christian or Atheist?

Atheists have been, and continue to be the targets of a vicious, tireless smear campaign. For example, after informally questioning my co-workers, I realized to my chagrin that most of them think Adolf Hitler was an atheist! Not one of them realized that Adolf Hitler had a strict Catholic upbringing (of the type that supposedly produces moral, virtuous people), or that he was an altar boy in his youth, or that he once told General Gerhart Engel that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so". None of them knew that his infamous "Mein Kampf" contains phrases such as this: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
None of them knew that Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

None of them knew that he made Christian school prayer mandatory for the 1930's German schoolchildren who grew up to be his dreaded SS, or that he publicly espoused "family values", which in his mind meant the condemnation of sexual "perversions" rather than the promotion of healthy marriages and parenting methods (rather reminiscent of the right-wing fundamentalist position today).
None of them knew how much the German Christian Social movement resembled the modern right-wing Christian Fundamentalist movement.
None of them knew that Hitler closely followed the anti-Semitic teachings of none other than Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, but this isn't surprising since they didn't know about Martin Luther's extreme anti-Semitism either, even though he wrote a book titled "On Jews and their Lies".
Anti-atheists have noted that Hitler had minor disagreements with the Catholic church in Germany (but not with the church in Rome, with which he signed a Concordat in 1933, and which ordered the German church to fall in line), and they have attempted to twist these minor disagreements into a widespread misconception that he was an atheist, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Numerous arguments have been advanced in favour of the notion that Hitler was an atheist, despite the above information. In view of space I only state the main points. For anyone interested : let me know, and I get you the entire chapter!

  1. Hitler killed Christians too, so he was obviously an atheist rather than a Christian ...
  2. Hitler feuded with the German churches, so he obviously wasn't a Christian" ...
  3. Hitler believed in Norse mythology and various other forms of pagan mysticism, so he wasn't true Christian" ...
  4. Hitler's actions were un-Christian, therefore he was not a true Christian, even if he claimed to be one" ...
  5. Christians outside Germany fought Hitler, so the Nazis were enemies of Christianity" ...
  6. The worldwide Christian community knew nothing of the horrors of the Holocaust until very late in the war ...
  7. Hitler drew his inspiration from Nietszche, an atheist, and not Christianity" ...
  8. The swastika is an ancient pagan symbol, so the Nazis were Pagans rather than Christians" ...


Christian claims concerning Hitler's "atheism" are historical revisionism at its worst. Every vague hint, every subtle clue to anything even slightly different from Christianity is blown wildly out of proportion, while all of the official policies of the Nazi government as well as Hitler's own speeches and writings are dismissed as unimportant, irrelevant, and misleading. If you listen to a typical right-wing Christian fundamentalist describing World War Two, you would think it was a struggle between the righteous forces of God-fearing Christians and the evil forces of godless heathens. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When confronted by the fact that Hitler's example hardly helps in their slander campaign against atheists, some anti-atheists suddenly switch gears to Marxism and point out that Marxism is atheistic, in an obvious attempt to tie atheism to past and present human rights abuses in Russia and China.
However, that is a logical fallacy: the fact that all Marxists are atheists does not mean that all atheists must therefore be Marxists (if you don't understand why that's a fallacy, go back to school).
It's also an unnecessary slander against Marxists. While I find Marx's communist ideas to be very seriously flawed, I must note that he never would have approved of the violent regimes of Stalin or Mao.
Atheism is merely the refusal to believe in a God for whom no scientific evidence exists.
It does not necessarily lead to Stalinism, or decadence, or the breakdown of family values, or any of these other ridiculous charges that are routinely levied at it.

So : was Hitler a Christian or Atheist? The answer is a very definite : Hitler was a Christian !


Any comments?



(With thanks to Michael Wong!)





Itsdb answered on 03/23/07:

Hitler may have technically been a "Christian," but what qualities of Christ were manifested in him? The mere act of calling him a Christian - or an atheist - does not make it so.

Steve

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/23/07 - Should Christians Throw Stones?


This topic holds me busy every time I see a post about alledged attrocities by Muslims : Should Christians Throw Stones?


One of Jesus's most famous admonitions to his followers was that "he who is without sin" should cast the first stone (this is probably one of the best messages in the entire Bible). When anti-atheists make atheists their scapegoat for everything they don't like in society, or try to force their religion down the throats of atheists' children, do they remember those words?
Christian fundamentalists have no right whatsoever to lecture anyone about morality or past sins. When they cast stones, do they realize that Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jews was far from an exceptional event in Christian history? Do they realize it was merely the culmination of 700 years of systematic fundamentalist extermination and torture of "heretics"? It started with the Crusades, continued with the medieval Inquisitions, and was fully sanctioned by the Roman Catholic church (starting with Pope Innocent IV, who legalized it in "Ad Extirpanda") until the early twentieth century, when the Pope finally outlawed torture as a means of converting unbelievers. It should also be noted that the Church was conspicuously silent during Hitler's Holocaust, although Catholics dispute this. They claim that Pope Pius XII did a great deal to save Jews behind the scenes, but Jews point out that he suddenly "discovered" his sympathy for the Jews only after 1942, when he realized the Allies might win, so he shrewdly kept one foot in either camp by secretly helping Jews while publicly refusing to denounce Hitler's actions.
The RC church never even excommunicated Hitler, nor did they add his "Mein Kampf" to their long list of banned books! In fact, Pope Pius XII himself ordered church officials in Berlin to send "warmest congratulations" to Hitler on his birthday every year.

The worst part is that this incredible 700 year history of mass murder was only distinguished from earlier eras by the sheer scale of the atrocities.
Those atrocities had actually been occurring on a smaller scale since virtually the dawn of Christianity.
While Christians were fed to the Lions at one time in Rome, they eventually seized power about a century after the death of Emperor Commodus.
Once they seized power, they immediately repaid the favour tenfold, by torturing, crucifying, and otherwise killing those who refused to convert!
It is well known that they outlawed gladiatorial combat upon seizing power, but few Christian historians like to point out that they replaced it with a greatly increased appetite for public executions and tortures.

Even the most superficial study of world history will show that the aggressive xenophobia of Christianity has been remarkable, almost stunning compared to other religions.
A sharp contrast to the fundamentalist approach was seen in the original Roman state religion, which was based on cultural assimilation: rather than obliterating other societies' religions in favour of their own, they simply incorporated those societies' gods into their own pantheon (the Jews resisted this process and aggressively attacked other religious sects, thus forcing the Romans to wall them off in separate communities).
Ancient tribal peoples rarely fought over the existence or non-existence of their respective gods; they preferred to simply think of another tribe's gods as inferior to their own, without attempting to deny their existence.
It may surprise you to know that some of the Jewish Old Testament texts still show these polytheistic influences; for example, God instructs his people that they should "have no other gods before me".
Notice that he doesn't tell them that these other gods don't exist; he merely tells them that he must be first.
Unfortunately, God's prescribed method for ensuring his primacy involved violence, and his followers took this message to heart.

However, it's problematic to evaluate the morality of a religion or philosophy based on the past behaviour of its adherents, no matter how heinous.
Stalin was an atheist and he killed millions. Hitler was a Christian and he killed millions. The Roman Catholics were Christians and they killed countless tens of millions throughout the Dark Ages, with the Crusades, Inquisitions, and the brutal conquests and subjugations of Africa and the Americas.
Far from indicting atheists and vindicating Christians, a direct comparison of historical records should, if anything, give Christians a moment of self-doubt.
Sure enough, more enlightened Christians are perfectly willing to acknowledge that they must break away from the past rather than yearning to return to it.
But the right-wing fundamentalists are not given to self-doubt, so they will inevitably steer the discussion away from their sad own Christian history.


Any comments?




(With thanks to Michael Wong!)


Itsdb answered on 03/23/07:

>>it's problematic to evaluate the morality of a religion or philosophy based on the past behaviour of its adherents, no matter how heinous.<<

Precisely, so why the need to continually steer the discussion toward "their sad own Christian history?" In my opinion it is irrelevent to steer the discussion to the Crusades when discussing present atrocities - and note I didn't say 'alleged.'

Was 9/11 an 'alleged' atrocity or was it an atrocity? What disturbs me is the aversion to call a terrorist act by a Muslim in the name of Allah what it is when there seems to be no such aversion to negatively associate Christians of today with events of over 600 years ago. How is that relevent?

Critics and skeptics jeer and utter all manner of epithets when the name Jerry Falwell comes up. Many who deny a radical Islamist threat eagerly denounce the religious right's theocratic conspiracy, though no mention of Baptist suicide bombers is found. Which is more threatening, gospel tracts and tuna sandwiches - or TNT vests?

It is not "throwing stones" to state the obvious.

Children used in Iraqi militant attack-US general is reprehensible - advice on Choosing Video Games for Kids is not.

Planning terror attacks on London's transit system is reprehensible - planning a Christian concert festival is not.

Al-Qaeda threatening European countries is troubling - threatening to boycott the Movie Gallery not so much.

A recent history of blowing up buses, hotels, theatres, synagogues and office buildings in the name of Allah is reprehensible - a recent history of feeding children in the name of Christ is not.

Get some perspective.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/22/07 - please with links

and websites can you put next to it that it is pdf, adobe, acrobat? My computer has froze up three times
this week trying to check sites listed or linked here

Thanks

Itsdb answered on 03/23/07:

Sapph, a reasonable request. I try to remember to do just that. Using Acrobat Reader 6 is likely your problem, I've had more problems with that version than any other. If you don't meet the requirements to upgrade you can go here and download version 5 which was much more stable. If you do, be sure and uninstall the current version first.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/23/07 - Can You Be Moral Without God?


The following question is posted here for your perusal (but before you reply : first read the entire topic, please!) :

"Can You Be Moral Without God?"

---

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."- Albert Einstein, in an article which appeared in New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.

---

Fundamentalists are fond of saying that humanist morality isn't "universal".

They argue that we humans cannot distinguish right from wrong without divine guidance, so humanist ethics are essentially a rudderless ship, with each person defining his own version of morality to suit his convenience.

The problems with this argument (apart from its bigoted attitude) are easy to see, because they fail to ask the obvious question: to paraphrase Socrates, is something righteous because the gods deem it so, or do the gods deem it so because it is righteous?

Fundamentalists argue the former, while humanists (not to mention most polytheistic religions) argue the latter: that morality transcends even the gods.

If you are fundamentalist and you lean toward the former, then answer this: since your religion is not universal, then how can a system of morality which requires your religion be universal?

---

The world has many religions. If there is no morality without God, then should we believe that morality doesn't exist in any part of the world until it converts to Judaism or one of its offshoots?

The ancient Chinese religious triumvirate of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism wasn't based on Christianity.

The Greeks had democracy, civilization, philosophy, and science long before Jesus was born.

The Egyptians built a thriving civilization more than four thousand years ago. The Romans built an Empire without any help from Jesus or his God.

Tribes and civilizations flourished throughout Africa, Australia, South America, North America, and islands all over the Pacific Ocean.

---

All these places had different religions, different customs, different languages ... but they still shared certain moral concepts.

Murder was considered immoral. Theft was considered immoral in all societies too large to function as tribal collectives.

It was considered noble to help another, and contemptible to hurt others for the sake of personal gain. Honesty was praised. Deception and betrayal were vilified.

Governments and gods didn't always obey these laws, but philosophers in all these places somehow found a way to come to similar conclusions.

The question that fundamentalists ignore is: if morality flows from God and God alone, then how did this happen?

Given the enormous differences in religious beliefs between all these cultures, how did people independently arrive at similar conclusions all over the world, with regard to murder, betrayal, theft, and altruism?

---

Could there (gasp!) be a moral standard out there which doesn't require God?
Like the Golden Rule ? (Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself)


Any comments?



(With thanks to Michael Wong!)


Itsdb answered on 03/23/07:

Pericles, hasn't this been recently covered? I stand by my previous answer.

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ETWolverine asked on 03/22/07 - To Domino

You said:

>>>Elliot:
Have you joined the ranks of the brain dead????...what the hell makes you think any one is going to be impressed by the fact that Less than TWO PERCENT of all Senators have childrens serving in Iraq...as opposed to approximately SEVENTY percent of minorities...mostly Black and Hispanic???????<<<

Say what?

Again, you are 100% wrong.

The US Military's troop strength (as of FY 2003) was 1,161,700, of which 187,500 (16%) were blacks, 98,000 were Hispanic (8.4%), and 25,400 (2.2%) were Asian. That's the total for all military services. (Source-2004/2005 Census Bureau report to Congress on Military personnel and Veterans.)

According to the CIA world Factbook (2003) Blacks and hispanics were 12.9% of the US population, and Asians were 4.2%, and the total US population was 298,444,215. Which means that the number of blacks and hispanics in the USA was 38,499,303 and the number of Asians in the USA was 12,534,657. Which means that 0.7% of blacks and hispanics are serving in the military and 0.2% of Asians are serving in the military.

So how in hell do you get to 70% of all minorities families have children serving in the military?

Answer: you made it up.

>>>Christ...when you warmongers panic, you REALLY lose your heads. :) :) :) :) <<<

Nobody's panicking, Domino. We Conservatives just have the information to prove you wrong again and again, and we get a kick out of doing it. So we all jump at the chance.

>>>Suggest YOU think twice befor posting anything quite THAT ASSININE again LOL <<<

Suggest that you actually do some research before posting statistics you obviously made up.

Minorities neither make up most of the military, nor do most minority families have people serving in the military. In fact, that has been one of the pet peeves of the military... not enough minorities are joining. The number of blacks in the military is GOING DOWN not up, and the military is scrambling to try to increase efforts to recruit minorities. Personally I think that's a mistake, because such recruitment efforts almost invariably include lowering standards of those being actively recruited, and I believe that lowering standards will only hurt the military as a whole.

Bottom line, you made up a bull$h!t statistic (or quoted a BS statistic from some activist who didn't know any better) and stated it as fact with such emphasis and cockiness, that you thought it would pass unnoticed. To paraphrase Ronald Regan, you counted on me to be passive... you counted wrong.

Your statistic of 70% minorities in the military or 70% of minority families having a member in the military is a lie. I challenge you to post a verifiable source for it. Or else admitt that you have no source, that you were "mistaken", and MIGHT not be as mart as you think you are.

Never try to out-analyze a professional analyst.

Elliot

Itsdb answered on 03/22/07:

>>We Conservatives just have the information to prove you wrong again and again, and we get a kick out of doing it. So we all jump at the chance.<<

You analyzed that right :)

ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 03/22/07 - Desperation responses?????

Are we to settle for desperation responses forever????

I ask two simply quesiton of the 'experts' who responded to my 'politics page' answer:

l. How many children do YOU have serving in Iraq.
2. How many U.S. Senators have sons or daughters serving in Iraq.

RESULT:

Tomder responds by giving me a rundown on his family and their military history...He has NONE, and he has no childrend serving in Iraq.

Steve tells me of his 'parental' problems...he has no children in Iraq.

Elliot chimes in with a list of TEN Senators with 'family members' in Irag...in order to prove some cockamamie theory that they exceed percentage wise most Americans (whatever the hell that was supposed to mean) but ONLY FOUR OF HIS TEN had sons or daughters in Iraq !!!!!!!! Elliot ALSO has no children serving in Iraq.

Why is it so hard to get a simple, straight answer from our 'experts' who wave flags in support of a war in which they have no personal investment ??????????

Itsdb answered on 03/22/07:

Dom,

And I simply asked if it was Christian-like for experts who have had a history of telling us how Christians should act to blindside us from another board. Is that the example we should follow?

You can sound as hysterical as you like, but if you're going to throw down the gauntlet I'm going to tell it like it is. My answer stands, which one of my children should I enlist, my HIV positive daughter in prison or my 35 year old son whose whereabouts are unknown?

l. How many children do I have serving in Iraq?

None.

2. How many U.S. Senators have sons or daughters serving in Iraq?

I have no idea, and neither have a thing to do with my post, blindsided attacks on experts who don't hide behind clarifications, block others and engage in petty, childish games - or our right to express an opinion.

You questioned my parental skills, so fine, I'm not hiding and not ashamed to admit my mistakes. Now that you know more will you take me to task on it again? If you still wish to imply I'm a homophobe without supporting evidence and have no regrets about piling on in a post calling us "Apes Throwing Feces," then any respect I had for you was obviously misplaced.

So go ahead, call it what you want, panic, desperation, whatever. Go on and criticize experts who are not afraid to state their views and engage in discussions.

You state your opinions, I'm going to state mine. How many Bush daughters or congressmen's children are serving in Iraq is beside the point. We have that right and I'm not going to back down from calling Muslims that detonate cars with children in them what they are. Beats whining about some imaginary theocratic conspiracy by conservative Christians - we aren't the ones trying to establish a new caliphate by chlorine bombs and market explosions.

Steve

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 03/21/07 - Apes Throwing Feces

If you want to see modern day "feces throwing" ala our ancestors the great apes, go over to the Politics Board and read the questions and comments of: Tomder-de-der-der, Steve-anzee, kinji, and OrthodoxElliot :):):)

LOLOL!!!

Itsdb answered on 03/22/07:

I love it, countering the lies, hypocrisy, arrogance, misinformation, HATRED, etc. coming out of the the MSM and the rest of the left-wing is "feces throwing."

If you, or any one of you that have joined in on this pathetic post had an ounce of courage, you would have confronted us directly and engaged in honest debate instead of this cowardly display of intolerant, insulting, inane drivel. But that's ok, you're just helping our cause by showing what hateful hypocrites you are.

Unlike you, I'm not afraid to defend my position or of direct confrontation. If it's flag-waving, moronic, patriotic warmongering to point out that cowardly, intolerant, radical Islamists blow up children and run then I'll just be a flag-waving, moronic, patriotic warmonger.

The same goes for speaking out on things such as the unfair, bogoted bias of the media and other moonbats, politics of destruction - especially among Democratic hypocrites, exploiting children for political gain, inexcusable hatred, and almost anything you post.

How's that? When you get a spine and a conscience come on over and join in the debate.

Steve

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
kindj rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
ETWolverine rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/20/07 - Getting your reward .....................................


Bill, Frank, and Rod were waiting for entrance into Heaven. St. Peter walked up to Bill and asked, "How many times did you cheat on your wife, and remember, I will know the truth."

Bill thought for a moment and replied, "Well, sir, it must be around 40 times." "Fine," said St. Peter, "you may enter Heaven but you will be driving that little yellow Honda over there."

St. Peter approached Frank and asked the same question. Frank answered, "Sir, I do believe it couldn't have been more than 20 times.
"Good," said St. Peter, "you may enter Heaven, also, and you will be driving the red Corvette.

St. Peter stepped up to Rod and repeated the question. Without pause, Rod answered, "Never!" St. Peter peered at him quizzically and said, "Never?" "I have never been unfaithful to my wife, sir" he replied.
"Excellent," stated St. Peter. "You may enter Heaven and you will be driving that gold Rolls Royce."

Grinning from ear to ear, Rod approaches the car, but when he reaches the car, he suddenly lays his head on the roof and begins to cry. St. Peter rushes over and asks, "What's the matter? You have never cheated on you wife, you've gained entrance into Heaven, and you will be driving a Rolls Royce for the rest of eternity."
Rod replied between sobs, "See that woman over there on the skateboard? That's my wife!"


Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/20/07:

A woman was at the beach with her children when her four-year-old son ran up to her, grabbed her hand, and led her to the shore, where a sea gull lay dead in the sand.

"Mommy, what happened to him?" the son asked.

"He died and went to heaven," the mother replied.

Her son thought a moment and then said, "And God threw him back down?"

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/20/07 - Ringing bells ...........................................


Three nuns (a good nun, a pretty good nun, and a bad nun) die and are standing in front of the gates of heaven and there they meet St. Peter.
St. Peter looks at the first one and says, "You have been a good nun all your life but there are rules, and to pass into heaven you must be able to answer my question. Since you were good nun all your life the question I have for you will be an easy one. Here is my question: Who was the first man?"

The nun just smiles and says, "By the glory of God, The Lord created Adam to be the father of the human race."

Bells start ringing and the gates fly open. The first nun passes through.

St. Peter then directs his attention at the pretty good nun. He says to her "Since you have been a pretty good nun all your life I will ask you an easy question. My question to you is: Who was the first woman?"

The nun just smiles and says "By The Lord's wisdom, The Father created Eve from Adam's rib."

Bells start ringing and the gates fly open. The second nun passes through.

The bad nun knowing she's in trouble tries to sneak into heaven while the gates are open but the gates slam in her face. St Peter Looked over at her and said "I'm sorry but to get into heaven you must first answer my question. To you I will ask a hard question for you have not been a good nun but if you really think about it you should be able to get it. My question to you is: What was the first thing that Eve said to Adam?"

The nun shakes here head and thinks for a while. Then she looks up at St. Peter shakes her head some more and says, "Boy, that's a hard one."

And bells start ringing ...


Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/20/07:

LOL, ok that was funny.

A local priest and a pastor were fishing on the side of the road. They thoughtfully made a sign saying, "The End is Near! Turn yourself around now before it's too late!" and showed it to each passing car.

One driver who drove by didn't appreciate the sign and shouted at them, "Leave us alone, you religious nuts!"

All of a sudden they heard a big splash, looked at each other, and the priest said to the pastor, "You think maybe we should have just said 'Bridge Out' instead?"

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/20/07 - Christian questions .....................................


As it seems joke time on the Christianity Board, I join in with pleasure.


What is a Christian ?

1. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book that is admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour.

2. One who follows the teachings for Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.


What is Monday ?

In Christian countries, it is the day after the football game.


What is Occident ?

The part of the world west of the Asia. It is largely inhabited by Christians, a powerful sub-tribe of the Hypocrites, whose principle industries are murder and cheating, which they are pleased to call "war" and "commerce".


Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/20/07:

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin's Origin of Species.

Surprised, he asked the ape, "Why are you reading both those books?"

"Well," said the orangutan, "I just wanted to know if I was my brother's keeper or my keeper's brother."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An atheist was quite incensed over the preparation for Easter and Passover holidays and decided to contact the local ACLU about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while the atheists had no holidays for them to celebrate. The ACLU jumped on the opportunity to once again pick up the cause of the downtrodden and assigned their sharpest attorney to the case.

The case was brought up before a learned judge who after listening to the passionate presentation by the ACLU representative, promptly banged his gavel and said,

“Case dismissed!”

The ACLU lawyer stood up and objected to the ruling and said, “Your honor, how can you dismiss this case? Surely the Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. And the Jews, why in addition to Passover they have Yom Kippur and Hanukkah … and yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!”

The judge leaned back in his chair and simply said, “Obviously your client is too confused to know about or for that matter even celebrate the atheists holiday!”

The ACLU lawyer pompously said, “We are aware of no such holiday for atheists … just when might that be?”

The judge said, “Well it comes every year at the same time … April 1st!”

peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/20/07 - This one is for Hank ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


As it seems joke time on the Christianity Board, I join in with pleasure.

Taking a day off, Jesus and St. Peter decide to play golf. At one part of the course, they came up to a short shot over a shallow pond. St Peter tees up first. He stops and thinks for a moment and then states, "I'm going to use a 6 iron." St. Peter swings and lands a beautiful shot about three feet away from the cup.

Jesus tees up next. He ponders the shot, and then declares, "Jack Nicholas would use a 7 iron." He takes his 7 iron, pulls back, and swings. The ball goes too high in the air and lands in the middle of the pond. Jesus casually walks on the water, retrives his ball, and tees up. He swings and, again, his shot ends up in the pond.

"Why don't you use a 6 iron?" asked St. Peter.

"No!" retorts Jesus. "Jack Nicholas would use a 7!"

This goes on for several shots - swing, splash, walk on water, recover ball, and tee up again. By this time, other golfers have caught up to Jesus and St. Peter. After watching Jesus walk on water several times to retrieve his ball one baffled golfer turns to St. Peter and asks, "Who does that guy think he is? Jesus Christ?"

"No," replies St. Peter. "Jack Nicholas."


Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/20/07:

Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods are standing at the throne of heaven. God looks at them and says, "Before granting you a place at my side, I must ask you what you have learned, what you believe in."

God asks Arnie first: "What do you believe?" Arnie thinks long and hard, looks God in the eye, and says, "I believe in hard work, and in staying true to family and friends. I believe in giving. I was lucky, but I always tried to do right by my fans."

God can't help but see the essential goodness of Palmer, and offers him a seat to his left. Then God turns to Nicklaus and says, "What do you believe?"

Jack says, "I believe passion, discipline, courage and honor are the fundamentals of life.

Like Arnold, I believe in hard work. I, too, have been lucky, but win or lose, I've always tried to be a true sportsman, both on and off the playing fields."

God is greatly moved by Jack's high-pitched eloquence, and he offers him a seat to his right.

Finally, God turns to Woods: "And you, Tiger, what do you believe?"

Tiger replies, "I believe you're in my seat."

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/18/07 - Causalities in Iraq


The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Margaret Griffis
American Military Casualties in Iraq




Details

Since war began (3/19/03)
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03)
Since Handover (6/29/04)
Since Election (1/31/05)
American Wounded
Total Wounded





Total

3218
3079
2757
2359
1781
Official
24042





In combat

2619
2511
2315
1986
1523
Estimated
23000 - 100000





Other causalities

Other Coalition Troops : 257

US Military Deaths - Afghanistan : 371


Quotable :
If you want war, nurish a doctrine.
Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject...
– William Graham Sumner


Link to supporting data

Any comments?

Itsdb answered on 03/19/07:

Yes, and...

-298 million Americans have not seen a terrorist attack since 9/11/2001

-Iran's 'project' to establish a satellite Islamic state has thus far failed and is experiencing increased resistance

The poll you aren't hearing about, of 5019 Iraqis by Opinion Research Business, reports:

    DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

    The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

    The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

    Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.

    ...the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops...

    ...49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era...A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

    ...64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government...

    ...Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets...

    ...The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: “Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq.”


Yes the cost has been high, but how much higher would it be to back out now?

Should we do as the ever-evolving Hillary Clinton suggests, a "scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing." What's one more ethnic cleansing?

Is that what you would support? Should we step back and let 'em fight it out now? What exactly is your idea of taking the moral high ground from here on out in regards to Iraq - besides mentioning the cost?

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 03/16/07 - Time for a little air-clearing!!!

If Luke (or whoever the author of Luke is) was also the author of Acts...how could he have contradicted himself so badly in dealing with the purported Ascension of Jesus (which, incidentally, receives not even a mention in Matthew or John -and a spurious mention in Mark which no reputable scholar accepts as legitimate)????

In Luke 24:50..the Ascension is placed on the day of Resurrection. Yet in Acts 1:3, Luke (if he IS the author, as claimed) places the Ascension FORTY days AFTER the Resurrection.

So...either there was :
a) NO Ascension
b) Luke did NOT write Acts
3) Luke either made a dreadful mistake, or got
caught up in a lie, trying to historisize a
purported miracle.
4) Jesus had a test run at Ascending, before he
actually made it...sort of like the Wizard of Oz.

Comments?????

Itsdb answered on 03/16/07:

Dom, I don't see that it's actually positively clear in Luke that the final Ascension took place the same day. And I suppose that yes, it is quite possible there was a 'test run' or two as you call it. He came and went among the disciples on more than one occasion, where was he when he left them?

Why does Luke need to describe the post-resurrection period in the same detail in both places for it be trustworthy? Should we not take into account the authors only wrote what was relevant for their specific intent in purpose at the time?

I don't see any real problems here Dom, the only probable correct choice from you options is D, though I would choose E), it doesn't amount to much of an issue.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
jjgoss rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/15/07 - New Christian Philosophy ????????????????????????????????


In the topic "Article on unborn gay babies sparks opposition" by Itsdb dated 03/15/07 Hank replied :

QUOTE

If the time ever comes when ultrasound can tell if a fetus will be homosexual, it should be aborted.

UNQUOTE

This may open up a lot of new possibilities in Hanks pursue for more arian features and "improvements" in the population :

Why stop with homosexuality, Hank? Why not also for :

- physical impairments?
- mental impairments?
- racial differences?
- social background of parents?
- political background of parents?








Haven't I heard this before, Hank ???












Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/16/07:

I thought designer babies were all the rage. Doesn't everyone now want babies just like them?

    Gibson and Cara Reynolds of Collingswood, N.J., are outraged by opposition to using embryo screening to allow dwarf people to have dwarf children. “You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me,” Cara Reynolds said. “It’s just unbelievably presumptuous and they’re playing God.”

And the Reynolds are not?

Martina Navratilova doesn't want anything that could manipulate the sexual preference of a child ... is it safe to say she wants gay babies?

A lesbian coupled bypassed clinics that screen for birth defects to enlist the help of a deaf friend hoping for a deaf baby.

Seems people are already trying to design children with impairments and other desired characteristics. Personally, I wouldn't abort any, nor would I have a designer baby.

peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/15/07 - WHAT SIN IS GREATER?

IF SOMEONE CHEATS ON THEIR SPOUSE
OR HOMOSEXUALITY?

Itsdb answered on 03/16/07:

Sapph,

I suppose you'd first have to determine that homosexuality itself is a sin, otherwise the only sin committed here is cheating on your spouse.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/15/07 - Let's ALL enjoy Hanks wild claim !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hank a six foot four and weighing 196 p's? No body fat? Blond and blue eyed?
Let's keep to reality here !

Use this topic to present the true Hank !!!
Please : not TOO MANY blow-up dolls !!!




Hank at the 19' hole !!!


Itsdb answered on 03/15/07:

>>Hank at the 19' hole !!!<<

The 19 foot hole? Are you talking about the size of the bar or what's under those blue shorts?

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Rosekeeper rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/15/07 - Global warming gap among evangelicals widens

National Evangelical Association board member Rev. Paul de Vries insists on "God's agenda"

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at this week's meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The group rebuffed complaints from some of the religious right's leading lights about the organization's new found focus on global warming.

The group, which represents 45,000 churches and more than 60 evangelical denominations, took no action on a letter sent by 25 conservative Christian leaders demanding that the organization restrain its Washington policy director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, from putting forward his views on global warming.

"We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children," said the letter, which was signed by prominent religious conservatives such as James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer.

One of the board members, the Rev. Paul de Vries, said, "It ought to be God's agenda, not the Republican Party's agenda, that drives us.

"We're actually tired of being represented by people with a very narrow focus," he said. "We want to have a focus as big as God's focus."


Link to supporting and MORE EXTENDED original document


Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/15/07:

Looks like that impending theocracy has hit a roadblock. That should make all those conspiracists happy.

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/15/07 - Atheism and morals ......................................

People like peddler often suggest that "Atheists have no morals, as morals only can come from God".

Of course these suggestions are NEVER accompanied by any logical support, so I will address the matter of morals from both the religious and the atheist positions.

Some time ago I saw on the internet the following notes on morals of Christians :

"A religious devotee says: "If man cannot be held accountable for his actions by a higher power, then how can he have morals? Without a guideline from a supernatural power of what is right and wrong, what would prevent all of civilization from sinking into a sea of muck and sludge?"

Morals are indeed guidelines for making decisions. Presented with similar situations, a person's actions will be identical every time.
For example, say you're leaving a restaurant and you spot a ten dollar tip passing by a table.
The enticement of increased wealth without much effort sure is tempting. By simply extending your arm and inconspicuously grabbing the cash, you will be ten dollars richer. Since no one is looking, you won't get into trouble. Plus, the waiter probably wasn't expecting such a large tip anyway. Where's the harm in that?

In this case, a Christian or a Jew would point to the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not steal." According to the Christian/Jewish point-of-view, this alone will restrain a religiously devout individual from snatching the money off the table. This follows the rules of deontological ethics: Something is either always right or always wrong. For example, stealing the money off the table would be morally wrong because stealing is always wrong.

However, what if the commandment said "Thou shalt steal?" Would stealing be an absolute right then? Is all that is required is a recommendation from a centuries-old text? How about the sixth commandment: "thou shalt not kill?" Does this rule apply with self-defense? Or war?

Here is the fundamental problem with static morals: the inability to judge every action we humans make with reason and free will. Shouldn't morals stand on their own merits? Humans are fantastic beings because of their ability to examine the consequences of their actions and make appropriate choices--as opposed to wild animals that act on instinct alone.

Therefore, true morals do not come from religious commandments. Morals would exist nicely without any of these.

Stealing the cash off the table would degrade your self-worth. If you are unable to earn ten dollars on your own merit, then what good are you to yourself? You are then no better than an animal fighting for its survival in the wilderness. Taking the waiter's tip would thus prove your worthlessness.

Besides that : what if I were the waiter?

Atheists have morals because humans learn moral lessons based on observation and an understanding of human nature. The religious scriptures are not necessary. An atheist reasons and considers the consequences of his actions for all his actions. Morality is one of the features of all of humanity, so therefore morals don't just exist in the religious realm. Atheists can realize the beauty of humanity, and learn not to battle with it.

What it all comes down in the end is the Golden Rule:

DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU DO NOT WANT OTHERS DO TO YOU.

A simple and logical statement, universal in all it's applications. Without any need for a deity or deities.
And valid for every human being.


Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/15/07:

Pericles,

Even the Christian must acknowledge that people can and do "by nature" (Romans 2) have morals. Of course I believe this moral nature is inherent in our creation ... and is as Romans says what leaves us "without excuse" before God.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/15/07 - Beware of the witches !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Strange things are suggested to happen on Wallstreet today, 14/03/2007.

Some very light-heartedness in the eerie format of volatility is expected on the eve of 'quadruple witching' options.

This seems to be a photograph of one of the witches .....



That's not very nice ! Does not look like a witch to me at all !


Link to orignal supporting article


Any comments?


Itsdb answered on 03/15/07:

No, she doesn't look like a witch at all. On the other hand?



Not nice? Well she DOES have the outfit...

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 03/14/07 - What would peddler and Toms777 advise?????

One of the doctors treating me is a Mormon.
Because of his faith I was wondering if peddler and Toms777 would advise that I change doctors.
What do you thing?

Itsdb answered on 03/15/07:

Fred, personally I've never asked a physician about their faith ... I prefer to get the most dedicated and skilled person regardless.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 03/14/07 - Why???
Why??

...are so many experts posting their responses as CLARIFICATIONS, instead of AS ANSWERS on the public board????? Are you afraid of having your answers rated?????

When you respond to a person like Rosekeeper who has blocked four experts, you cannot recieve reponses or clarifications from ANY of those she has blocked UNLESS you respond ON THE PUBLIC BOARD.....What you are now doing is making the board a playground for those who have blocked others. WHEN A QUESTION IS ASKED ON THE PUBLIC BOARD IT SHOULD BE ANSWERED ON THE PUBLIC BOARD.

Itsdb answered on 03/14/07:

Amen brother, I've been commenting on this phenomenon for some time now. I can only conclude as I did yesterday that some are afraid of having their answers rated. It's just silly ... I try to wear each black star with pride. :)

Steve

belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 03/14/07 - Why do some people not believe in the Holocaust?

WARSAW, Poland -
A 97-year-old woman credited with saving 2,500 Jewish children during the Holocaust was honored by parliament Wednesday at a ceremony during which Poland's president said she deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Irena Sendler, who lives in a nursing home in Warsaw, was too frail to attend the special session in which members of the Senate unanimously approved a resolution honoring her and the Polish underground Council for Assisting Jews.

The group's members, mostly Roman Catholics, risked their own lives to save Jews from the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland.

Sendler was cited for organizing the "rescue of the most defenseless victims of the Nazi ideology — the Jewish children."

President Lech Kacyzinski said in an address to senators that Sendler is a "great hero who can be justly named for the Nobel Peace Prize."

"Every child saved with my help and the help of all the wonderful secret messengers, who today are no longer living, is the justification of my existence on this Earth, and not a title to glory," Sendler said in a letter read by Elzbieta Ficowska, who was saved by Sendler as a baby. "Over a half-century has passed since the hell of the Holocaust, but its specter still hangs over the world and doesn't allow us to forget the tragedy."

Sendler led about 20 helpers who smuggled Jewish children out of the Warsaw Ghetto to safety between 1940 and 1943, placing them in Polish families, convents or orphanages.

She wrote the children's names on slips of paper and buried them in jars in a neighbor's yard as a record that could help locate their parents after the war. The Nazis arrested her in 1943, but she refused — despite repeated torture — to reveal their names.

Anyone caught helping Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland risked being summarily shot, along with family members.

"I think she's a great lady, very courageous, and I think she's a model for the whole international community," Israeli Ambassador David Peleg said after the ceremony. "I think that her courage is a very special one."

In 1965, Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial awarded Sendler one of its first medals given to people who saved Jews, the so-called "Righteous Among the Nations."

She was given the honor in 1983, after Poland's Communist authorities finally agreed to allow her to travel abroad.

Decent comments welcome!

MaggieB

Itsdb answered on 03/14/07:

Maggie,

I'd have to agree that hatred of Jews is the underlying reason for anyone to deny the holocaust, though the motives may vary. Harold A. Covington, founder of the National Socialist White People's Party (formerly the American Nazi Party) wrote:

    I recall seeing a television program on revisionism a few years ago which closed with Deborah Lipstadt making some statement to the effect that: "the real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again." I normally don't agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, "Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!"


Generally, holocaust deniers claim it was just a hoax, a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance their interests ... but hatred is at the core of it all (in my opinion).

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/13/07 - Practical sex education at school ! .....................



Knowing how prude the US CAN BE the following news item drew my interest :

School district: Sixth graders had sex in class

For months it's been a well-kept secret. But now Warren Township Schools confirm a disturbing case of sex in the classroom. The illicit activity has parents concerned and a district at a loss for words.

Shop class gives students a chance to learn outside of the book. But at Warren Township's Raymond Park Middle School, two students engaged in illicit acts in view of goggled eyes.

13 Investigates was tipped off by a disturbed resident who writes:

"...during school hours in a classroom with an experienced teacher present, two sixth graders completed the act of intercourse...at least ten students were witnesses. No disciplinary actions were taken against the teacher... All teachers were told to keep quiet."

Middle school students having sex in a busy classroom while a teacher is present? Warren Township Associate Superintendent Jeff Swensson confirmed it's true. It's been kept under wraps since November.

The principal at Raymond Park Middle School would not speak to us about the incident or parents concerns. The superintendent in charge of middle schools in the district also backed out of an on-camera interview and instead provided a three-sentence statement:

"Two students were involved in inappropriate conduct in a lab class last semester. We have investigated the matter and taken appropriate action. The school corporation considers the matter closed and will have no further comment."

Associate Superintendent Jeff Swensson told Eyewitness News off camera the teacher didn't know what was going on because another student acted as a "look-out." But once the teacher discovered the behavior, immediate action was taken. Swensson says the students involved were recommended for expulsion. But he did not say whether the board followed that recommendation.

Warren Township School Police were not aware of the incident and say no report was made even though the children were recommended for expulsion.

We sought comment from all seven Warren Township School Board Members about how this case was handled. No one was available to speak with us.

Related stories : (use my link to get a link to these articles)

Warren Township Schools to have meeting over sex incident

Dept. of Education powerless in middle school sex incident

School officials refuse to comment on sex incident

---

Link to supporting article

How can this happen in such a semi-Christian society as the USA ? I do not mean the actual sex deed, but to keep this secret?

Any comments ?


Itsdb answered on 03/14/07:

>>How can this happen in such a semi-Christian society as the USA ? I do not mean the actual sex deed, but to keep this secret?<<

Pretty much the same way it could happen anywhere else. Why does this surprise you, particularly when forces such as Planned Parenthood are doing all they can to "empower" children and undermine parents?

Everyone in this country with half a brain knows (whether they'll admit or not) a liberal/secular/progressive ideology is pervasive in our educational system. I can't speak for this school administration but it would be no surprise to me that they employ much of this thinking, the type that encourages children to explore their sexuality and think little of two kids having sex (other than the obvious disciplinary problems of doing so in class). Kids having sex is NO BIG DEAL to many or most of the adults running the show in our schools, so why should they make a big deal out of it - especially when to do so would embarrass them publicly?

No agenda to "empower" children in their sex lives you say? Planned Parenthood (besides furnishing abortions to minors without parental consent), answers all their questions. Everything from oral sex to Guys Who Sleep With Guys to rimming and everything in between. They're also careful to note that "There are no right or wrong answers" to these questions:

    * Do I believe that sex should only be shared in a marriage or other committed relationship?

    * Do I think that two people should be in love before having sex?

    * Do I believe that a person should be a certain age before having sex?

    * What will help me decide when I'm ready to have sex?


No liberal/secular/progressive agenda in our schools? Here are plenty of examples in our colleges and universities.

Taken together, that is how this kind of thing can happen in "semi-Christian" America, and is exactly what Christian America is fighting, or as Hillary Clinton just noted, it's all just a part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 03/13/07 - Abortion a 'fundi-atheist' plot??????

Once again Peddler in her hysteria shoots herself in the head. In replying to Pericles she SCREAMS HYSTERICALLY: "You godless fundi-Atheists murder 4000 babies every day.
Well, naturally, this prompted me, being a stickler for fact, to check abortion statistics to see who, exactly was having all these abortions. Findings taken from "Patterns of Socioeconomic characterists of women obtaining ABORTIONS in 2000:

RELIGIOUS affiliation: The majority of women older than 17 who obtained abortion, REPORTED A RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. The highest proportion (43%) identified themselves as Protestant. Twenty seven percent of women having an abortion identified themselves as Catholic, and 8% as a member of another religion; 22% reported no religious affiliation. Thirteen percent identified themselves as "born-again" or evangelical, three forths of whom were Protestant.
Women affiliated with "other" religions and those who didnot identify with any religions had the higest abortion rates (31 and 30 per 1,000, respectively). Women with NO religious affiliation experienced THE LARGEST DECLINE IN ABORTION of ALL groups examined (35%). "

Geeezzzz it seems that those 'nasty' Christian women just can't stay out of those abortion clinics!!!!!

To read the full report log on to:
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html

Or simply type the title of the article into your search engine.

P.S. Peddler, cupcake, the article did not specify how many BAPTISTS underwent abortion :) :) :)

Itsdb answered on 03/13/07:

Huh, sounds pretty much like the makeup of the country. So who is advocating for and performing those abortions? Which group has the most abortions, liberals, moderates or conservatives?

Also from Guttmacher:

    About 11% of all women having abortions live in Africa, 58% in Asia and 9% in Latin America and the Caribbean. The remainder live in Europe (17%) and elsewhere in the developed world (5%).

    Romania, Cuba and Vietnam have the highest reported abortion rates in the world (78-83 abortions per 1,000 women). Rates are also above 50 per 1,000 in Chile and Peru.


And one more question, which groups have the highest incidence of repeat abortions? That's what I'd like to know.

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 03/13/07 - Why do Christians get advice from godlell bloody atheists?

Are they just that dumb?
How absurd to listen to a person who hates God tell you how to worship Him?

Itsdb answered on 03/13/07:

Peddler, I'm not sure what a "godlell bloody atheist" is but it sounds spooky. Is there some Christian in particular here that's taking their cues on how to worship from one?

As much as you may wish it weren't so, this is still just a question and answer board on the subject of Christianity, and it ain't up to us to decide who posts and who doesn't. Heck, once in a while someone might even learn something if we can get past the who's blocking who "liar liar pants on fire" silliness this board has become.

If there are any Christians here so insecure and immature they can't handle a little tussle with an atheist, agnostic or a freethinker - or can't stand firm in their faith - perhaps they need a new hobby until they can. I've yet to see anyone budge anyone else much on what they believe, how they worship (or not) or just about anything else here, so don't worry about it. And don't expect everyone to agree with you. It ain't gonna happen ... no matter how many times you say it or how loud.

Steve

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/13/07 - Please specify your Christian denomination ..............

It would be nice if fundi-creo's like Peddler (and other specific Christians too like Toms) should specify from what Christian denomination they are member, so that we can understand their position better.

For instance peddler - from what she so far stated - seems to support a very fundamental Christian view.
Strongly Calvinistic / Lutherian .
If she were without a computer it even could be Quacker or Amish.

So what is your Christian denomination ?


Itsdb answered on 03/13/07:

I see most are still afraid to face ratings judgment. If it matters (and as I've stated many times here), I am a lifelong Baptist. My church is associated with Baptist Bible Fellowship International, an association of loosely affiliated autonomous churches whose primary purpose as a group is world missions.

At the last state fellowship meeting held in our church, Jerry Falwell was the guest speaker - so all your worst fears about me have now probably been realized. Not.

We're like the stepchild in the fellowship, we have those evil drums, guitars, brass and a rockin' organist. We clap, raise our hands, rarely read from the KJV, women can wear pants, have tattoos, pray and gasp ... sometimes even teach men.

Does that help?

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 03/12/07 - O.T laws

Peddler says his church goes by
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Wouldn't that mean that you have to go by this verse as well and not have any clothing that is mixed fabric?
Deu 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woolen and linen together.
Who can make the claim that they wear 100% of any fabric?

Personally I would not be able to do my work if I had to wear 'women's clothing'

Do you pick and choose what to follow in the
Old Testament laws and ignore others? What standards
or formula or what do you follow in knowing what laws were done away with by Jesus death and which ones we are still to obey?

How involved were your parents in your marriage? Did you live at home until you were married?
Do you eat any meat or do you not eat certain meats?

Other than the 10 commandments, what do you go by to know if an Old Testament law is meant for today and to what extent?

P.S. Perc I know the objective/subjective thing I am asking for the what you call the subjective belief.

Itsdb answered on 03/13/07:

Sapph,

Personally I would probably not be able to do my work if I had to wear 'women's clothing' either ... especially if had to go with the current high waist look.



I gotta admit though that there is probably something to be said for having a breeze blow up your skirt while you're out hiking, but I just don't have the legs or the behind for a skirt. But I do hear the Utilikilt is all the rage now so who knows until you give it a shot?



It is made for a man, so does that make it cool Elliot ... as long as it isn't wool and linen?

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 03/12/07 - classroom behaviour

I just logged on to read the replies to my last posting and upon reading the first thing that came to my mind was a classroom full of unruly kids why in the heck cant you folks stop fighting and act like the adults you are??

Itsdb answered on 03/12/07:

Dorothy,

I furnished the board a fight cage a few minutes ago. Is this enough gloves to go around?


Now maybe they can go pound each other into submission the right way...

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
TTFNUAS rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 03/11/07 - For God’s sake,......................................

For God’s sake, why don’t all you people unblock each other and end all the nonsense?

Itsdb answered on 03/12/07:

DC,

A gift to the board...



Now they have a place they can go and duke it out.

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 03/11/07 - WHAT'S NEW IN EVOLUTION

NEWSWEEK March 19, 2007 issue - "Unlike teeth and skulls and other bones, hair is no match for the pitiless ravages of weather, geologic upheaval and time. So although skulls from millions of years ago testify to the increase in brain size as one species of human ancestor evolved into the next, and although the architecture of spine and hips shows when our ancestors first stood erect, the fossil record is silent on when they fully lost their body hair and replaced it with clothing. Which makes it fortunate that Mark Stoneking thought of lice.


Head lice live in the hair on the head. But body lice, a larger variety, are misnamed: they live in clothing. Head lice, as a species, go back millions of years, while body lice are a more recent arrival. Stoneking, an evolutionary anthropologist, had a hunch that he could calculate when body lice evolved from head lice by comparing the two varieties' DNA, which accumulates changes at a regular rate. (It's like calculating how long it took a typist to produce a document if you know he makes six typos per minute.) That fork in the louse's family tree, he and colleagues at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology concluded, occurred no more than 114,000 years ago. Since new kinds of creatures tend to appear when a new habitat does, that's when human ancestors must have lost their body hair for good—and made up for it with clothing that, besides keeping them warm, provided a home for the newly evolved louse.

If you had asked paleoanthropologists a generation ago what lice DNA might reveal about how we became human, they would have laughed you out of the room. But research into our origins and evolution has come a long way. Starting with the first discovery of a fossil suggesting that a different sort of human once lived on this planet—it was a Neanderthal skull, unearthed in a mine in Germany's Neander Valley in 1856—our species' genealogy was inferred from stones and bones. Fossils and tools testified to our ancestors' origins in Africa, the emergence of their ability to walk upright, the development of toolmaking and more. But now two new storytellers have begun speaking: DNA and brains.

The science of human evolution is undergoing its own revolution. Although we tend to see the march of species down through time as a single-file parade, with descendant succeeding ancestor in a neat line, the emerging science shows that the story of our species is far more complicated than Biblical literalists would have it—but also more complex than secular science suspected. By analyzing the DNA of today's humans as well as chimps and other species (even lice), scientists are zeroing in on turning points in evolution, such as when and how language and speech developed, and when our ancestors left Africa. DNA can even reveal how many pilgrims made that trek. At the new Hall of Human Origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, DNA gets equal billing with fossils. And by comparing the impressions that brains left on the inside of skulls, "paleoneurology" is documenting when structures that power the human mind arose, shedding light on how our ancestors lived and thought. Whether or not you believe the hand of God was guiding these changes, the discoveries are overturning longstanding ideas about how we became human....."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments?

Itsdb answered on 03/12/07:

And, scientists built a "robot that slinks along the ground and winds through water like a salamander is helping scientists understand how animals walked from aquatic environments onto land millions of years ago."



You can watch the video here.

You can sure do amazing things with a virtual world...

peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 03/08/07 - Doug Feith

The legend and mythology of the Iraq war is being written by the MSM and the opposition party .The White House has been inept in defending it's position/making it's case so the mythology is becoming written in stone .

One of the most popular versions has a cabal of Neocons led by Dick Cheney ,Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith conning the President and manipulating the intel . to rationalize the war.

Doug Feith has criticized the Bush administration for not doing more to respond to the media as it developed the narrative that the president lied the country into war by manipulating intelligence.He is convinced that they will not do so sufficiently so he has taken matters into his own hand .

He set up his own blog site after the Washington Compost wrote a false hit piece about him that was attributed to the office of the Pentagon Inspector General but was in fact the words of Senator Carl Levin. The Compost correction in small letters is here along with the original article.But as usual there was sufficient time laps between the publishing of the article and the correction that the original article has added another chapter to the mythology .

The essence of Feith's argument was that his office properly questioned some of the CIA conclusions and intel. ;not manipulate it. Feith explains on his web site :

This IG report controversy is, in essence, a debate over whether the CIA should be protected against criticism by policy officials. The IG found that the Pentagon's policy organization acted entirely lawfully and with proper authority and did not mislead the Congress. But the IG also offered his opinion that the policy organization's criticism of the CIA was "inappropriate."

In effect, the IG proposed cumbersome regulations for policy officials who want to criticize the CIA. The IG later admitted never having determined if the pre-war criticism of the CIA was actually correct. He called it "inappropriate" whether or not it was right, simply because it deviated from the "consensus of the intelligence community."

The current Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Eric Edelman, emphatically rejected the IG's opinion on this point. He said that heeding it would discourage policy officials from challenging the CIA. I agree with Mr. Edelman.

The IG got this point wrong and it would be dangerous to follow his badly reasoned opinion on the issue. It would damage the quality of the government's intelligence and policy. The CIA has made important errors over the years - think of the Iraqi WMD assessments. To guard against such errors, policy officials should be praised, not slapped, for challenging CIA products.


Feith said one of the ways to prevent intelligence failures is for consumers of the intelligence to interrogate the suppliers of intelligence more thoroughly, and that's what his office was doing.


So then ;is the CIA perfect ? Is it proper for policy administrators working for the elected President to question the raw intel and conclusions of the CIA ? WE know what happens when you cross the CIA ;they leak intel damaging to the adminstration in question ;especially during the election cycle.If you attempt to make sure the truth is a part of the reporting .....well just ask Scooter Libby how they respond.

Anyway ;it is instructive to open the links to his MEDIA MYTHS VS. FACTS page ;espeically the question of the link between Saddam and al-Qaeda . It is also troubling to contemplate how the false narrative about the Iraq war will be an anchor on the decision makers when considering policy about how to address the Iran growing threat .

Itsdb answered on 03/08/07:

Ditto my previous response:

    Ah those subtle differences, similar quotes with entirely different meanings by entirely different people. Mistakes happen, right? Just ask George Allen.

    I did notice something missing from the Compost's correction, the customary apology. Whenever a correction is printed in my paper they always at least say they "regret the error," but not the Compost.

    I'm glad Feith is going on the offensive, it's about time someone did, and maybe, just maybe it will encourage others to get a spine. If not, his effort will just fade into oblivion. It won't get any publicity until the noise is so loud the media can no longer ignore it, and that is what will bring your concerns about Iran to fruition.


But of course truth and ethics are entirely irrelevent to Christianity, unlike U.S. emissions violate human rights, aka "weather crimes," Oxymorons, Bush remixes and fireworks. I guess it's just a matter of perspective.

Steve

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/06/07 - Recent abuse survey Christianity Board

Recent abuse survey Christianity Board

---
95 identical topics
"oooooooohhhhhh!!!!! by JesseJamesDupree 03/06/07
---
87 identical topics
"Look who just got back today" by JesseJamesDupree dated 03/06/07
---
84 identical topics
"Spam ..... - anyone" by JesseJamesDupree dated 03/05/07

---
Topic Change of pace
Answer by Tomder
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 10 times
---
Topic Another way of losing weight
Answer by Choux..
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 5 times
---
Topic It's dark
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 21 times
---
Topic He ain't caught it yet
Answer by powderpuff
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic JJD
Answer by Spartacus
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 25 times
---
Topic Rolling Thunder Modern Day Hero's
Answer by kindj
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Rolling Thunder Modern Day Hero's
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 21 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 63 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by TTFNUAS
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by Tomder
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 11 times
---
Topic God and war
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 3 times
---
Topic Remember Glodal Cooling?
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 5 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by Choux.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 17 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by kindj
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 2 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 11 times
---
Topic OK, here's the deal
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 17 times
---
Topic OK, here's the deal:
Answer by peddler7118
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 19 times
---
Topic OK, here's the deal:
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 19 times
---
Topic well since we might
Answer by powderpuff
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 23 times
---
Topic Nice and quiet here
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 29 times

---

75 identical topics
"Hey JH76 - what I would" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
87 identical topics
"pericles and aton are" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
28 identical topics
"Link this - pericles boy!" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
100 identical topics
"I warned you repeatedly" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
95 identical topics
"It's dun peniscles and aton" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
87 identical topics
"................ - :)..." by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
32 identical topics
"....;)..." by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/24/07
---
5 identical topics
"I told you two heatherns" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/24/07
---
87 identical topics
"Nazi Storm Troopers!!!" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/24/07

---

Topic Any takers???
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 11 times
---
Topic Any takers???
Answer by tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 57 times
---
Topic The Root Cause????
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
(Text : Domino er aton is a dick!)
---
Topic Egyptian Blogger Sentenced to Four Years
Answer by peddler
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 200+ times
---
Topic Is this the way fundi-creo's argue?
Answer by tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic How is this possible?
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 3 times
---
Topic How is this possible?
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 44 times
---
Topic Please give me an answer to this question
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic Blockng Party
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
(text : Atonisaniger)
---
Topic Blockng Party
Answer by powderpuff
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic Blockng Party
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 5 times
---
Topic domino's eureka
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Interesting!!!
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 4 times
---
Topic Interesting!!!
Answer by Hank
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic The ultimate
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 71 times
---
Topic Miricles
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic My entire world
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 99 times
---
Topic CRYING
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic Where are the TRUE Christians
Answer by peddler
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 202 times
---
Topic Christians, public libraries, and censorship
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 17 times
---
Topic Christians, public libraries, and censorship
Answer by tomder55
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic Want a quick change of pace???
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 58 times
---
Topic Want a quick change of pace???
Answer by belle33
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 58 times---
---
Topic Why so many people still believe
Answer by tomder55
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 98 times
---
Topic Why so many people still believe
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Appropriate conduct for a follower of Jesus?????
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 49 times
---
Topic IS THIS YOUR SAVIOR?
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 27 times
---
Topic IS THIS YOUR SAVIOR?
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 2 times
---
Topic by On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by deardra
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by jesuschrist
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by Tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic MR JJD
Answer by CeeBee
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic Wouldn't it be scarier?
Answer by tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Logo for board
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 4 times
---
Topic No bible scholars
Answer by CeeBee
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 14 times
---
Topic No bible scholars
Answer by MaggieB
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic US Pastor claims
Answer by STONY
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic US Pastor claims
Answer by Rosekeeper
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
Topic more on the guy
Answer by tomder55
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 time
---
Topic Is peddler rational?
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
Topic Bible Truth
Answer by STONY
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
34 Identical topics
"Notice that aton" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/16/07
---


Management wake up : JesseJamesDupree is challenging your authority !!!
He has even openly admitted his intention to destroy this board now several times, and actually has started fulfilling that threat.

Unless you do something about this abuse, this board is becoming like WeTellYou : destroyed by one single drunken yokel.

Comments? If you disgree : no need to tell me : I will go ahead opposing this abuse madness.

Itsdb answered on 03/06/07:

Pericles, I know you disagreed with my last response (shocking, I know), but until management does something what do you expect us to do, reach through our screens and duct tape him to a tree? We all know the problem, you are not alone in opposing it and it's been reported. Management needs to step up now.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/05/07 - Updated abuse survey Christianity Board ...........


---

84 identical topics
"Spam ..... - anyone by JesseJamesDupree dated 03/05/07

---

Topic Change of pace
Answer by Tomder
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 10 times
---
Topic Another way of losing weight
Answer by Choux..
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 5 times
---
Topic It's dark
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 21 times
---
Topic He ain't caught it yet
Answer by powderpuff
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic JJD
Answer by Spartacus
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 25 times
---
Topic Rolling Thunder Modern Day Hero's
Answer by kindj
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Rolling Thunder Modern Day Hero's
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 21 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 63 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by TTFNUAS
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by Tomder
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic For Domino
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 11 times
---
Topic God and war
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 3 times
---
Topic Remember Glodal Cooling?
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 5 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by Choux.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 17 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by kindj
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 2 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic New Testament Apocrypha
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 11 times
---
Topic OK, here's the deal
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 17 times
---
Topic OK, here's the deal:
Answer by peddler7118
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 19 times
---
Topic OK, here's the deal:
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 19 times
---
Topic well since we might
Answer by powderpuff
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 23 times
---
Topic Nice and quiet here
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 29 times

---

75 identical topics
"Hey JH76 - what I would" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
87 identical topics
"pericles and aton are" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
28 identical topics
"Link this - pericles boy!" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
100 identical topics
"I warned you repeatedly" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
95 identical topics
"It's dun peniscles and aton" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
87 identical topics
"................ - :)..." by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/25/07
---
32 identical topics
"....;)..." by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/24/07
---
5 identical topics
"I told you two heatherns" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/24/07
---
87 identical topics
"Nazi Storm Troopers!!!" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/24/07

---

Topic Any takers???
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 11 times
---
Topic Any takers???
Answer by tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 57 times
---
Topic The Root Cause????
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
(Text : Domino er aton is a dick!)
---
Topic Egyptian Blogger Sentenced to Four Years
Answer by peddler
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 200+ times
---
Topic Is this the way fundi-creo's argue?
Answer by tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic How is this possible?
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 3 times
---
Topic How is this possible?
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 44 times
---
Topic Please give me an answer to this question
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic Blockng Party
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
(text : Atonisaniger)
---
Topic Blockng Party
Answer by powderpuff
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic Blockng Party
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 5 times
---
Topic domino's eureka
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Interesting!!!
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 4 times
---
Topic Interesting!!!
Answer by Hank
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic The ultimate
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 71 times
---
Topic Miricles
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic My entire world
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 99 times
---
Topic CRYING
Answer by paraclete
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic Where are the TRUE Christians
Answer by peddler
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 202 times
---
Topic Christians, public libraries, and censorship
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 17 times
---
Topic Christians, public libraries, and censorship
Answer by tomder55
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic Want a quick change of pace???
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 58 times
---
Topic Want a quick change of pace???
Answer by belle33
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 58 times---
---
Topic Why so many people still believe
Answer by tomder55
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 98 times
---
Topic Why so many people still believe
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Appropriate conduct for a follower of Jesus?????
Answer by Hank1
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 49 times
---
Topic IS THIS YOUR SAVIOR?
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 27 times
---
Topic IS THIS YOUR SAVIOR?
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 2 times
---
Topic by On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by deardra
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by Dark_Crow
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 9 times
---
Topic On the handle "jesuschrist"
Answer by jesuschrist
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by drgade
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by Jesushelper76
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 12 times
---
Topic To others : Multiple rating
Answer by Tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic MR JJD
Answer by CeeBee
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 times
---
Topic Wouldn't it be scarier?
Answer by tropicalstorm
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 15 times
---
Topic Logo for board
Answer by Pete.
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 4 times
---
Topic No bible scholars
Answer by CeeBee
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 14 times
---
Topic No bible scholars
Answer by MaggieB
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic US Pastor claims
Answer by STONY
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 7 times
---
Topic US Pastor claims
Answer by Rosekeeper
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
Topic more on the guy
Answer by tomder55
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 8 time
---
Topic Is peddler rational?
Answer by Choux
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
Topic Bible Truth
Answer by STONY
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer 6 times
---
34 Identical topics
"Notice that aton" by JesseJamesDupree dated 02/16/07
---


Board Management wake up : JesseJamesDupree is trying to destroy your Answerway Board!!!

He has openly admitted his intention to destroy this board now several times, and actually has started fulfilling that threat.
Unless you do something about this abuse, this board is becoming like WeTellYou : destroyed by one single drunken yokel.

Comments? Don't bother to post if you disagree with my surveys : I will keep posting them anyway .....

Itsdb answered on 03/06/07:

Pericles,

I've done what little I could do about JJD, perhaps it's time to just ignore the little fella until AW does something about it.

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 03/05/07 - Change of Pace...BY GOD!!!

We witnessed the attempts by Peddler and her fundamentalist American Family Values group to boycott the film "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"....it did not work. But it was an object lesson in what the agenda of fundamentalist Christianity is all about...the attempt to FORCE Americans to aquiece to their perverted ideas of morality and ethics.
The religious right attempted to boycott the Disney corporation for offering benefits to gay men and women....The religious right tried to boycott Wal Mart to enforce the "Merry Christmas" sillyiness.....every television sponsor who had ads on programs that the Christian Right Wing disapproved of was threatened with boycotts.

Is this what CHRISTIANITY is ALL ABOUT....trying to FORCE beliefs on non-believers????? Trying to limit what non-Christians CAN and CANNOT WATCH or DO??????? Or what Non-Christians can or cannot buy???

Serious reponses only. Others will be stomped into whale dung. :)

Itsdb answered on 03/05/07:

Actually, it was O'Reilly that influenced the Wal-Mart rebellion - and believe it or not he ain't exactly a part of the religious right.

Personally I've never been much of a fan or participant of boycotts, but I don't believe it's all about forcing beliefs on non-believers or limiting what non-Christians can or cannot buy. In fact, in many cases it's just the opposite.

There is still an enormous market and demand for products that appeal specifically to Christians, should they be confined to Christian book stores? And when did everyone become so sensitive to someone saying Merry Christmas?

Whether or not you'll admit it there has been a war on Christianity in this country, for some it seems to be their favorite sport.

For all the 'pushing' that you may object to, there's been a ton of it directed at Christians so why the surprise when they push back? A boycott is a heckuva lot more peaceful and ethical than the way many on the left are trying to force their agendas.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 03/01/07 - U.S. emissions violate human rights

Arctic Canadians say U.S. emissions violate human rights

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Northern Canadians told an international commission Thursday that carbon emissions from the United States have contributed so much to global warming that they should be considered a human rights violation. One activist said temperatures have climbed so much that Arctic residents need air conditioners.

The case was pressed by the Inuit community before the 34-nation Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

In a petition, the group asked the commission's assistance "in obtaining relief" from the impact of global warming, and makes specific reference to the United States as the country most responsible for the phenomenon.

The commission, however, lacks the legal authority to compel the United States to take action.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuit activist, said the well-being of her people is under threat -- and that the need for air conditioning is just one example of the spread of global warming.

Climate change is "destroying our right to life, health, property and means of subsistence," she said. "States that do not recognize these impacts and take action violate our human rights."

She said ice formations are much more likely to detach from land, and take unsuspecting hunters out to sea where they face an uncertain fate.

Beyond that, she said hunters can no longer be sure of ice thickness and whether it is safe to travel.

"Many hunters have been killed or seriously injured after falling through ice that was traditionally known to be safe," she said.

The United States did not respond to the Inuit claims before the commission, an arm of the Organization of American States. The Bush administration has said it is taking steps to reduce global warming, but domestic and international critics say it is not doing enough, given that the United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Scientists generally agree the Arctic is the first place on Earth to be affected by rising global temperatures. They say that if developed nations such as the United States -- responsible for one-fourth of world's greenhouse gases -- do not dramatically reduce their emissions within the next 15 years, the Arctic ice likely will melt by the end of the century.

The Inuit population hails from Canada, Russia and Greenland, as well as Alaska, where they are known as Eskimos. They have been trying to tell the world for more than a decade about the shifting winds and thinning ice that have damaged the hunting grounds the Northern peoples have used for thousands of years.

Watt-Cloutier was nominated with former Vice President Al Gore for a Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change.

---

As the egoistic thinking behind pollution is basically a moral and ethical item, this topic belongs on the Christianity board, as many people here on this board insist (incorrectly) that ethics and morals are Christianity based.

Any comments?

 

Link to original article

 

Itsdb answered on 03/02/07:

CANADA: February 7, 2007

    OTTAWA - Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will continue to soar in the next few years, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Tuesday.

    Harper projected in a policy speech that by 2010 Canada's emissions would be about 46 percent above the targets it had agreed to hit by 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. That's up from 35 percent above the target in 2004, the latest year for which data are available.


Canada's latest figures show 24 tons per person of carbon emissions, roughly the same as the US per person figure - although both are less than Australia's 27.54 tons per person.

Now I know you want to discuss 'pro rata,' but still, the average Canadian carbon footprint is virtually no better than the average American so why throw stones at us? Oh that;s right, so the environmental extremists can get their wish for a "climate Nuremberg" for those "bastards" destroying the climate (the U.S. of course).

By the way, I've planted I believe 18 trees in the past 5 or 6 years and numerous shrubs. Can I get some offsets?

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 02/27/07 - Death Certificates for Abortions?

"Legislation introduced in Tennessee would require death certificates for aborted fetuses, which likely would create public records identifying women who have abortions.

Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Republican , said his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed. He predicted it would pass in the Republican-controlled Senate but would have a hard time making it through the Democratic House.

Abortion numbers are already reported to the state Office of Vital Records and is publicly available. The office collects records - but not death certificates - on abortions and the deaths of fetuses after 22 weeks gestation or weighing about 1 pound. And the identites of the women who have abortions are not included in those records. Death certificates include identifying information such as Social Security numbers."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you think that death certificates should be issued for abortions?

Why Why not?

Itsdb answered on 02/27/07:

Choux,

As much as I am against abortion I see no value in this. An abortion is USUALLY traumatic for those involved and most women who've aborted a child need understanding, compassion, support, forgiveness - not further humiliation.

Steve

belle33 rated this answer Average Answer
Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/27/07 - On phoney arguments


Why is it that people like peddler (and some others) post questions and replies that are between the lines on the validity of their religious views (as in creationism and intelligent design), but are formatted in an anti-scientific approach - as in the deluge of anti-evolution posts by peddler?

While each and every of such posts are shot down hook, line, and sinker, and thereby lose their entire religious content in the earned ridicule of defeat, do the authors of such postings really think that they are still "passing the word" ?

Should the "word of God" be passed as a hitch-hiker hiding somewhere in the message (in the idea of "the end justifies the means" - even if that is a fraudulent approach) or should from the start a horse be called a horse, and an intro into Christianity not being presented as an attack on a scientific theory?

What is it that drives certain Christians to show their faith in God packed in a bunch of lies and total distortion of reality?

Why don't they simply show their faith in God in their daily words and deeds? Not by PLAYING to be a Christian, but by BEING a true Christian ???

Comments?

Itsdb answered on 02/27/07:

In all honesty this is my take. Too many adherents of MANY faiths - not just Christianity and it's subdivions - think they have all the answers. You know, my God is bigger than your God, my faith is the ONLY way, my church is the ONE, TRUE church, etc.

The problems that lead to those conclusions are many. From those who are OUTRIGHT taught in no uncertain terms that their church/God/faith is the ONLY way as OFFICIAL doctrine, to those who are led to believe such by misguided, but often well-meaning individuals. I know, my faith says Jesus is the only way and I believe that, but I make no claims to our church being right about everything and I don't hammer it down anyone's throat. I'd rather convince someone by actions and meaningful dialogue, as in actually caring about the person and their needs.

I also believe the church today as a whole has become focused too much inwardly, often in spite of efforts to focus outwardly. I'd venture a guess that for the majority of Christians almost all of their entire Christian experience consists of what happens at church and amongst themselves. Go to church and sing, pray, give a few bucks then refuse to get out of their comfort zone.

I'm also betting most Christians are babes when it comes to the bible and doctrine. While I acknowledge the need to meet the personal needs of the Christian I think church has become much like society, little emphasis on the deeper things and more emphasis on the latest and greatest trends ... Ron Popeil's "How to Have Church 2.0" if you will.

That's not to say there aren't a significant number of Christians - who even if they aren't extremely knowledgeable of their faith - out there in the world making a difference. There are, but all too many are not. And some get a little faith, a little knowledge, a little ego and an overly zealous mentor and set out to conquer the world with their newfound infallibility ... but you have to acknowledge that some of that is human nature.

Personally I'm guilty at times of all of that, we get complacent, tired and frustrated and just have our ups and downs like everyone else. Then we have to remind ourselves it's not about us. Some people just never get that...

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 02/13/07 - Nonsense, frustration, or just plain meanness???

In a response to Pete, Hank says: "Name me a couple of Christians still posting on this board except you, Sapphire and I"......

Pete, by his own admission is NOT a Christian, but an honest Agnostic.

Sapphire has posted that she has no truck with 'church' religion.

And a slap in the face was delivered to, among others:

MaggieB
drgade
bobbye
itsdb -Steve
Dennis
Stony
Paraclete
tomder
arcura
revdauphinee

Though I may not agree with all of their beliefs, I would no more deny they are Christians, than I would deny Pericles is a freethinker.

Any idea where Hank is coming from with this nonsense?
Wounded ego?????

Itsdb answered on 02/14/07:

Well Dom, always glad you include me in the list. Otherwise, I don't really pay much heed to what folks think of me here - or is that obvious? :)

I would add one more though he doesn't make it around much any more, JeffreyBryson.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 02/12/07 - yeeeeh

I started the family tree and now we are even getting the scrapbook to go with it!!!LOL

Hank and Carol look like they coulda been from Perry Mason

Its Thinks he is a Baywatch stud

This is getting too verrry verrry interesting



Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

Whaddya mean thinks? :) Hey, I found an old pic of Dom to add to your scrapbook...

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pete. asked on 02/12/07 - Pictures of lilly

Any one who wants to really prove their existence send their pictures to me at:

pete@petehanysz.co.uk

..includes you HANK & you domino!


LOL

Pete

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

Why wait for email...here you go

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 02/12/07 - This has been batted around lately

This has been a concern and batted aound for some time. So, I will seek your response to the following:

When a couple has a good cash flow that can be lived on (if they spend accordingly) but is constantly in need of help, when do you draw the line? The mother is a stay at home mom with 1 small child, they always have a new car to drive, nice clothes, nice jewelry and paid $800 for a puppy for their little daughter but always need gas money, phone money, medication money, food momey, and make more money than the people they ask to help them.

Thanks for your comments,
MaggieB

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

Where do you draw the line? If you've helped them before - knowing their situation - you draw the line with a resounding no. Then you give them the cold hard facts, they need to learn about fiscal restraint, budgeting and priorities. You might refer them to an appropriate financial counselor and tell them to sell some things if they need money now. That's the kind of help they need.

If you give in they will continue to abuse the kindness of others and not learn a thing.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 02/11/07 - Is anyone else experiencing this?

I just tried to post two questions on the public board, and the show up at the bottom of the page as having been posted on February 7th ????????????

Has this happend to any one else, or is Satan on my case? :) :) :)

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead— your next stop, the Twilight Zone!

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 02/12/07 - Confusion upon confusion

You Christians just get more and more confusing! In a response to jjgoss, Hank states: "I am a Christian who doesn't have a helluva lot to do with non-believers." Now, is this not a direct contravention of the final commission...to preach the Good News to all????? If all you are here for is to preach to the choir, that would make you as useless as teats on a bull, right????

I mean, after listening to Peddler and the rest of the Muslim bashers state that Muhammad was some sort of monster for, purportedly, telling his followers not to associate with Christians and Jews...here we have Hank doing just THAT with non-believers.

So what does that accomplish for Christianity??????

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

Pericles,

First of all as you should agree, this board is not the 'evangelism' board. But secondly, as the saying (and the song goes) we're supposed to be "in" the world but not "of" the world. No Christian should aspire to preach only to the choir.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/12/07 - Apology .................................................

The topic "Check it before you refuse to answer it" concerns.

That post was forwarded to JesseJames/Dupree as a direct question, posted in view of his many many nasty "add-ons" to me in over 20 various other posts all over the board.

In that topic I forgot to add an asteric in the word f*ck-off.
As I should at least have done so, hereby my apologies to all.

However : note that this direct question was put onto the board by JJD for whatever reason he had, and not by me.

Though I am sorry, I do not feel responsible for the posting on the board.

And note that in my rating of JJD's reply I have used that asterix, which was long before any comments started to appear.

Let him who is without any faults throw the first stone .....

Any unbiased comments?

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

Well Per, apology accepted, no big deal. Just note this disclaimer:

"Specifying an Expert DOES NOT make it a private question. Once the expert answers your question it will be available on the public boards for everyone to read. If you wish you can request the expert to keep this private by explaining your need for privacy in your question!"

If you don't want it public don't say it.

Steve

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/11/07 - Check it before you refuse to answer it.

Here you have one of the photos, seized 62 x 47.
Small enough to block any detail - as I do not know whomever may put his/her dirty fingers on it.
Big enough to recognize it as to what it is.
I have the original, seized 1216 x 912.
I also have all your personal details.
All I want is you to fuck-off permanently from WTY and control your temper here at AW.
You lost. Game over.



 

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

I have no idea what this is all about, but I wonder, if you want us to jump all over ratings abuse how should we respond to "All I want is you to f***-off permanently?"

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/10/07 - Evolution


 

For peddler who always demands proof of evolution ...

:)

 

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

An extreme makeover? Here's evolution. :)

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/10/07 - Report rating abuse?


Over the last couple of days JesseJamesDupree has been busy posting multiple ratings of up to 20 and 21 times per reply.

The ratings themselves are not "that" important, but I wonder on the hypocrisy by the Christian participants on the Christianity Board : would I have done that, the entire board would have been yanking at my cyber heels and yapping at my wrongdoings.

But when JesseJamesDupree does that, nobody utters a sound. Even while JesseJamesDupree is wellknown for his terror on repeated multiple postings on christianity boards.

Now : why would that be ? Why are so many Christians pure hypocrites at this board?

 

Itsdb answered on 02/12/07:

Pericles,

Who cares? And aren't you assuming facts not in evidence? Such as:

the entire board would have been yanking at my cyber heels and yapping at my wrongdoings.

That's a rather all-inclusive - and incorrect - assumption.

But when JesseJamesDupree does that, nobody utters a sound.

Untrue. I stated my position here prior to my awareness of Dom's post on the same subject here.

The subject has been addressed previously, even before Dom's recent post. What exactly do you want from us? I've restrained myself from knee-jerk abuse reports for a long, long time. Instead I've chosen to give great latitude to the members here which is exactly what I would have expected you to applaud. In fact in recent years I can only recall one report I've made, after an expert's repeated malicious posts directed at me.

You know how to click that "report abuse" button don't you? I also hope you know not to assume Christians here consider JJD as one of their own. So go ahead, report the abuse if you are offended, and while you're at it make the suggestion to close the hole that allows multiple ratings.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/09/07 - On creationism


 

I found this article on the internet very interesting, specially after roll after roll after roll of toilet paper on Evolution by peddler. Hereby the abridged version.

On Creationism

God created the Earth in seven days, literally and exactly seven 24-hour days. And if you don't like it, you can go to hell.

In all the world's rich panoply of religious and spiritual pursuits, there's nothing quite so inspiring as watching people desperately tie their entire view of the moral universe to an idea that's obviously wrong. Creationism is a particularly entertaining variant on an age-old theme. Creationism is pretty much summed up in the first sentence of this article. Creationists like to call their belief system "creation science" and would like to have it taught in school alongside the theory of evolution.

Now, it's certainly possible that some God created the world in seven 24-hour days. Any sentence that contains the word "God" is pretty much wide open to debate. But is it science? No, of course that is not science. It's religion. Nothing wrong with religion, lots of people have it. Often very smart and well-educated people. But beliefs based solely on the text of the Bible aren't science. Science is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." There is no scientific test which will show that Adam and Eve existed. At least, not according to the commonly accepted definition of science.

Western civilization has believed the seven-day theory for about 6,000 years longer than it's believed in evolution. The weight of that history is great indeed. Although Genesis was originally a Jewish scripture, the Christians were responsible for institutionalizing its contents as the undisputed "truth" about the world's origins.

The original notion of evolution dates back to the ancient Greeks, but early thinking on the subject was crushed by the Church of Rome. By the 17th century, however, the Protestant revolution and the whole Galileo fiasco had given the public reason to think that the Vatican was not necessarily the best source for scientific information. Nevertheless, the idea that people had somehow evolved from a lower life form was abhorrent to most people, right up through the Victorian era. "Man" (and specifically the white male) was considered the highest possible form of life on earth, elevated above all others.
When Charles Darwin came along in the middle of the 19th century, all hell broke loose. Although Darwin outlined a progression of primitive man through modern man, the average joe looked at his chart and made the immediate mental leap that men essentially came from monkeys. The Victorians were not amused.
A violent religious backlash arose in response to the theory. Nearly 150 years later, depressingly, the backlash continues. The theory of evolution quickly gained traction in scientific circles, but the common man held out for a lot longer. As it does with virtually all issues of any importance in the world, the United States responded to the controversy with litigation.

The state of Tennessee passed a law in 1925 banning schools from teaching any theory of human origin that conflicted with the Biblical account. It remained on the books until 1967. Bad publicity left other states unenthusiastic about mandating creationism in the schools, but that didn't stop Protestant fundamentalists from rallying around the issue for the next 80 years. Weirdly, although the whole issue had stemmed from an overly literal intepretation of the Bible, the second wave of creationists began madly embellishing the Biblical accounts of early man in an effort to get around some of the more undeniable evidence, such as dinosaur fossils.
The dwindling pool of modern creationists now tries to paint a picture of a Fred Flintstone-style Garden of Eden in which cheerful velociraptors traipse around with Adam and Eve like oversized puppies. According to these revisionist-literalists, pretty much any reference to a generic animal in the Bible is inclusive of dinosaurs. The modern crop of creationists is often perceived as a bunch of harmless cranks, like Jerry Falwell and the Attorney General of the United States.
Sure, harmless! They run wacky organizations like the "Institute for Creation Research" and the "Center for Scientific Creation," which contain arguments like "Evolutionists raise several objections. Some say, 'Even though evidence may imply a sudden creation, creation is supernatural, not natural, and cannot be entertained as a scientific explanation'" and "Teaching scientific evidence for creation has always been legal in public schools. Nevertheless, many teachers wonder how to do this."

If you're thinking that you don't know a lot of evolutionists who say evidence implies a sudden creation, or teachers who are wondering how to teach said evidence, welcome to the club. But then, it takes a special kind of thinking to keep ancient anachronisms alive and kicking.
A special kind of thinking of the sort perpetuated by the Attorney General John Ashcroft, who launched a Justice Department investigation of a Texas professor for demanding that future medical students truthfully tell their opinions about the origins of human life before he would agree to write recommendation letters for them.

But hey, who wouldn't want a doctor who believes women can be extracted from your ribs?

Link to original - full - article

Any comments?

 

Itsdb answered on 02/09/07:

>>As it does with virtually all issues of any importance in the world, the United States responded to the controversy with litigation.<<

Actually the United States - technically the state of Tennessee - responded with legislation while the ACLU as is their custom responded with litigation.

With that minor clarification made, who cares? It's never going to be resolved in my opinion, and I find some of the 'scientific evidence' just as unbelievable as evolutionists find creationism.

I can't speak for everyone but what chaps my hide about it all isn't the fact that evolution is taught almost exclusively in our schools, it's the agenda to remove all traces of God and therefore any debate from schools. So much for those who demand we have an open mind.

Look, if you want to believe that the universe with its billions and billions of stars and galaxies spontaneously began literally out of nothing, then be my guest. I find it takes much more faith to believe some light or some sort of energy "small enough to fit in the palm of your hand" suddenly exploded and became our universe.

I hear it's because for every 1,000,000 particles of anti-matter there were 1,000,001 particles of matter, containing the building blocks for everything in existence from rocks to redheads, duking it out. And, in mere milliseconds the universe expanded exponentially - at least that's how the Discovery Channel described it.

It sounded so dramatic and so fantastic - I just laughed. Man evolved from 'nothing' via an explosion of energy from an unknown source. Now that takes faith.

Steve

JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 02/07/07 - RELIGION:



Does religion cause more trouble than it's worth? It seems as though it's the main reason why people kill, torture et al on a daily basis. I'm tired of hearing and reading about it!

HANK

Itsdb answered on 02/08/07:

Does religion cause more trouble than it's worth? Good question, one I'm sure most honest people have at least asked themselves if not someone else.

I have to agree with Dennis that 'legalism' causes more trouble than it's worth. There's nothing like trying to live up to an impossible standard.

As a whole though I'd say no. It's not as much religion as it what man has done with religion that causes problems in my opinion. It's not an excuse to justify killing, plundering and conquering. And though there is no way to measure the good against the evil done in the name of religion I'm certain the good outweighs the bad.

Too many lives have been changed for the better to ignore, and most of those I've encountered for which religion has left a bad taste in their mouths have been affected by the actions of a few people (however well-intentioned) that don't reflect the majority.

As to the premise religion is the "main reason why people kill, torture et al on a daily basis," maybe in the past - but I've never met a Christian Jihadist and the only "crusade" I can recall ever being a part of was led by Franklin Graham. "Come Just As You Are" (popularized by the lovely and lovely-voiced Crystal Lewis) was our battle cry. We also attacked with a rousing rendition of "Blessed Be the Name of the Lord." Sure there's that whacked out bunch led by Fred Phelps, but most of us would rather give something useful of ourselves.

I'll pay for saying this, but I only know of one prominent religion that has a significant number of adherents intent on killing, torturing and otherwise eliminating - or at the least forcefully subjugating - those of the other prominent religions.

Steve

P.S. For Pericles, I also don't know any Christian "mad enough to be at the base of their intended "final war". I must have missed the meetings where we laid out the strategy for this 'intended "final war."'

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 02/07/07 - Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urged Islamic nations to retaliate against Israel

JERUSALEM - Police scuffled Wednesday with an Israeli Islamic leader and several of his followers near a disputed holy site in the Old City of Jerusalem where Muslims have been protesting excavations and repairs.

Raed Salah, the fiery leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, and six supporters were taken for questioning after "a brawl" with police guarding work near the hilltop compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary, home of the Al Aqsa mosque complex, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

It wasn't clear whether charges would be brought, Rosenfeld said.

Rosenfeld said about 2,000 Israeli police — double the usual number — were on duty in the city to quell any violent protest against Israel's plan to build a new walkway up to the compound where Islamic tradition says Muhammad ascended to heaven and which Jews revere as the site of their ancient temples.

Israel says the project is needed to replace a centuries-old earthen ramp that partially collapsed in a snowstorm three years ago. It has promised the work would cause no harm to Islamic holy sites, but those assurances have not calmed Muslim outrage over the project.

On Wednesday, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urged Islamic nations to retaliate against Israel. Khamenei did not say what sort of response he intended, but he said the Islamic world should make Israel "regret" what it is doing.

OK guys, if Iran has no problem with Israel why Is Khamenei urging the Islamics to retaliate against the Israeli's?

Cool, collected comments only.

MaggieB

Itsdb answered on 02/07/07:

Maggie,

It's easy - and not anti-Muslim to speak the truth - it's simply unacceptable for Israel to exist in the eyes of the jihadist.

    "Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." -Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

    "This regime is an infectious tumour for the entire Islamic world" -Ayatollah Ali Khamenei


Don't forget this is the Supreme Leader of the country that just hosted a conference to determine whether or not the Holocaust ever happened. So yes, Iran has problems with Israel and Israel has problems with Iran. And, those of us branded as neocon fundamentalists and lambasted as pursuing a theocracy, have problems with those who call us bigots for mentioning the jihadist agenda.

As for this case I'd have to know more, on the surface it seems Muslims should be grateful that Israel is repairing the way to this holy site instead of leaving it a dangerous mess.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/07/07 - To assist you : oxymoron galore .........................

Let me provide you all with some good oxymorons : to assist you to improve the quality of postings on this Christianity Board ..... :)


The top 45 oxymorons

Act naturally
Found missing
Resident alien
Advanced BASIC
Genuine imitation
Airline food
Good grief
Same difference
Almost exactly
Government organization
Sanitary landfill
Alone together
Legally drunk
Silent scream
Living dead
Small crowd
Business ethics
Soft rock
Butt Head
Military Intelligence
Software documentation
New classic
Sweet sorrow
Childproof
"Now, then ..."
Synthetic natural gas
Passive aggression
Taped live
Clearly misunderstood
Peace force
Extinct Life
Temporary tax increase
Computer jock
Plastic glasses
Terribly pleased
Computer security
Political science
Tight slacks
Definite maybe
Pretty ugly
Twelve-ounce pound cake
Diet ice cream
Working vacation
Exact estimate
Microsoft Works

And one extra, specifically for this board (well : mainly) :

Christian love and forgiveness

 

Itsdb answered on 02/07/07:

Although close, you and TS missed an obvious choice, 'deafening silence.' Kind of like the response to your final oxymoron, Pericles.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 02/06/07 - Why no Heaven?

Have any of our resident Bible literalist been able to come up with a good reason why the idea of HEAVEN never occured to the man you call Moses, or any of his 'forty-years-in-the-desert' followers? Just curious! GASP. Are there intimations that MOSES did not believe in reward OR punishment after death??? No stick and carrot approach to God?

Comments welcome...and rated according to relevance. :)

Itsdb answered on 02/06/07:

Dom,

Just because Moses doesn't speak to the hereafter are we to assume he knew nothing of it? Can we assume he did when he appeared with Elijah at the transfiguration? Do you think he wondered what happened to Enoch when God 'took him?' Weren't those two tablets a pretty big stick? Didn't he mention a blessing (carrot) for obedience and a curse (stick) for disobedience?

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 02/06/07 - Yahweh shuts up????

The Jewish Bible, or Tanakh has an arrangement of its books, different from that of the later Christian arrangement. In the Jewish arrangement; Pentateuch, Prophets, Writings...Panati, the brilliant investigator of Sacred Origins finds a curious point:

From Genesis through Second Kings.."GOD ACTS". From later Prophets to Job, "God speaks but does not act himself". After Job, "God falls utterly silent"...

Picking up on this, Jack Miles in "God: a biography" notes:

"God never speaks again. His speech from the whirlwind is, in effect, his last will and testament." God's earlier speeches will be reapeated, miracles will still be attributed to him, glimpses of him will be revealed, but God gradually recedes from view, abandoning the stage he created, giving the spotlight to the Chosen People....

WHY?

And if you don't care to answer, you might want to simply ponder... As Panati muses: "The sequence of God the Doer, God the Speechmaker, and the Silent God is fascinating to ponder.

Itsdb answered on 02/06/07:

Dom,

It is fascinating to ponder. I guess God decided to speak out again at least once - "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." :)

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/05/07 - Why are there so many clear lies here on this board ?


And why are there so many people consistently lying here?

Just one example out of too many :

---

Topic : "Is secular humanism a religion?" by peddler7118 dated 02/03/07

Peddler claimed in her topic : "Secular humanists don’t want to be called religious.
That’s because they don’t want to admit that teaching materialistic evolution is really a religious point of view
"

So I commented that Humanism is no religion. That a religion requires a deity as focal point.
And that although Religious Humanism CAN have a focal point that MAY include a deity (Note : Can have, May include), Secular Humanism (the topic there) has no deity what-so-ever. It is focussed on the interest of the human being itself.


To which peddler replied : "No it does not. The belief that there is no God and no creator is as religious as a person get get. There is no way to know there is no creator and no explanation for the existence of intelligence without one. It takes tremendous faith to deny God. Atheists have always claimed to be neutral but as your actions cleary show you are very religious and in fact zealous in your chosen faith"

So I posted : Secular Humanism does not have anything to say about any deity, nor it's existence, nor it's qualities. Nowhere does Secular Humanism state that "there is no God". Get your act together and your argument supported by facts!

Peddler replied : ""The first word in the Humanist Manifesto describes it as a religion and that is repeated 9 more times in the articles of faith."

So I first posted the first two chapters of the Religious Humanist Manifesto, clearly proving that ""The first words in the Humanist Manifesto do NOTdescribe it as a religion.

After I got a second similar LIE back from her I posted BOTH the entire Religious Humanist Manifesto and the Secular Humanist Declaration.

Still a similar worded LIE and several other false accusations came back from her.
Further requests from my side to support her claims were ignored and replaced by CHILDISH statements on the use of Vaseline and the problems of diaper rash.

However : peddler did not redrew her LIES on the wording of the Humanist Manifesto. while the proof was in front of her, for all to see
!

---

The above shows perfectly what too many here on this board seem to assume : that they can post clear lies without being found out.

To them I say : forget it : you will be asked to SHOW precise details on what you accuse others off, and to SUPPORT these accusations with evidence.

So don't babble and sidestep here as so many do, but SUPPORT YOUR OWN STATEMENTS !!!

And provide supporting evidence upon request (though you should already have provided that with your accusations!)

But most important : if you think that you can sidestep the request for supporting evidence think again : I will make it one of my targets to show you what you are in that case : A LIAR !!!!!!!

A scout may be always prepared. But if you lie here, you better also be prepared, because I will put you in the pillory as a liar !

 



My first pillory convicted : Peddler

 



Of course there is also one for the males

 

Itsdb answered on 02/05/07:

"Humanism is no religion." -Pericles

From Americanhumanist.org:

Humanist Manifesto I

The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.

— Raymond B. Bragg (1933)


The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

    FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

    SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

    THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

    FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

    FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

    SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

    SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

    EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

    NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

    TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

    ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

    TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

    THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.


    FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

    FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

    So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

    [EDITOR'S NOTE: There were 34 signers of this document, including Anton J. Carlson, John Dewey, John H. Dietrich, R. Lester Mondale, Charles Francis Potter, Curtis W. Reese, and Edwin H. Wilson.]

    Copyright © 1973 by the American Humanist Association


Sounds like a religion to me.

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/05/07 - Superbowl spots II


And all that on your Christian Sunday !!!

Link to all the spots

Now which was YOUR favourite add?

Rock, Paper, Bud Light
Click a Mouse
Moon Office
Sales Genie
Bud Light Immigrants
Wedding Auction
Chevy Sings Across..
Doritos Distraction
Sierra Karate
Snickers Kiss
Give a Little Love
Evil Mapasaurus
GoDaddy.com
Workweek Survival
False Dalmation
Chevy Strip
Doritos Cashier
Robot Loneliness
Bud Light Slap
Connectile Dysfunction
Ya Gotta Have Heart
Coaches Make History
Old Coke Revisited
Cheesy Bites
Tundras Desert Dog
Beard Comb-over
Bank Robbery
Say Cheese!
Coke Fantasy
Promotion Pit
Nutty Goulet
Taco Bell Safari
What's in a Name?
K-Fed's Front
Crabs Like Bud Too
Shula vs. Jay Z
The New Honda CRV
Hitchiking Hops
Office Survivor
One Finger
Izod is Hot
Sheryl Crows About R..
Cheese Acres
The Quest for Snapple

 

My Winner : Budlight Immigrants ! "No speake Engelisj" :)

 

Itsdb answered on 02/05/07:

Oh my goodness yes, we watch football on our "Christian Sunday." At least we generally avoid riots that happen all too often with that other football. I even try to skip church at least once a year to go watch my beloved Dallas Cowboys play...and may even enjoy a Bud, whose spots were the best overall.

My favorite was early; rock, paper, scissors, though I enjoyed Click a Mouse, Bud Light Immigrants, Wedding Auction, The Quest for Snapple and yes, those crabs were hilarious. And who couldn't love the false dalmation?

Otherwise I thought they were mostly ho-hum (like Rex Grossman) and goofy, although Coke's
Give a Little Love was very well done. Godaddy was of course tasteless.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/04/07 - Still more "GREEN"


In this post I just react in general to all the reactions I received on previous "GREEN" posts.

I'm sorry that there seem to be so many simpletons under you who for pure simple selfish reasons are unwilling to accept that their need and greed may be possibly destroying this planet.

Neither can I understand that Christians simply drop their God-given Christian duty as steward/caretaker of this planet as soon as they don't like the consequences of their belief and/or their Christian duties. Either you are a Christian and follow the Bible or you don't.

But MOST terrifying is that almost all of you do not seem to care what world you leave behind for your children and your grandchildren to live in.
And I do not refer here to small energy savings. Most of us do that. I refer to real life style changes.

Once more : I never stated that these reports are correct. They may be wrong, they may be exaggerated, or they may be correct.

But how can anyone of you take the risk that the scientists are correct?

Are you really willing to find out what this planet can tolerate before everything we ourselves depend on will collapse around us?

How can anyone of you take the risk that the scientists are correct?

If they are wrong, nothing much we do now will harm us, other than reducing our lifestyles a little.
But if the scientists are correct only strong action now may still help all life on earth to survive.

How can anyone of you take the risk that the scientists are correct?

Specially as what you do (or not do) now will surely will decide over the future of your own offspring!

How can anyone of you take the risk that the scientists are correct?

Why not stand up against the political clowns in your governments who only think in 4 year terms and to hell with whoever will take over after that?

Why not start organising massive public protests in all major cities NOW to force these clowns to actively take unpopular measures NOW, when it still may not be too late?

How can anyone of you take the risk that the scientists are correct?

Do not refer to what others do or should do. Think about what YOU can do for all life on this planet. YOUR life. And the life of YOUR offspring. And the life of the other 6 Billion plus of YOUR species. And all the other lifeforms that allow you to exist and bring pleasure to your existence.

How can anyone of you take the risk that the scientists are correct?

Most of you seem to me like lemmings. How pathetic.

Please jump off now, so that the rest of use can take the actions that will be needed to prevent the final human-made catastrophe.

How can anyone of you take the risk that the scientists are correct?

 

Itsdb answered on 02/05/07:

Pericles,

Don't you find it the least bit ironic/hypocritical that you insist on lecturing us on Christian behavior while being so skeptical of Christianity? In spite of previous efforts by myself and others to express how pathetic it is to see how much you can make us squirm by putting us in a no-win situation you still don't get it.

It's a tactic typical of the left in holding others to standards they themselves don't measure up to. I asked this of you earlier and what was your answer?

So how do you contribute to climate change? Do you drive or ride in cars that burn fossil fuels, fly in planes, ride in boats, cook, use energy that consumes natural resources and emits pollutants, crap in a toilet?

That's right, you didn't answer, you just attacked us as selfish, greedy simpletons that neither care about the environment and the legacy we leave our heirs and lectured us again on our "Christian duty."

Most of us have acknowledged a duty to stewardship of the earth, but our primary duty is to love God and love others; For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

That is our Christian duty above all else, and yet you claim we are pathetic, "like lemmings." The problem with that ridiculous charge goes again to my opening question. It isn't that some of us are "like lemmings," we're just not the right kind of lemming, one that swallows hook, line and sinker the agenda of the greens.

And so, we're the pathetic lemmings that cling to a minority of climate change skeptics in order to preserve our selfish, greedy way of life. Meanwhile the righteous left protest how our rights are being eroded while advocating a surrender of our rights to the environmentalist gods. Now that's pathetic.

I'm not against stewardship of the earth and doing what we can to preserve a future for our children, I'm against the agenda. What's funny is in other areas you would be cheering me on for this position - I cannot in good conscience side with a movement that shuts out dissenting voices, marginalizes evidence that doesn't fit the agenda, and elevates 'mother earth' to a position superior to her inhabitants. That's what it boils down to Pericles, man is the problem.

Don't believe me? Take this quote from an article by Mike Archer that Paraclete posted:

    We need to look as well to the other ways humans are increasingly modifying the planet for their own purposes...As the Amsterdam declaration noted, the planet behaves as a single, self-regulating system, with complex interactions and feedback between its component parts.


If we listen to you, the scientific consensus, greens everywhere and this new report, what's out of balance is man - to some more than others...

    “Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.” -John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club

    “Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth’s
    community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed.” -Paul Taylor, author of Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics

    “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.” -Paul Watson, Founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard

    “[W]e have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It’s an excellent way of making the humans extinct.” -Geophilus, spokesman for Gaia Liberation Front

    “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” -John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First!


I happen to disagree.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 02/02/07 - Again : "green"


After the by me expected Houdini act of sidestepping the central focus of my "green" topic by many, I present it once again, upgraded, and cut back to the core of purely Christian aspects in this matter.

The World Climate Report" supports the view that humanity is responsible for 90% of the current warming up of the earth. My question is about the Christian aspects and consequences regarding energy use and pollution.
The report on itself may be correct or not, or only partly correct. But that is in this topic irrelevant.

What is relevant is that we simply can not take the risk that the reports are correct, and that we cause irreversible damage to our environment, endangering the lives and futures of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and all other lifeforms on this planet. That would be immoral and against the Christian stewardships duty. Note : my view is that we simply can not take and may not take the risk that the reports are correct.

Christians on this board repeatedly refer to the Genesis creation story. But that same Bible also talks about the Christian stewardship to protect this planet.

So with that mission why are Christians not massively at the forefront of worldwide pressure towards serious and urgent introduction of controls and/or solutions to reduce all causes that lead and/or may lead to the extremely problematic deterioration of our worldwide climate?

Controls to reduce overconsumption of energy and pollution in each of our own countries.
Specially in countries as the USA that prides itself of it's Christian majority.

As a Christian steward : do you look forward to be questioned during your Final Judgement of having had no real care for God's creation, and for all those lifeforms that were - accordingly to the Bible - placed under your stewardship?
What do you think will weigh more : the number of your church visits or the way you lived you life?
The number of cars you had and the holidays you made, or the quantity of good works you carried out?

I like to see comments towards the Christian aspects as outlined in this topic. Each reply that does will be rated full marks.

 

Itsdb answered on 02/03/07:

Pericles,

You stated "that humanity is responsible for 90% of the current warming." Are we responsible for 90% or is there a 90% probability we're 100% responsible? Or just how much is driven by man and how much is natural?

Yes we should be good stewards of the earth, but our primary responsibility here is to each other. Why should I be out protesting for green causes when I could be sitting with a friend at the hospital or serving in a homeless shelter?

As to the rest of your post, I object to this tactic of skeptics to put Christians between a rock and a hard place. Would that it were so simple for you to put us all in the mold you think we should be in. That ain't how I live my life.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 02/01/07 - Another HUGH lie from Peddler. WHY????

In a response to tropicalstorm, Peddler offers one of her typical HUGE lies in order to disparage more Muslims....claiming: "The Saudi Arabians own a very high percentage of the American News Media." And that is "why we are not finding out the TRUTH about Muslims". Obviously it is NOT A BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEWS BLACKOUT, TO KEEP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FINDING OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ, BUT A SAUDI PLOT!!! No data given to prove her LIE, just as she cannot provide any data for ANY of her lies.

So lets look at it: Saudi Arabia is a Sharia nation, with Wahabism it's state religon. It is opposed to the American Media claiming the 'Western press is unethical, violating aspects of Islam'.. There is no way Saudi Arabia could ever counternance OWNING any part of the "unethical" Western Media machine.

Saudia Arabia has it's own VERY EFFECTIVE news network, operating 117 TV stations, 76 radio stations and an uncountable number of newspapers, dailys and weeklies.

Finalally, Anyone interested enough can log on to WORLD PRESS REVIEW to read an interesting account of a lecture to Universities by Crown Prince Abdullah ibn Abd El-AZIZ, in which he berates the American media for it unwarented and "malicious media campaign against Saudi Arabia"!!!! So if Saudi Arabia owns a 'very high percentage of the American media' WHERE IS THE MALICIOUS CAMPAIGN AGAINST SAUDI ARABIA COMING FROM?????

Now I challenge Peddler to come up with a list of ALL the American Media outlets that she KNOWS are owned by Saudi Arabia.

If she cannot, I have no choice but to repeat she is nothing more than a bigoted, anti-Muslim LIAR and hypocrite. Unless someone can explain WHY else she would come up with such a lie.

Itsdb answered on 02/02/07:

I was unaware that Saudis owned any US media. But then perceptions of our media run the gamut, the most widely held being the mainstream US media are largely biased liberals (although that's fact).

Beyond that we have the US media isn't liberal enough, Fox News is an extension of the Bush administration, and the Saudi view that the US media is not only engaged in this "malicious cmpaign" you mention, but is "Dancing to Zionist Tune." Now that one's funny, especially considering the coverage of the conflict in Lebanon last year. But all in all I have no idea where someone would come up with the suggestion that the Saudis control most of our media except in their own minds.

As to your followup however, how exactly was it an illegal invasion? How many times did Iraq violate the terms of the ceasefire over the last 12 years of Saddam's genocidal, torturous, barbaric reign? How many times more should he have been allowed to violate those terms? Did he ever finally comply? Have the WMD's been accounted for?

All questions worthy of an answer.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 01/31/07 - Is 'biblical literalism' the cause????

Have come across a passage relevant to biblical literalism that I think needs to be read by all TRUE Christians, or followers of Jesus, or simply men and women of conscience:

"Once the literalist approach to the Gospels and the Bible has been seen for the great blunder it has been--and in some places remains today--the pernicious habit of targeting specific groups and lacerating them by quoting 'proof texts' loses all its presumed authority. Most of the atrocities committed by the Church and its more rabid followers down through the ages have been directly inspired by literalist thinking. The lies, for example, behind all the anti-Jewish bigotry and hatred that has so tragically marked the history of Christianity almost from its inception, and that culminated in the Holocaust. The Church did not kill six million Jews, obviously. But centuries of a literal reading of the Passion narratives--especially the words, in Matthew, 'His blood be upon us and upon our children'--and the anti-Jewish teaching of a continuous train of Christian theologians down to and including Martin Luther himself, made it possible for the Holocaust to occur.
Even at present, hatred toward Jews, homosexuals, Muslims, and others is still being encouraged in some quarters by extreme biblical literalists.....We will never have peace on earth as long as literalism controls religions." [Tom Harpur: Professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto]

Comments welcome. Foolish responses will be rated accordingly.

Itsdb answered on 01/31/07:

So when I catch a glimpse of that pretty young thing in my office when she wears her low-riding pants I shouldn't go cut off my hands and pluck out my eyes? Whew...

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
belle33 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 01/28/07 - Smile Time with Cowboy Boots......................

The Cowboy Boots
(Anyone who has ever dressed a child will love this one!)

Did you hear about the Texas teacher who was helping
one of her kindergarten students put on his cowboy boots?

He asked for help and she could see why.
Even with her pulling and him pushing, the little boots still
didn't want to go on. By the time they got the second boot on,
she had worked up a sweat.

She almost cried when the little boy said,
"Teacher, they're on the wrong feet." She looked, and
sure enough, they were.

It wasn't any easier pulling the boots off than it was putting them on.
She managed to keep her cool as together they worked to get the boots back on,
this time on the right feet.

He then announced, "These aren't my boots."
She bit her tongue rather than get right in his face and scream,
"Why didn't you say so?", like she wanted to.
Once again, she struggled to help him pull the ill-fitting
boots off his little feet.

No sooner had they gotten the boots off when he said,
"They're my brother's boots. My Mom made me wear 'em."

Now she didn't know if she should laugh or cry but, she
mustered up what grace and courage she had left to wrestle
the boots on his feet again.

Helping him into his coat, she asked, "Now, where are your mittens?"
He said, "I stuffed 'em in the toes of my boots."

She will be eligible for parole in three years.

Itsdb answered on 01/30/07:

Fred,

The teacher must have been from somewhere else. We Texans definitely know what boot goes on which foot. And we don't cotton to abuse of young'uns - or jokes about it. That last line needs a rewrite.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
revdauphinee asked on 01/30/07 - logging in ?

have any besides myself had troublr logging in in the last few days???Just wondering?

Itsdb answered on 01/30/07:

Not a bit Dorothy.

revdauphinee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/26/07 - ARE YOU LUCKY?



How Does Your City Rate? Complete 2007 showdown for the title of top metropolis, according to "Men's Health" @ (menshealth.com):

1. San Jose, CA

2. Honolulu, HI

3. Madison, WI

4. San Diego, CA

5. Fremont, CA

6. San Francisco, CA

7. Anchorage, AK

8. Raleigh, NC

9. Manchester, NH

10. Lincoln, NE

11. Anaheim, CA

12. Oakland, CA

13. Minneapolis, MN

14. Salt Lake City, UT

15. St. Paul, MN

16. Seattle, WA

17. Burlington, VT

18. Boise City, ID

19. Colorado Springs, CO

20. Yonkers, NY

21. Austin, TX

22. Aurora, CO

23. Washington, DC

24. Denver, CO

25. Sacramento, CA

26. Los Angeles, CA

27. Hartford, CT

28. Fargo, ND

29. Boston, MA

30. Des Moines, IA

31. Phoenix, AZ

32. Columbus, OH

33. Las Vegas, NV

34. Omaha, NE

35. Portland, OR

36. Rochester, NY

37. Grand Rapids, MI

38. Atlanta, GA

39. Albuquerque, NM

40. Durham, NC

41. Charlotte, NC

42. Arlington, TX

43. Lexington, KY

44. Billings, MT

45. Lubbock, TX

46. Wilmington, DE

47. Fort Worth, TX

48. Sioux Falls, SD

49. Bangor, ME

50. El Paso, TX

51. Cheyenne, WY

52. Indianapolis, IN

53. Norfolk, VA

54. Chicago, IL

55. Jersey City, NJ

56. Orlando, FL

57. Houston, TX

58. New York, NY

59. Fresno, CA

60. Tucson, AZ

61. Miami, FL

62. Newark, NJ

63. Spokane, WA

64. Modesto, CA

65. Riverside, CA

66. Dallas, TX

67. Jacksonville, FL

68. San Antonio, TX

69. Fort Wayne, IN

70. Milwaukee, WI

71. Providence, RI

72. Columbia, SC

73. Greensboro, NC

74. Cincinnati, OH

75. Wichita, KS

76. Bakersfield, CA

77. Kansas City, MO

78. Richmond, VA

79. Baltimore, MD

80. Montgomery, AL

81. St. Petersburg, FL

82. Philadelphia, PA

83. Jackson, MS

84. Tampa, FL

85. Baton Rouge, LA

86. Cleveland, OH

87. Nashville, TN

88. Buffalo, NY

89. Birmingham, AL

90. Pittsburgh, PA

91. Little Rock, AR

92. Oklahoma City, OK

93. Detroit, MI

94. St. Louis, MO

95. Corpus Christi, TX

96. Tulsa, OK

97. Louisville, KY

98. Toledo, OH

99. Charleston, WV

100. Memphis, TN

Do you want to say where you live ... or want to say you live near one of the above? I live 300 miles from Chicago.

HANK

Itsdb answered on 01/26/07:

My city doesn't rank, at least not with Men's Health. I live between nos. 21, 24, 39, 50, 66, 68, and 92...roughly.

And I'd sure have to know what the criteria were that landed no. 45 where it did - I'm sure I could come up with at least 100 places I'd rather live than Lubbock, Tx. (no offense Dennis).

Steve

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/26/07 - Celebrating a person's demise a Christian act ???

Ref : In the 60's .... by tropicalstorm dated 01/26/07

In this topic I did refer to the possibility of a person to plan his/her own demise in W.Europe by way of euthanasia.

Here is arcura reaction :

"Although I think that euthanasia is self abortion and therefore wrong, please let us know when you have scheduled yours.
That way many of us here can mourn your demise and also celebrate that you will no longer be here illegally.
Here is your black star for supporting abortion of a human person of any age.
"

What do you think of this reaction by someone who claims to be a Christian?
Since when is celebrating a person's demise a Christian act?

Itsdb answered on 01/26/07:

I think it was inexcusable. Should we get you two a separate room so you can just duke it out?

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/25/07 - Satan: a Biography

I just read a book review of the book "Satan: A Biography" by Henry Ansgar Kelly. It sounds terrific!
Here are some of the comments from the book review.

"In Satan, Henry Ansgar Kelly is out to right a 1,700 year old wrong. The victim? Satan. Kelly, a former Jesuit priest and the current director of medieval studies at UCLA, argues that Satan has been grossly misunderstood and maligned throughout history. In this volume, he aims to set the record straight. According to Kelly, Satan is more of a bureaucrat than a monster. Appointed by God, Satan is sent to Earth to test the faith and morality of humankind."

".....To ChriSTIANs, Satan is Lucifer, God's enemy, the fallen angel who rebelled against the Almigty and was cast out of heaven. He is the serpent of Eden who seduced Adam and Eve into sinning. But this portrayal of Satan is not biblical. RATHer, as Kelly shows, it was concocted by the early Church fathers, 'It was not until post-Biblical times that Lulcifer was associated with Satan or that Satan was thought to have been cast out of heaven before the creation of Adam and Eve, or that Satan had some connection with Adam and eve,' he writes.".....

"Satan is some sort of celestial functionary we see in the Book of Job, a creature appointed to govern the world, specifically to monitor and test human beings. In his book, Kelly discusses the origin and development of each apperance of Satan in the Bible,. He examines the Old and New Testaments including St. Paul's writings, the four Gospels and the Epistles.

"The most significant retro-fitting that has occurred in the history of Satan is the thoroughgoing re-interpretation of the Satan of the New Testament identified with the various satanic figures of the Old Testament, as a rebel against God." Kelly Writes. More than any other, this interpretion has bedeviled the history of Satan, transforming him from a merely obnoxious functionary of the Divine Government into a personification of Evil--a personification that really exists as a person."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sounds interesting, huh?

Itsdb answered on 01/26/07:

Is this Mr. Kelly's favorite song? Sounds like an interesting read.

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/25/07 - Jim Bakker

I was channel surfing this afternoon since "People's Court" is in reruns and guess who I ran into asking believers for $100.00?

He had a new wife next to him and there he was, big as life an looking older than God, conning the faithful again.

Deja vu all over again.

Itsdb answered on 01/26/07:

There is at least one pleasant difference...

Now...




















Then...

Choux... rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pete. asked on 01/25/07 - For your information.

It seems that the "new Answerway" is really trying to emulate the Christian faith...Forgiveness & rebirth!!

I have now registered my old name ( well close:) & old email address.

Misha. is retired.

Pete. is back.

Itsdb answered on 01/26/07:




Pete. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/25/07 - comments?


http://rense.com/general16/georgiaguidestones.htm

On one of the highest hilltops in Elbert County, Georgia stands a huge granite monument. Engraved in eight different languages on the four giant stones that support the common capstone are 10 Guides, or commandments. That monument is alternately referred to as The Georgia Guidestones, or the American Stonehenge. Though relatively unknown to most people, it is an important link to the Occult Hierarchy that dominates the world in which we live.

The origin of that strange monument is shrouded in mystery because no one knows the true identity of the man, or men, who commissioned its construction. All that is known for certain is that in June 1979, a well-dressed, articulate stranger visited the office of the Elberton Granite Finishing Company and announced that he wanted to build an edifice to transmit a message to mankind. He identified himself as R. C. Christian, but it soon became apparent that was not his real name. He said that he represented a group of men who wanted to offer direction to humanity, but to date, almost two decades later, no one knows who R. C. Christian really was, or the names of those he represented. Several things are apparent. The messages engraved on the Georgia Guidestones deal with four major fields: (1) Governance and the establishment of a world government, (2) Population and reproduction control, (3) The environment and man's relationship to nature, and (4) Spirituality.

In the public library in Elberton, I found a book written by the man who called himself R.C. Christian. I discovered that the monument he commissioned had been erected in recognition of Thomas Paine and the occult philosophy he espoused. Indeed, the Georgia Guidestones are used for occult ceremonies and mystic celebrations to this very day. Tragically, only one religious leader in the area had the courage to speak out against the American Stonehenge, and he has recently relocated his ministry.


THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

Limiting the population of the earth to 500 million will require the extermination of nine-tenths of the world's people. The American Stonehenge's reference to establishing a world court foreshadows the current move to create an International Criminal Court and a world government. The Guidestones' emphasis on preserving nature anticipates the environmental movement of the 1990s, and the reference to "seeking harmony with the infinite" reflects the current effort to replace Judeo-Christian beliefs with a new spirituality.

The message of the American Stonehenge also foreshadowed the current drive for Sustainable Development. Any time you hear the phrase "Sustainable Development" used, you should substitute the term "socialism" to be able to understand what is intended. Later in this syllabus you will read the full text of the Earth Charter which was compiled under the direction of Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong. In that document you will find an emphasis on the same basic issues: control of reproduction, world governance, the importance of nature and the environment, and a new spirituality. The similarity between the ideas engraved on the Georgia Guidestones and those espoused in the Earth Charter reflect the common origins of both.

Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, was recently quoted as referring to the American Stonehenge, saying:

"I want people to know about the stones ... We're headed toward a world where we might blow ourselves up and maybe the globe will not exist ... it's a nice time to reaffirm ourselves, knowing all the beautiful things that are in this country and the Georgia Stones symbolize that."

What is the true significance of the American Stonehenge, and why is its covert message important? Because it confirms the fact that there was a covert group intent on

(1) Dramatically reducing the population of the world.
(2) Promoting environmentalism.
(3) Establishing a world government.
(4) Promoting a new spirituality.

Certainly the group that commissioned the Georgia Guidestones is one of many similar groups working together toward a New World Order, a new world economic system, and a new world spirituality. Behind those groups, however, are dark spiritual forces. Without understanding the nature of those dark forces it is impossible to understand the unfolding of world events.

The fact that most Americans have never heard of the Georgia Guidestones or their message to humanity reflects the degree of control that exists today over what the American people think. We ignore that message at our peril.

Copies are available for researchers from Radio Liberty.

The Age of Reason was a book written by Thomas Paine. Its intent was to destroy the Judeo-Christian beliefs upon which our Republic was founded.

The hole that you see in the stone was drilled in the Center Stone so that the North Star could be visualized through it at any moment. This was one of several requirements stipulated by R.C.Christian for the building of the American Stonehenge and reflects his obsession with the alignment of the stars, the sun, and the moon. Occultists often worship the alignment and movement of heavenly bodies as part of their religious ceremonies

Itsdb answered on 01/25/07:

Sounds about like something Stanley Marsh would do. Marsh is our local lunatic that commissioned such works of art as...

Cadillac Ranch


The Amarillo Legs


200 or so strange signs around town


The Floating Mesa


And the rarely seen Giant Phantom Soft Pool Table. I'd give the Georgia Guidestones about as much significance. By the way, if anyone is interested here is the entry in the New Georgia Encyclopedia.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/23/07 - Hello again.

I am sorry for the double. I only hit it once but it made a double. Sorry guys!
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 01/25/07:

No problem Hope. It happens.

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tropicalstorm asked on 01/24/07 - Disclaimer:

Everything I say on this board is my belief unless otherwise stated.
Bible verses are my belief even though they have been believed by others through the centuries
What I plan on doing each day is my belief---as I may get hit by a BIG MAC truck while walking down the sidewalk



Tsapph--the chameleon

excuse me while I go fill out necessary LLC forms and
incorporate in NEVADA


Itsdb answered on 01/24/07:

Tsapph, did you know there are - and this is the truth - presently 1,130,000 hits on Google for 'incorporate in Nevada?' Good luck, I 'believe' you'll need it.

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/23/07 - This is to clear the air with some facts:

Hello Everyone,

I had taken a short break to cool down and to make sure that I did not say anything that would bring reproach. I have returned though and before I get started again to enjoy the company of all here on answerway, I wish to clear the air.


Recently, I have had some accuse me plagiarism. I wish to Quote Ansewerways rule on Plagiarism.

I quote Answerway:


1. No plagiarism.
“Experts should not simply copy text from some other source and paste it in, without attribution, as their response to a question. Reference to other sources where such information can be found (e.g., FAQs of other Answerway experts, web site addresses, or reference books) would generally be appropriate, and, within the constraints of fair use, an Expert might briefly quote (with attribution) or summarize this information in a response. It should never appear that the work of others is the original work of the Expert.”
__________________________________________________
Having quoted this rule I can honestly say before all, I have never said or made anything from the Watchtower publications or the Awake magazines, look as if it was my own writing but have always stated that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that I use these two publications as my place of information and my C/P. It has never been a secret on this board or on Askme.com.

Those ones who yelled the loudest are the ones who copy and build websites to counteract what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and my question is, where do those who downgrade or try to prove the Watchtower information wrong get their information and who gave them the right to use the Watchtower information they use??????????????????????????????

This quote is from the Watchtower magazine on it’s policies. 1994
“Most companies that prepare and sell computer programs copyright these, and they provide a license outlining how the programs can legally be used. The license usually says that the owner cannot give to others copies of the program; in fact, international copyright law makes it illegal to do so. . . . Some large firms sell computers containing preinstalled and licensed programs. However, certain computer stores do not provide licenses because the programs they preinstall are illegal copies, meaning that the purchaser violates the law in using the programs. Related to this, Christians should avoid putting onto, or downloading from, electronic bulletin boards material that is copyrighted (as are the Society’s publications) and that is being copied without legal permission from the owners.” End of quote.
_____________________________________________________
While here I have copied information on this board from the Watchtower and Awake magazines. These are publications made by the Watchtower society for public distribution. Being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, my responsibility as such is to preach by using the information in the Watchtower and Awake with the public. Many times we also write letters using the information in these magazines. These are printed for the public and therefore are not being misused by me or any other Jehovah’s Witness , for this is why these magazines are printed.

Inside the cover of the Watchtower magazine it tells the purpose of the magazine being printed. I quote the Watchtower: “ It gives comfort to all people.” Then if one takes a look at a 1994 Watchtower of Jan 1st, Notice the Watchtower tells those who are baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I quote:

This is the title : “Share Them With Others!

First, there is something that each congregation can do. The October 1952 issue of the Informant (now Our Kingdom Ministry) said: “The most effective means of distributing the magazines is from house to house and store to store. Hence the Society recommends that these avenues of magazine distribution be a regular part of Magazine Day activity.” That advice is still valid today. Congregations may schedule a regular Magazine Day, a day set aside primarily for magazine witnessing. For most congregations, specified Saturdays will no doubt be a good time. Yes, let each congregation set aside special days or evenings for magazine witnessing—from house to house, from store to store, in street work, and on magazine routes. In addition, what can you, the Kingdom publisher, do to help increase magazine distribution?”
______________________________________________________
As you can see these magazines I use to cut and paste are used for the purpose distribution by
all baptized JW’s. As a baptized JW we are given permission to use them to distribute to the public. If I choose to c/p then I can for the reason I have permission to use these magazines because I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am a full time minister with the JW’s and have every right to use these magazines to further the good news., with the permission of the Watchtower Society.


My question is this though, How can those who set up websites contradict what the literate of the Watchtower says in such detail and without permission to use such information.

Notice this web site:
http://www.plagiarism.org/research_site/e_faqs.html

I quote from the above site:

Are all published works copyrighted?

Actually, no. The Copyright Act only protects works that express original ideas or information. For example, you could borrow liberally from the following without fear of plagiarism:

Compilations of readily available information, such as the phone book

Works published by the U.S. government

Facts that are not the result of original research (such as the fact that there are fifty U.S. states, or that carrots contain Vitamin A)

Works in the public domain (provided you cite properly) “
______________________________________________________________________
The Watchtower and Awake magazines are in the public and as a Jehovah Witness I am instructed by the Watchtower society to distribute these magazines to the public making them available to the public and for that reason alone as look as the information is presented in an accurate and proper manner, it is not plagiarism.
I quote from the site on plagiarism.org:
Do I have to cite sources for every fact I use?

No. You do not have to cite sources for facts that are not the result of unique individual research. Facts that are readily available from numerous sources and generally known to the public are considered "common knowledge," and are not protected by copyright laws. You can use these facts liberally in your paper without citing authors. If you are unsure whether or not a fact is common knowledge, you should probably cite your source just to be safe.”

(The Watchtower and Awake magazine are publicly know facts, they are magazines distributed to the public and with the permission and direction of the Watchtower organization. These Magazines are “Public knowledge”, otherwise how would such ones as those who try to dispute the information in them be able to know what is in them? The fact that some on this board know so much about what the Watchtower and Awake say, that proves that these are public knowledge.)
___________________________________________________________________________
I quote this from the same website listed above:

“Deciding if Something is "Common Knowledge"
Generally speaking, you can regard something as common knowledge if you find the same information undocumented in at least five credible sources. Additionally, it might be common knowledge if you think the information you're presenting is something your readers will already know, or something that a person could easily find in general reference sources. But when in doubt, cite; if the citation turns out to be unnecessary, your teacher or editor will tell you.”

( In all fairness the Watchtower and Awake is printed for the public and is distributed to the public,, thereby making it “public knowledge” or “common knowledge.” The information printed in the Watchtower and Awake can be found in five different sources available to the public.

1) The Holy Bible
2) The information found in the dictionary
3) Current events
4) Science books and Scientific information.
5) History books and Historical information.

By the way when ever one copies and pastes something with permission to distribute this information to the public as the Watchtower of 1994 says, and when it is information that is publicly available to anyone, then it is not plagiarism, but facts. So when I do C/P it is with permission and is something of common knowledge or public knowledge. The fact that Some on the board have in their personal possession this information, or can obtain this information shows that it is not a plagiarism or it would not be available for these one to contradict the information in the Watchtower and Awake magazines, nor would they be able to set up websites with quotes that are from these magazines. If they were not public then the same people who claim I am a plagiarist are one themselves.

With all due respect I have returned to “Answerway” to defend my rights as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to state facts.

The copyright being the(Watchtower and Awake magazine printed by the Watchtower Society.)
grants to its holder/s (being Jehovah’s Witnesses that are baptized__) exclusive use of the expression of ideas in written works. Explicit permission must be obtained to reprint another's work in your text. Ideas, facts, or concepts themselves are not protected by copyright.
______________________________________________________
Also the fact that the Watchtower and Awake magazines are “Public knowledge.” They are not copyright for us as Jehovah’s Witnesses because the idea are what we believe and practice. When we become baptized Jehovah's Witnesses, the Ideas printed in the W&A become our own ideas and opioions, and way of life.We are an extention of the Watchtower Society in that we belong to it's worldwide family as a Baptized Jehovah Witness.

All information used in these magazines are taken from public information or quoted from other publications or stated as facts or current events and also from the Bible. All these publications and information are available to anyone who wants to read them.

There are some publications, CD’s and DVD’s and MP3’s that are not available to the public and are under copyright laws and these must stay private. Anything that is meant just for Jehovah’s Witnesses is copyrighted. Watchtower and awake are for the public and anything in them is copyrighted for the public. This is to keep some from taking the words that the Society prints and twisting them so as to make them mean something they were not intended to mean or to turn others away from Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Watchtower and “Awake are copyrighted to the public because they are not given permission as the JW’s have to use it and thereby they are committing plagiarism.

Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 01/24/07:

Hope,

OK, my apologies for my earlier rudeness, but you are still incorrect in my opinion.

First, this objection of yours:

    ”Those ones who yelled the loudest are the ones who copy and build websites to counteract what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and my question is, where do those who downgrade or try to prove the Watchtower information wrong get their information and who gave them the right to use the Watchtower information they use??????????????????????????????”


I have yet to come across any reputable organization of this type that fails to properly cite the source of their Watchtower quotes, as in what publication, what date and what page. They can’t expect any sense of credibility if they don’t properly attribute their sources. That’s all I’m asking of you if you use Watchtower material, tell us where it came from. What publication, what article, what date, etc., or furnish a link so we can see the source for ourselves.

Secondly, the Watchtower says to "distribute," not copy. When you "distribute" the Watchtower or Awake it is in its entirety with all copyrights listed is it not?

Also the Watchtower and Awake are not "common knowledge," they are official Watchtower publications with original work. They are not "public domain" works. It can only be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use such as a copyright. Every Watchtower publication lists a copyright does it not? I've already posted their online copyrights previously:

    Legal Notices
    Copyright

    Copyright © 2007 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved.

    Unless otherwise indicated, all documents, images, and other information contained in this Web site are the intellectual property of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

    This Web site is published and maintained by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.


Lastly, you've made a claim something that is entirely untrue.

    Having quoted this rule I can honestly say before all, I have never said or made anything from the Watchtower publications or the Awake magazines, look as if it was my own writing but have always stated that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that I use these two publications as my place of information and my C/P.


On 1/11/07 you posted the following:

    First, I know this is long and I appreciate your patience with me. I however felt it important to explain what I personally felt Armageddon is and is not according to my understanding of the Scriptures.

    I used the New King James Version of the scriptures.


You acknowledged you were a 'JW' but made no effort to state your post was taken from the Watchtower, you simply changed some words in your post and used a different version of scripture than the article. I quote you:

    Here is my understanding of the definition: The Greek Har Ma•ge•don´, taken from Hebrew and rendered “Armageddon” by many translators, means “Mountain of Megiddo,” or “Mountain of Assembly of Troops.” The Bible associates the name, not with a nuclear holocaust, but with the coming universal “war of the great day of God the Almighty.” (Rev. 16:14, 16) This name is applied specifically to “the place [Greek, to´pon; that is, condition or situation]” to which earth’s political rulers are being gathered in opposition to God. Such opposition will be shown by global action against God’s servants on earth, the visible representatives of God’s Kingdom.

    Will humans be permitted by God to ruin the earth by what some call a “thermonuclear Armageddon”?

    Psalm 96:10 (New King James Version)
    10 Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns;
    The world also is firmly established,( [Hebrew, te•vel´; the earth, as fertile and inhabited, the habitable globe.”
    It shall not be moved;
    He shall judge the peoples righteously.”

    Psalm 37:29 (New King James Version)
    29 The righteous shall inherit the land,(Word Land in Hebrew is te-vel,)” Earth And dwell in it forever. “

    Revelation 11:18 (New King James Version)
    18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
    And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
    And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
    And those who fear Your name, small and great,
    And should destroy those who destroy the earth.”


This is from the article on the entry “Armageddon” from “Reasoning From the Scriptures,” 1985/1989 p.44 on my CD:

    Definition: The Greek Har Ma·ge·don', taken from Hebrew and rendered “Armageddon” by many translators, means “Mountain of Megiddo,” or “Mountain of Assembly of Troops.” The Bible associates the name, not with a nuclear holocaust, but with the coming universal “war of the great day of God the Almighty.” (Rev. 16:14, 16) This name is applied specifically to “the place [Greek, to'pon; that is, condition or situation]” to which earth’s political rulers are being gathered in opposition to Jehovah and his Kingdom by Jesus Christ. Such opposition will be shown by global action against Jehovah’s servants on earth, the visible representatives of God’s Kingdom.

    Will humans be permitted by God to ruin the earth by what some call a “thermonuclear Armageddon”?

    Ps. 96:10: “Jehovah himself has become king. The productive land [Hebrew, te·vel' the earth, as fertile and inhabited, the habitable globe] also becomes firmly established so that it cannot be made to totter.”

    Ps. 37:29: “The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.”

    Rev. 11:18: “The nations became wrathful, and your own [Jehovah’s] wrath came, and the appointed time . . . to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”


What’s the difference? A glance says nothing but the scripture version. You made no claim that your post was copied from Watchtower material but you did claim it was ”my understanding.”

I don’t have a problem with you copying the Watchower’s or any other material; just tell us whose it was. If certain experts here can be quite determined in making sure we designate what we say is our ‘belief’ as opposed to “truth’ then I think it’s highly appropriate for every expert to cite their sources when they use another’s material. A blanket disclaimer doesn’t cut it, and I don’t care what anyone thinks or says, it’s the right thing to do.

Steve

hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/24/07 - On "proper" posting (2) ............................

Second paragraph in this series on "proper" posting.

Allow me to zoom in on "belief and intolerance" here on this particular board : the Christianity Board.


Again : NOBODY is "perfect". We ALL have moments of irritations and say things which better should be omitted and - still better - not even thought.

The name of the board is clear : Christianity Board : a board where the SUBJECT is Christianity, just as dogs and cats are the subject at the Domestic Pets Board. So everyone may post here - whatever his/her personal views - as long as it has something to do with Christianity and/or this specific board.

First a little bit on belief.

Personally I have always stated here that I will protect anyone's right to believe whatever he/she religiously BELIEVES.

I have NEVER attacked people on what they BELIEVE - if expressed as belief. Before certain people go ballistic with new pictures of horse asses and other shows of unchristian behaviour : just SHOW ME where I ever attacked anyone on what he/she openly admits as belief.
IF I ever did I will apologize for that openly, but I'm almost sure that you will not be able to find such a line - unless it is very old from the time the hear on my head was still there in full strength and quantity.

What I see almost daily happening here is posters who use whatever they BELIEVE in statements of fact.
They post lines like "It is this or that because John 3-xx states ........ .

They should of course say that "I BELIEVE it is this or that because John 3-xx states ........" .
That would be honest and true.
Real "proper" posting.

 

Now a little bit on tolerance.

I see posts aggressively attacking other views, be they by other Christians or non-Christians.

Mormons are attacked as total idiots and counterfeiters, Catholics as neurotic Mary following "Satan" worshippers, Jehova's as incompetent Watchtower copiers, all Muslims as sword slinging murderers, .... The list is too long for here for this topic.

What is it that certain people (I call most of them fundi-creo's) make themselves think that they have the one and only "truth"? They only BELIEVE that they have the one and only "truth". Why are so many so INTOLERANT of any other ideas than there own?

With religion being 100% a subjective item - there is no objective proof available to support any religious argument - everyone's religious ideas have equal validity.
Everyone's religious ideas are beliefs. And as such not automatically truths. So what makes so many believers totally intolerant towards any other ideas?

There is no basic difference between the "Satan" worshippers and any other format of religious belief.
And so why not reflect that in "proper" posting?
Show openly that you BELIEVE this or that.

Of course - just as with my post on "proper" spelling and grammar - some will state that they "have no time to post properly", or worse "no will to post properly".
But that is just a clincher and everyone knows that.

 

My conclusion.

"PROPER" posting (2a) : do not CLAIM what you BELIEVE to be the one and only TRUTH.

"PROPER" posting (2b) : do not be INTOLERANT to what others BELIEVE. What you BELIEVE yourself is just - and no more than just - YOUR TRUTH.

Serious responses to the basic message of this post are welcome.



 

Itsdb answered on 01/24/07:

Congratulations on your new position as moderator. Do you really think we needed this? It's actually covered sufficiently in the expert guidelines:

    Matters of Opinion

    Answers in some subjects (such as religion, spirituality, or philosophy) frequently involve the personal viewpoint of the Expert, often on matters where debate has existed for decades, if not centuries. In such cases, in order both to maintain civility and to provide genuinely useful (and perhaps persuasive) information to a user, it is generally helpful to explain the reasons behind the answer, specify sources or references where appropriate, and state clearly when an answer may be controversial or based purely on the Expert's own opinion.


Fair enough? I will endeavor in the future to add such provisos so as not confuse belief with fact. But speaking of fact, is it 'intolerant' to discuss known facts that may be considered 'insensitive,' such as failed Watchtower prophecies, blatantly inerrant interpretations, LDS geography and archaeology and terrorist manifestos for example? Or is it only permissible when it comes to inconsistencies in Christianity? Just curious.

Steve

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/23/07 - Doris in Hospital

My senior caregiver, Doris, is in the hospital and scheduled for surgery tomorrow to remove a large cantalope-sized fibroid tumor. She will have a hysterectomy. She's in good spirits and looks forward to having a flat stomach!....thus matching her athletic body. Her left leg had been swelling up for the past week, and the situation came to a crisis yesterday; she came to be unable to walk. After this operation, she will recover and have a whole new figure to continue her husband hunting with.

I was thinking about something Doris told me. She said her surgeon came into her room at midnight last night(delivering a baby)and she was a WOMAN...and she was AFRICAN AMERICAN. Doris(also black) was shocked at first. AND, her nurse is a MAN!

How times have changed *for the better* since I was growing up in the 50's and since Doris was growing up in southern Illinos in the 60's. There were very few female physicians back then, and now, about half of physicians are women. And, not to mention black physicians treating white people as well as black people.

I got a little teary thinking about the struggle for CIVIL RIGHTS for minorities and women and men since the late 1960's; a struggle that I was involved in.

In urban America, the whole medical landscape is different. Due to those black Christians and white Chrisitans and Secular Humanists working for a FAIR SOCIETY we now have what I would have thought impossible viewing society from the early 1960ies.

****JUST WHAT DORIS IS EXPERIENCING TODAY****

A black female surgeon practising in an upper middle class suburb being attended to by a male nurse. :)

HOW WONDERFUL!!!!
*tears*

Mary Susan




We done overcome in the medical profession. :D

***Comments from haters not welcome.

Itsdb answered on 01/23/07:

>>***Comments from haters not welcome.<<

Even if they're positive comments?

Best wishes to Doris for a speedy recovery. And yes we have come a long way.

I do wonder however why this seems to be a suprise. It doesn't matter to me what color a person is and never has. Growing up where I did in the sixties almost everyone was Hispanic. My best friends were Hispanic along with a few blacks. It was normal for ME, a white guy, to look different from everyone else.

Why don't we just quit talking about race and gender and just get along?

Steve

tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/22/07 - Ladies and Gentlemen : we've got him!

I don't know if you saw this before, but here is some indication of what the Christian President of the US of A is practising for as an alternative job, after he leaves the White House (the sooner the better).
Forget drilling for oil. Or singing in the Sunday choir. Just hit him on the nose with your mouse to find out!



It's his duty : someone has to do it!


Add-on : No Fred : I do not have to prove that !

Add-on : No TSapphire : this is funny and ought to be shown to all on this Christianity Board !

Add-on : No Gossy : you may BELIEVE anything from me. Just don't post about it !

 

;)

 

Itsdb answered on 01/22/07:

Who knew Bush had that much rhythm? He's just following a long line of politicians making remixes. I'm particularly fond of Howard Dean getting aboard Ozzy Ozbourne's Crazy Train.

Steve

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tropicalstorm rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/19/07 - About logic and proof ...........................


In the topic "Can God hate????" by "domino" dated 01/16/07 was a "Clarification/Follow-up" by "arcura" dated 01/17/07 10:13 pm: that stated :

"Pericles,

In regard to your comment to my answer please PROVED (sic) that the God I believe in is imaginary.
Your statement is made as it (sic) that (sic) was a proven fact so prove it.
If you cannot then admit that you BELIEVE He is imaginary.
"

 

This is a TYPICAL EXAMPLE of the approach by those who do not understand logic and/or logical thinking and are desperate to have some sort of argument.

The existence of someone or something should always be based on supporting evidence.

Without such support we can only talk of a CLAIM or a BELIEF, or that it is "IMAGINARY".

To claim that "something/someone is" is called a positive claim. All that has to be done to make that claim reality is supply supporting evidence to that claim. That should be relatively easy.

To claim that "something/someone is NOT" is called a negative claim. To make that negative claim reality it is necessary to supply supporting evidence to that claim.
But that is near impossible, because you would have to prove all claims towards that something or someone - whatever wild and unrealistic and in whatever quantity - as incorrect.

To prove a positive claim to be true all you have to do is find an example of that claim.

To ask from someone to prove a negative claim to be true is nonsense, totally unrealistic, and dishonest.

---

I never claimed that God exists NOR that God does not exist. I always asked people to supply me with supporting evidence for Gods existence.

For more than half a century I asked theists for that, but nobody out of that billions big pool of believers ever could provide me with one single iota of such proof.

Therefore I do not feel obliged to even consider to prove to one of these believers the negative claim : "that God does not exist".

Besides that I am not interested to prove that God does not exist (you may believe from me whatever you want), theists who can not prove themselves that God exists, should not ask anyone else to prove the negative of that claim. It's nonsensical and completely dishonest.

Any comments?

 

Itsdb answered on 01/19/07:

>>For more than half a century I asked theists for that, but nobody out of that billions big pool of believers ever could provide me with one single iota of such proof.<<

Wow, not on single iota in more than half a century. I'm sure they have but you've rejected it. I'm not surprised, there are plenty of liberals that have trolled these pages that wouldn't admit to a contradictory fact if their life depended on it, why should anyone expect a skeptic to consider evidence for God?

So nope, can't prove to you that God exists, you'll never know in this life without taking a leap of faith.

Steve

Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Rosekeeper asked on 01/17/07 - A great loss

I need to to say' I am sorry to all that answered the post below, the real reason I had posted that, was because it was my Husband that lost his fingers, his Boss, actually bragged to me about the money he gives to the Church, for the past two weeks, I couldn't believe people anymore, when I got the call about the accident, the Employer sent me to a different hospital al together, I had finally found my poor husband, although, when his Boss, had told me how he gives donations instead of paying the taxes, I was at a lost.

You had just shown me, that people are still good, and I'm not going crazy. I'm sorry for saying what the Employer told me. This has been very hard, and I wanted to go on here and find some kind of solution, but you have shown me, there is justice, there is love, there are people that care, and I am so sorry, but I am at wits end, it was my Husband that told me to go back on here, and tell the truth.
Every morning that I wake up, is just another nightmare, but everything the Employer told me is Truth.
I'm sorry. I only wanted truth, I'm happy to know there are still good people as you all are.

Itsdb answered on 01/17/07:

Rose, if that's the case then contact the labor board in your state. Your husband - and anyone else 'employed' by this man deserves justice. Oh, and get a lawyer if you haven't already.

Steve

Rosekeeper rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
Rosekeeper asked on 01/17/07 - As A Christian?

As a Methodist Christian, and as owning a company, I have at least ten men working, can I not use these men as a donation, these men are poor, and I am rich, very rich.
My question is, one man lost his finger on my property, and he is one of my donation's. (This way, I don't have to pay tax's.)
Now he wants to take me to Court, he had only worked for me for fifteen years, but what is wrong with giving out donations instead of a pay roll.
Thank you, fellow Christians.

Itsdb answered on 01/17/07:

Are you serious? Follow employment laws, pay your people and accept responsibility for what happens at your business.

Steve

Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Rosekeeper rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/17/07 - An explaination and apology for my c/p but not my beliefs.

To Whom It May Concern:
Throughout some time now, I have had to put up with attacks because I cut and paste some of my articles from the magazine called the Watchtower. I have done so due to the fact that I have Cerebral Palsy and it is hard for me to do a lot of typing most of the time. . My hands do not want to always do what I want them to. I suffer from partial paralysis See Cerebral Palsy causes movements that are involuntary muscle contractions. There are some days when it is better then others. I need special equipment to do things that a normal person takes for granted.
On the days that I do C/P some Watchtower articles it is because I can not use my hands very well. I figure many here have C/P articles from their religious beliefs and from newspapers and such, so that it would be okay for me to do the same. In the fact that I believe in what the Watchtower says because this is my religious beliefs and I agree with what the Watchtower publishes, otherwise I would not be a Jehovah Witness.
Many on here attack not really me but my religion. This is like attacking me because this is my belief and opinion on the matters presented on the board. Why then do some attack the Watchtower and not just me? If it is the cut and paste that you do not like, I understand that, and I will try to not C/P. But when giving me correction on my C/P why must you attack my religious beliefs? Do I not have the same right as all of you do, to choose and practice whatever faith I wish to?
There are those on this board seem to want me to not be a Jehovah Witness and make statements such as:

I quote:
01/16/07 Mathatmacoat
Oh did someone tell you the truth. We can all do with less JWBS in our lives.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/16/07 9:49 am:
Hope,
“You see Hope, whether you like my style or not, my responses to you are with the 'hope' you will some day 'get it' and expand your horizons. Sometimes the truth hurts Hope, and I bet most participants on this board think as I do that whatever comes out of the Watchtower is mind-numbingly dull, simplistic, patronizing, condescending and just plain wrong.
Even when you're not copying/pasting/rearranging Watchtower materials you tend to speak to us in the same manner, and I know there is more potential inside Hope than that. Let it out, Hope. Break free of the Watchtower's grip and talk to us like intelligent adults.
I don't hate Witnesses, I don't hate anyone, but I do hate an organization that takes a productive, intelligent human being and indoctrinates them to the point they don't seem to be able to speak for themselves. If I didn't respect you and recognize your potential I wouldn't say that. So come on, show us the real Hope - you'll be surprised at how liberating that is.
Steve
Itsdb 01/11/07
Hope,

I would have hoped that after all these years you might have gone beyond merely reporting the Watchtower's official word on a subject.
What exactly is the value in posing a question only to return with another virtually verbatim Watchtower answer? Do you learn anything from it, or are we all supposed to just put our answers out then submit to Watchtower doctrine?
Steve

First of all Steve I am an intelligent adult and I do have my own ideas and opinions.
This is just a few examples of those who say they respect all other religions and that they just want me to not C/P. Couldn’t these ones comment just on the C/P and not down my religion or my choice of what I believe? If anyone feels the need to correction in my cut and paste only, that is your opinion and I respect that. By all means feel free to readjust or critique my ability to type, and if you have some Ideas on what might help in my continued participation on Answerway, please share your ideas with me. I am willing to learn a new way of making comments if you guys can tell me how I can do that with my Cerebral palsy and partial paralysis in my hands. I welcome any suggestions.
I do feel though that there is a difference between not wanting C/P on the board and downing my religion. We all have a right to believe as we choose and to have our opinions on different topic about religion, however, it is the way we give our opinion that is constructive and not disrespectful of the person’s choice of religion. One can also disagree but yet not be rude about how they disagree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve: you have attacked me many times over the years and I just try to over look it, I do apologize for the C/P, I should have stated it was from the Watchtower and the Bible and from my own ideas and opinions. Not all my comments come from the Watchtower. For that II apologize,
However, I never apologize nor will I ever change what I believe, as I would never invite you to change if that is not what you want. Please show me that same respect, because I choose to be a Jehovah Witness and I will respect whatever you choose, but please do not tell me what to believe and not believe. Feel free also to give your opinion and comments about my religion but in a respectful way. I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I have stated that and apologized for not giving all those involved in my comments the credit, which I felt that everyone knew. Having had stated my condition and disabilities before and thought that everyone here knew. Oh well, I guess some forgot. I will in the future remember to give credit to myself for my ideas, which by the way are the same as what the Watchtower brings out because they quote scriptures and I even do the extra work of not using my own Bible but the New King James Version, so some won’t say that is just what the New World Translation of the scriptures say. Rather then some appreciate the effort I put into my answers to make them as accurate and comprehensive as possible, they down my religion as shown as above.
I will be happy to just leave the board, however, I have given it some thought and that would just make those who are rude to me,win. I won’t let that happen. I will comment and when some down my religion again, as they always do, please remember you are also downing me because these are my opinions and my beliefs, it just is much easier for me to cut and paste then to take the five hours this post has taken for me to type.
Thank you for reading this, and have a great day,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 01/17/07:

Hope,

Now was that really the Christian thing to do, post your personal rebuttal to me to the board instead of to me individually? Is telling the world you're better than me because ""I at least am not full of the hate and rude behavior you display" a Christian behavior? Or how about declaring of me "that you hate JW's so much" without offering a shred of evidence, is that something I should overlook? So now that you've called me out do you feel better?

I don't know how else to say this Hope, I don't care if you copy and paste something, just cite the source and don't pretend it's your own work. It has nothing to do with your being a Witness, you are not the first I've expected to be up front about what they're posting and I doubt if you'll be the last. An 'expert' doesn't post the work of another without giving credit where credit is due. You can do better.

Steve

P.S. As I've also said before some of my best friends have been Witnesses, and I get along just fine with my Witness neighbors across the street. I know how to differentiate between an organization I despise and the people in it.

timelessone rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 01/16/07 - The Good Husband

A friend just sent me this by email, thought you might like the thought?

THE GOOD HUSBAND





Jack wakes up with a huge hangover after attending his company's Christmas Party.

Jack is not normally a drinker, but the drinks didn't taste like alcohol at all. He didn't even remember how he got home from the party. As bad as he was feeling, he wondered if he did something wrong.

Jack had to force himself to open his eyes, and the first thing he sees is a couple of aspirins next to a glass of water on the side table. And, next to them, a single red rose!

Jack sits up and sees his clothing in front of him, all clean and pressed.

He looks around the room and sees that it is in perfect order, spotlessly clean. So is the rest of the house.

He takes the aspirins, cringes when he sees a huge black eye staring back at him in the bathroom mirror. Then he notices a note hanging on the corner of the mirror written in red with little hearts on it and a kiss mark from his wife in lipstick:

"Honey, breakfast is on the stove, I left early to get groceries to make you your favourite dinner tonight. I love you, darling! Love, Jillian”



He stumbles to the kitchen and sure enough, there is hot breakfast, steaming hot coffee and the morning newspaper. His son is also at the table, eating. Jack asks, "Son... what happened last night?"

"Well, you came home after 3 A.M., drunk and out of your mind. You fell over the coffee table and broke it, and then you puked in the hallway, and got that black eye when you ran into the door.

Confused, he asked his son, "So, why is everything in such perfect order and so clean? I have a rose, and breakfast is on the table waiting for me??"

His son replies, "Oh THAT! Mom dragged you to the bedroom, and when she tried to take your pants off, you screamed, "Leave me alone, I'm married!!"

Broken Coffee Table $239.99

Hot Breakfast $4.20

Two Aspirins $0.38

Saying the right thing, at the right time. - PRICELESS

Itsdb answered on 01/17/07:

Hey, that's better than the real ads. :)

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/16/07 - How to prevent multiple posting


 

Please use the following guidelines until the problems with the server software have been solved :

  1. After completing the topic test press "submit" once.

  2. If the posting preview looks ok press "submit" ONCE. The screen will wait on a reaction from the server which - till the software problem is solved - can take so much time that your browser "times out".

  3. DO NOT PRESS "SUBMIT" AGAIN.

  4. Minimize the current screen, and click on the browser icon to open a SECOND BROWSER WINDOW

  5. Go in this second window to the AW question board to check if your new topic has been accepted.
    In 99.99% of all cases it will.

  6. Close the second browser window and maximize the first browser window.

  7. DO NOT PRESS "SUBMIT" but the "PREVIOUS PAGE" arrow in the top left on your screen TWICE to return to the question board.

  8. ONLY in the 00.01% case that the topic is not displayed in the second browser window : close the second browser window and maximize the first browser window.
    Press "SUBMIT" once. Than continue to step 4 till the topic is shown in the second browser window.


Any questions or comments?

 

Itsdb answered on 01/17/07:

Yes, be patient. No need to minimize and all that, if you're using Firefox (which I highly recommend) or IE 7, just open a new tab and check the status.

Or before you click 'submit' the first time, right click on 'Question board' then click "open in new tab" or "new window" then refresh it after submitting your post in the previous tab or window.

Mostly just be patient, I haven't had a post fail to go through yet.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/16/07 - If you all want this board so bad!

Here it is, now ot's all yours. I wish you all well. I have never said harsh things to anyone and I do not wish to start now. You all, who hate me because I am a Jehovah's Witness and different then you, enjoy this board, you deserve it. Some of you guys would not know respect if it hit you in the face.

Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 01/16/07:

Hope,

A bit of an overreaction don't you think? If you can't take criticism after all these years - at least back to the days of Askme - why do you refuse to take the hints you've been given and leave yourself open for criticism?

For example, you've been warned for years that if you copy and paste Watchtower material and post it as if it's your own you're going to be called on it. Yes, most if not all of us copy and paste another's work, but most cite the source. If you can't see how deceptive it is to post a Watchtower article almost verbatim as if it's your own work after all this time then what can I say, don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you.

I don't think anyone here hates you for being a Witness or anything else, enough of this "everyone is picking on me" nonsense.

Steve

timelessone rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/16/07 - To All:

I did not click the submit botton but once. Something is wrong with Answerway. I am telling you all before you get angry and send me hate messages.
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 01/16/07:

Oops?

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
timelessone rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/16/07 - Now I am really going to get feedback on this one!

Hello Everyone,

I come to this board each and every day and all that I seem to find are many who are claiming to be good Christians and yet their actions prove otherwise. In view of this fact, I felt a good question is who do you personally feel is your neighbor?

Did not Jesus give the commandment to love God with our whole mind heart and soul? And the Second to love our neighbor as ourseleves?

Each person in this world is your neighbor. Then why do you treat those you speak with each day, with such disrespect and as if you are better then they are.

You know there once was two little children that were neighbors and lived next to each other, we will call them, Joe and Jim.
Joe was always wanting Jim to be just like him..
One day the children were playing and along came a nice lady and gave Jim a dollar bill for carrying her package.
Joe didn't get one because the nice lady didn't have any more dollars and Joe really didn't do anything deserving of a dollar.
Well, needless to say Joe became upset and soon started to wine over the fact they didn't get a dollar
like Jim did.
Jim though being a loving and caring child, offer to share what they had with Joe.
Joe was selfish and self centered and started to yell at Jim,
but Jim looked at Joe and said in a gentle voice, We could share the dollar Joe.
Joe only thinking of himself, said NO, I want it all.
Jim, took the dollar and gave it to Joe. Then Jim told Joe, let's go play!
Joe was so amazed that Jim would just give him the dollar bill that it touched his heart and he went to Joe and said, Let's share the dollar, 50/50. And off they went happy as can be.

Was Joe right, or was Jim right? or were they both right and why?
Which child had true love for his neighbor? Did one child benefit from the other childs kindness and love for his neighbor?
What can this illustration teach us on how to treat others on this board, even if they do or do not believe in God?

Take care,
Hope12



Itsdb answered on 01/16/07:

Hope,

What kind of feedback are you expecting? This is not church, it is a secular question and answer forum on the subject of Christianity - and you just touched on the same subject here.

I'd say Jim and Joe were just acting like kids, but really, aren't most of us here a little beyond 2nd grade Sunday School lessons? I said 'most,' not all.

I know, I know, I'm not being very neighborly. Look at it this way Hope, I've been trying to push you to go beyond your habit of copying/pasting Watchtower articles (with a few wording changes) and simplistic Watchtower-esque lessons to reveal the real Hope.

This is the kind of post that is typically going to do exactly what you've predicted, you're "really going to get feedback." Aren't you tired of that, or is it ingrained into your psyche that it only means you're being persecuted for your faith?

You can do better, and it wouldn't be neighborly of me if I didn't tell you that.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Mathatmacoat rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
timelessone rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
TTFNUAS rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/14/07 - My Rejoiner to domino's answer to JJDuPreee

Your..."We come to know Jesus, intellectually. We accept his message in our minds FIRST (because it makes sense)...then in our hearts...for the truth of that message is what moves hearts."

You have it backwards. The born again Christian accepts Jesus on a *totally emotional basis* in one's 'heart', and then if one grows in Christ, then, is able to understand the message of Jesus on a deeper more intellectual basis(rationally).

In addition, Christian religious belief is all emotional at the heart of the matter....the forgiveness of sins that Jesus' death provided....emotional guilt waived. There is not any rational assessment of one's responsibilities and shortcomings.

Fear is also an emotion....fear of death, the end of our personhood. Christianity promises the believer that he will never die. Thus, quelling a great(the greatest?) fear, the fear of death.

An individual's lifetime of intellectual growth and rational thought does not lead to a more rational approach to their religion, it leads to Wisdom/Enlightment. :)

Christianity is based on emotion. Belief dies when the emotional needs on which it is based are severed. :)



Itsdb answered on 01/16/07:

Choux,

>>You have it backwards. The born again Christian accepts Jesus on a *totally emotional basis*<<

Some perhaps, but as a general rule it couldn't be more wrong. So then faith cometh by hearing... It's hard to accept what you've never heard.

>>and then if one grows in Christ, then, is able to understand the message of Jesus on a deeper more intellectual basis(rationally).<<

Fair enough.

>>In addition, Christian religious belief is all emotional at the heart of the matter....the forgiveness of sins that Jesus' death provided....emotional guilt waived.<<

As opposed to what? Politics? Films? The 'news'? Environmentalism? Music? Justice?

There absolutely is an emotional appeal in Christianity, what person in their right mind wouldn't want forgiveness, a release from guilt, in short - hope? If you don't have hope what do you have? Christianity provides hope, based on an understanding of what we see as historical fact, the resurrection of Christ.

>>There is not any rational assessment of one's responsibilities and shortcomings.<<

You couldn't be more wrong. That is exactly the basis of understanding our need for a Savior, recognizing our shortcomings and failures.

>>Fear is also an emotion....fear of death, the end of our personhood. Christianity promises the believer that he will never die. Thus, quelling a great(the greatest?) fear, the fear of death.<<

Who doesn't have fear? Again, Christianity provides hope, a most basic human need.

>>An individual's lifetime of intellectual growth and rational thought does not lead to a more rational approach to their religion, it leads to Wisdom/Enlightment.<<

Ah, so the answer to all the great questions lies within you. You know all, see all, fear nothing, depend on no one. That's called ego.

>>Christianity is based on emotion. Belief dies when the emotional needs on which it is based are severed.<<

What a sad, pitiful picture of one's 'existence.' A person without emotional needs is one pathetic person - and dare I say that none exist.

Steve

Choux... rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/15/07 - IT'S A NEW YEAR!



So, let's KNOCK OFF the bashing et al and get down to business. What I've read in your clarifications this a.m. befits 'babies' in pre-school. Let's use our brains and not our tempers.

HANK

Itsdb answered on 01/15/07:

Well Hank, that went well didn't it?

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/15/07 - The resignation of Stanislaw Wielgus


 

On 13 januari 2007 the ArchBisshop of Warschau Stanislaw Wielgus resigned from his post, - only moments before the official mass that would be held for his official inauguration as ArchBisshop.
However, in his announcement he denied that he had kept his past from Pope Benedictus XVI.

Last week the nuncio in Poland declared that Wielgus had concealed from the Pope that he had worked as an informant for the communist sercret services.
Wielgus denied however to the Catholic press agency KAI that he had lied in his oath he made in December 2006 to the nuncio in Poland, who represents the Pope there.

The text of that oath was however published on the KAI website and stated :

“I swear that during the meetings and talks with the police and secret sercices in view of my overseas travels in the 70's I have never spoken against the interests of the Church nor have I done or stated anything against the interests of the members of the "Clergy of the Laity".

Nuncio Jozef Kowalczyk stated to have no reason to doubt the statement by Wielgus at that time.
But last week when the caimpaign against Wielgus reached its top he claimed that Wielgus had hidden his past as communist informant from the Pope.

ArchBisshop Kowalczyk is also under fire due to this affair. He is accused of having failed to do his homework properly.

---

Who said that (catholic) religious leaders do everything for their flock, even at the cost of their own interests?
The reality is that they are just as human as we all are.

With the exception of JJGoss - who recently claimed on this board not to be part of Homo Sapiens - we are all human, and display human weaknesses.

Anyone any comments on this?

 

Itsdb answered on 01/15/07:

Pericles,

I would say your statement that "we are all human, and display human weaknesses" is one of the most important, basic truths offered on this page. I just made reference to that on your last post.

Truth is, Christians should act different, shouldlove, shouldbe more forgiving, shouldgive, etc., and many think more highly of their virtues than is deserving. Can I hear an amen?

Me? I'm just a guy - to use a cliche you probably hate - saved by grace, finding his way in this troubled world. When I'm pushed I tend push back, I don't pretend to be better or more righteous than anyone else and I appreciate it when people accept me with my faults just as I'm expected to accept others with their faults. I think we can all get along much better that way.

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/14/07 - Disturbing developments on this board ....


 

I refer to paraclete's topic "Putting Hitler, Islam and Christianity in context?" dated 01/14/07

In that topic Choux replied that "anytime anyone mentions HITLER here on AW, I immediately press the 'escape' button and move on to a saner post. Note the "-er"."

------------------------------------------------------

The reaction to that by arcura is the subject of this post. He stated :

"Why don't you just move off this board completely? That way your tender sensibilities will not be pinched here any more."

------------------------------------------------------

Is that an acceptable reaction? Posted by a self-proclaimed Christian on a Christianity board?
To a personal non-aggressive reaction that made a very good point?

  1. Are aggression and intolerance (going to) rule this board?
  2. Is this the consequence of months of fundi-creo bombardment of this board?
  3. This happens more and more frequent here. Often by the same people.
  4. Does a Christian not at least have to show his/her Christianity in words and deeds any more?
  5. What about Christian love and Christian forgiving?
  6. Should people not apologize later for such totally and not necessary aggression and rudeness?
  7. What is the purpose of this board when Christians are posting here like that? Is this what is called "spreading the word"?
  8. We discussed this before, but once again : is this board for the flock only to "praise the Lord" and "Hallelujah", or are people allowed (and welcome) to participate in their own way, using their own brain, and forming their own opinions (all within the rules of the board of course)?

What are your views on this?
Please no Bible quotations. Just your views
.

 

Itsdb answered on 01/15/07:

Pericles:

>>Is that an acceptable reaction? Posted by a self-proclaimed Christian on a Christianity board? To a personal non-aggressive reaction that made a very good point?<<

It was not the most Christian-like response but, hey, even Christians are mere humans. Besides, I thought this was a question and answer forum on the subject of Christianity, not a place to hold court and judge the behavior of certain Christians.

It seems obvious to me that most of the skeptics and other critics on this site only want Christian behavior that fits their view of how a Christian should act, and especially when it serves their purpose. They certainly don't want Christians to call a sin a sin, share their faith, preach the gospel, defend traditional marriage, etc.

>>1. Are aggression and intolerance (going to) rule this board?<<

Too late, been there too many times already. But the least you can do is call it fairly.
Many - if not most - of Choux's posts are hostile, insulting, pretentious and yes, intolerant.

>>2. Is this the consequence of months of fundi-creo bombardment of this board?<<

Again, it takes two. "Fundi-creo bombardment" as you call it is only one aspect, each individual chooses how they respond, do they not?

>>3. This happens more and more frequent here. Often by the same people.<<

What's the question?

>>4. Does a Christian not at least have to show his/her Christianity in words and deeds any more?<<

Absolutely, but does that excuse others from extending a little grace and respect also?

>>5. What about Christian love and Christian forgiving?<<

Again, are these virtues only good for the Christian?

>>6. Should people not apologize later for such totally and not necessary aggression and rudeness?<<

Yes, "people" should.

>>7. What is the purpose of this board when Christians are posting here like that? Is this what is called "spreading the word"?<<

The purpose of this board remains a place to ask and answer questions on the subject of Christianity. No more and no less.

>>8. We discussed this before, but once again : is this board for the flock only to "praise the Lord" and "Hallelujah", or are people allowed (and welcome) to participate in their own way, using their own brain, and forming their own opinions (all within the rules of the board of course)?<<

My position has always been all are welcome "within the rules of the board of course." Certain 'experts' - such as some responding to this post - have made it a habit to go beyond those rules and have subsequently been suspended a number of times. Some have not been suspended since Answerway's inception...and they've taken a lot of crap from those who have.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jesushelper76 asked on 01/11/07 - Website Slow, Or Computer (Internet)

I would hit submit. It will not submit so I try again. What do I get but a 100 of the same question posted.

I guess it happens. Only on this site.

Joe

Itsdb answered on 01/12/07:

Well Joe, I have noticed it a bit slower but I've had no problems posting. There's no great, complicated trick to it either, no minimizing and switching windows.

Assuming you've reached the 'preview' stage, if after sending your post it seems to hang - while you can still see the preview - just click your 'back' button and click 'submit' again. It's worked 100% of the time for me and I have no multiple postings. If, however it seems to have accepted your submission and hangs on a blank screen, don't go back and submit again, be patient.

One other helpful trick is after typing your response highlight the whole thing and do a 'right-click' and 'copy.' That way if it does disappear in cyberspace you can just 'paste' the response without retyping.

Steve

Jesushelper76 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 01/11/07 - Did you know that Nostradamus predicted WWIII to happen soon?

This author says that in The Nostradamus Code
WWIII involves:
* Osama Bin Laden
* A wider conflict in Iraq leading to an attack on Iran
* The next major terrorist attack on the US
* The nuclear destruction of Rome
More information on that can be see here:
http://www.nostradamusonline.com/

I don't believe it.
Do you?

Itsdb answered on 01/12/07:

I think you can trust Nostradamus' predictions and these books about them about as much as you can trust a Watchtower prophecy.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Choux... rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jesushelper76 asked on 01/11/07 - Tattoos?

Okay, I asked this before. I will ask it again. What do you think about tattoos? Is a tattoo a sin in Gods eyes. There are many people who believe it is a sin and that your defiling Gods temples. Our bodies are not really our bodies, they are Gods temples that we should love and respect.

So what is your opinion on this? Biblical based or not. Personal opinions anybody?

Thanks

Joe

Itsdb answered on 01/12/07:

Joe,

I personally have no desire to be tattoed, though my wife is craving her second. I don't think it matters much in the scheme of things. From Romans 14:

4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

If you like it that's your business, if you don't, don't concern yourself with those who do.

Steve

Jesushelper76 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 01/11/07 - Is the Embryonic Stem Cell debate obsolete ?

Science Obviates Politics
By JAY LEFKOWITZ
January 11, 2007



The new Democratic leadership in Congress thinks it has a winning issue and possibly the votes to defy President Bush on stem cell funding. But an announcement this week by scientists at Harvard and Wake Forest universities appears to vindicate his policy and may relegate the national debate over stem cell research to a political side show.

Researchers have found that amniotic fluid is a fertile source for the kind of stem cells, called pluripotent, that can turn into several types of human cell tissue and potentially cure diseases. They already have succeeded in converting these stem cells into brain, liver, and bone cells, and even into heart cells that could grow to be replacement heart valves.

For five years, Democrats have sharply criticized the president's policy, with Democratic candidates making the issue a mainstay of their advertisements. The president has been all but blamed for the fact that millions of Americans with diseases and disabilities have not been cured. Most famously, in a speech at the last Democratic National Convention Ronald Reagan Jr. said that stem cell research "may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime" and that these cells could "cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal-cord injuries, and much more."

In order to understand the criticism of the president's stem cell policy, it is important to recall what he actually decided on August 9, 2001. At the time, federal funds had never been used to support research on embryonic stem cells. Although the president wanted to open the door to government funding for seemingly promising medical research, he objected to the fact that taxpayer dollars might be used to support or encourage the destruction of human embryos, which were believed to be the only source of embryonic stem cells. So the president struck a compromise. He allowed federal funding, but only on stem cell lines that were already in existence — as he put it, "where the life and death decision had already been made."

In early 2001, the president met with prominent scientists who told him that even a few stem cell lines would be sufficient to determine whether embryonic stem cell therapies were viable. In an interview a few weeks before the president's decision, Stanford University researcher Irving Weissman said that "a finite number would be sufficient. If we had 10-15 lines, no one would complain." Yet almost from the day the president announced his policy, the most often heard criticism has been that it does not permit sufficient stem cell research.

Initially, there may have been some credence to this argument. Throughout the latter half of 2001, only one stem cell line was available to researchers, in large part due to intellectual property issues and the reluctance of foreign institutions to make their lines accessible. But by 2003, 12 lines were available for federal funding, and today there are 22. These 22 lines have resulted in more than 700 shipments of stem cells to federally funded researchers, and the National Institutes of Health is poised to make thousands more available upon request. Moreover, given the absence of any restrictions on privately funded stem cell research, one imagines that if pharmaceutical companies believed that such therapies were indeed viable, there would be no shortage of private capital investment in the field.

At any rate, thanks to the development of new technologies and methods, many of which were developed with federal funds made available by the president's policy, there appear to be multiple sources of embryonic stem cells whose derivation does not require embryo destruction. The president's Council on Bioethics in May 2005 laid out several potential ways for harvesting embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, and all of them have since been attempted and detailed in scientific journals.

The possibility of cell re-programming also is promising. Scientists from Japan's Institute for Frontier Medical Science have shown that altering just four genetic factors was sufficient to change adult cells into pluripotent stem cells. If this technique proves successful, it will allow an ample supply of these stem cells without the ethical complications of embryo destruction.

And now the news from Harvard and Wake Forest researchers is the most promising of all. If their work stands the test of time, there will be little argument that taxpayers should be forced to underwrite what many believe is the destruction of human life. As Congress prepares to override the president's stem cell policy, and as the president prepares to use his veto pen for only the second time — the first time was also to block stem cell legislation — we should keep in mind that science sometimes can get in the way of a good political fight.

Mr. Lefkowitz served as a domestic policy adviser to President Bush between 2001 and 2003.

Itsdb answered on 01/11/07:

tom,

Is the embryonic stem cell debate obsolete? Of course not, I'm sure the gods of science and abortion will find a flaw - or make one up. How else can you explain this Newsbusters report?

Steve

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/11/07 - Pardon the length, but this is a followup:


Hello Everyone,

First, I know this is long and I appreciate your patience with me. I however felt it important to explain what I personally felt Armageddon is and is not according to my understanding of the Scriptures.
I used the New King James Version of the scriptures.
Please before commenting on this post, read it carefully and think about what it says. Please do not reply just because you know I am a JW and you do not like JW’s. After reading it carefully then please feel free to comment in a respectful and dignified manner, so as to have an intelligent discussion and not make it our private war of Answerway Armageddon. Thank you for your respect and careful consideration of my post which I carefully took my time with so as not to offend anyone.

This is a follow up to my question on “What everyone thought Armageddon was?”
Here is my understanding of the definition: The Greek Har Ma•ge•don´, taken from Hebrew and rendered “Armageddon” by many translators, means “Mountain of Megiddo,” or “Mountain of Assembly of Troops.” The Bible associates the name, not with a nuclear holocaust, but with the coming universal “war of the great day of God the Almighty.” (Rev. 16:14, 16) This name is applied specifically to “the place [Greek, to´pon; that is, condition or situation]” to which earth’s political rulers are being gathered in opposition to God. Such opposition will be shown by global action against God’s servants on earth, the visible representatives of God’s Kingdom.

Will humans be permitted by God to ruin the earth by what some call a “thermonuclear Armageddon”?

Psalm 96:10 (New King James Version)
10 Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns;
The world also is firmly established,( [Hebrew, te•vel´; the earth, as fertile and inhabited, the habitable globe.”
It shall not be moved;
He shall judge the peoples righteously.”

Psalm 37:29 (New King James Version)
29 The righteous shall inherit the land,(Word Land in Hebrew is te-vel,)” Earth And dwell in it forever. “

Revelation 11:18 (New King James Version)
18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth.”

What is Armageddon, as referred to in the Bible?
Revelation 16:14; Revelation 16:16 (New King James Version)
14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[a] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty
16 And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.[a]

Will Armageddon be fought only in the Middle East?
Rulers and armies of all nations will be assembled in opposition to God

Rev. 16:14: “14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and[a] of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.”

Revelation 19:19 (New King James Version (NKJV)
19 And I saw the beast, [human political rulership as a whole] the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.”

Who is seated on the horse? None other then Jesus Christ himself.
Jeremiah 25:33 (New King James Version)
33 “And at that day the slain of the LORD shall be from one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth. They shall not be lamented, or gathered, or buried; they shall become refuse on the ground.
Use of the name Armageddon (Har–Magedon) cannot mean that the war will be fought at a literal Mountain of Megiddo

There is no literal Mountain of Megiddo; only a mound about 70 feet (21 m) high where ruins of ancient Megiddo are found.
The kings and military forces of “the entire inhabited earth” could not fit into the literal Plain of Esdraelon, below Megiddo. The plain is triangular, only 20 miles (32 km) long and 18 miles (29 km) wide at the eastern end.—The Geography of the Bible (New York, 1957), Denis Baly, p. 148.[1]
The name is fitting because of Megiddo’s role in history; the plain below Megiddo was the site of decisive wars
There God caused the defeat of Sisera, the chief of the Canaanite army, before Judge Barak.—Judg. 5:19, 20; 4:12-24.
Thutmose III, pharaoh of Egypt, said: “The capturing of Megiddo is the capturing of a thousand towns!”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, N.J.; 1969), edited by James Pritchard, p. 237.[2]
The reference to Megiddo (meaning “Assembly of Troops”) is appropriate because Armageddon is a world situation in which the troops and other supporters of the rulers of all nations will be involved.

Who or what will be destroyed at Armageddon?
Daniel 2:44 (New King James Version)
44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

Revelation 19:17-18 (New King James Version)
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God,[a] 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free[b] and slave, both small and great.”

1 John 2:16-17 (New King James Version)
16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

Revelation 21:8 (New King James Version)
8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall

Will the destruction be forever?
Matthew 25:46 (New King James Version)
46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
(Notice it is an everlasting punishment, meaning to me that there is no other punishment, this is final.)

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (New King James Version)
8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

(Did you notice that the scripture in the NKJV uses the words “everlasting destruction?) The word destruction according to the 3results for: Destruction
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
de•struc•tion dɪˈstrʌk ʃən - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-struhk-shuh n] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of destroying: wanton destruction of a town.
2. the condition of being destroyed; demolition; annihilation.
3. a cause or means of destroying.
My understanding is that it will mean complete annihilation or a complete destruction. There is nothing left anymore to punish that is why the punishment is everlasting. There is nothing to bring back or deal with, they are or become non existent.

Will there be survivors?

Zephaniah 2:3 (New King James Version)
3 Seek the LORD, all you meek of the earth,
Who have upheld His justice.
Seek righteousness, seek humility.
It may be that you will be hidden
In the day of the Lord’s anger.

Romans 10:13 (New King James Version)
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”[a]
Psalm 37:34 (New King James Version)

34 Wait on the LORD,
And keep His way,
And He shall exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.

John 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Revelation 7:9, 10, 14. (New King James Version)
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
14 And I said to him, “Sir,[a] you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Is it possible to take a neutral position at Armageddon?

2 Thessalonians 1:8 (New King James Version)
8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 24:37-39 (New King James Version)
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Matthew 12:30 (New King James Version)
30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

Whose influence is pushing the nations to the world situation that will result in war against God?

Rev. 16:13, 14: “I saw three unclean inspired expressions that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon [Satan the Devil; Rev. 12:9] and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and perform signs, and they go forth to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty.”

MAY WE ALL GET THROUGH THIS FURY OF GOD,CALLED ARMAGEDDON. I firmly believe that we are now heading in this direction and it is just a matter of time. Not our 24 hour time but God’s time. God is a God of love, however He is also Just in that the wicked oppress the righteous and those who are peaceable.

It is just of God to protect those who are good and appreciate the blessing that are given them. Why would a just God allow the wicked to exist? What would be His purpose to allow that? Just as there is no purpose to torture these wicked ones forever and ever, there would be no reason for a loving God to do such a thing. No Armageddon will destroy those destroying the earth through, greed, dishonesty, crime and violence, hatred and injustice. Then and only then will the promise in Revelations come true.
Revelation 21:1-5 (New King James Version)
All Things Made New
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me,[b] “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please feel free to comment.
Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 01/11/07:

Hope,

I would have hoped that after all these years you might have gone beyond merely reporting the Watchtower's official word on a subject.

What exactly is the value in posing a question only to return with another virtually verbatim Watchtower answer? Do you learn anything from it, or are we all supposed to just put our answers out then submit to Watchtower doctrine?

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
timelessone rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hOPE12 asked on 01/10/07 - Armageddon:

What Is Armageddon?

Is Armageddon

? a geographic location

? a battle between nations

? a nuclear holocaust

? a global economic collapse

? a struggle between good and evil

? a Middle Eastern conflict
If not, then what do you personally Armageddon IS??????????????????

Take care,
Hope12

Itsdb answered on 01/10/07:

Armageddon is a 1998 film starring Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler trying to save the world from a killer asteroid. I'd give it maybe 2 1/2 stars out of 5.

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hOPE12 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
timelessone rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
TTFNUAS rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 01/08/07 - The Iraqi killing of Iraqis goes on and on! Why?

War's Toll on Iraqis Put at 22,950 in ག
Statistics From Health Ministry Official Show Tripling of Civilian, Police Deaths

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 8, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD, Jan. 7 -- More than 17,000 Iraqi civilians and police officers died violently in the latter half of 2006, according to Iraqi Health Ministry statistics, a sharp increase that coincided with rising sectarian strife since the February bombing of a landmark Shiite shrine.

In the first six months of last year, 5,640 Iraqi civilians and police officers were killed, but that number more than tripled to 17,310 in the latter half of the year, according to data provided by a Health Ministry official with direct knowledge of the statistics. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, said those numbers remained incomplete, suggesting the final tally of violent deaths could be higher.

Much of last year's politically motivated bloodshed unfolded in Baghdad. The Bush administration is considering sending more U.S. troops there, as the newly ascendant Democrats in Congress press for a military withdrawal. Bringing stability and rule of law to the capital is a cornerstone of the administration's strategy to exit Iraq. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced over the weekend his own security push to tame Baghdad's sectarian strife.

Last year's spike in casualties occurred despite an ambitious U.S. military operation in the capital, Together Forward, that involved thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops cordoning off some of the deadliest neighborhoods and conducting house-to-house searches.

"We have been in a reaction mode in many ways to the events that occurred because of the [February] bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, and that began a cycle of sectarian violence that we've been working very, very, very hard to keep under control," Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the former second-ranking commander in Iraq, told reporters last month.

"Now, I'm not in any way happy with what I see in Baghdad. The level of violence is way too high," he added.

The Health Ministry's full-year death toll of 22,950, although incomplete, is higher than the 13,896 violent deaths of civilians, police officers and soldiers reported Jan. 1 by Iraq's ministries of defense, health and interior. The United Nations, in a November report, estimated that more than 28,000 Iraqi civilians had died violently in the first 10 months of 2006, but that count was disputed by the government. The differences in the numbers could not be reconciled.

Iraq's death toll from violence is controversial because it provides a vivid report card on the difficulty of U.S. and Iraqi efforts to bring order to the country. Neither the U.S. government nor the military provides death totals for Iraqis.

"It is often very difficult to gain consensus on the numbers of casualties in Iraq. It really is a government of Iraq issue," said Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, a U.S. military spokesman. U.S. and Iraqi officials have discouraged Baghdad's medical officials from releasing morgue counts.

The Iraqi government does not provide a single official death toll, leaving it up to individual ministries to release data, which are often conflicting.

The Health Ministry compiles data from morgues across the nation and from government hospitals. Those figures include Iraqis killed in bombings, terrorist acts, militia attacks, roadside explosions, drive-by shootings, kidnappings and other acts of violence. They also include the numerous unidentified corpses that turn up virtually every day, often handcuffed and showing signs of torture.

The Health Ministry data are believed to be more reliable than those issued by other sources because they are based solely on death certificates. But the Health Ministry, as a policy, does not publicly release these statistics. The ministry is under the control of the Shiite religious party of Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is behind much of the sectarian killing.

The numbers are considered so sensitive that some Iraqi officials, when told of the Health Ministry data, dismissed them as exaggerated, but at the same time did not offer any other numbers. Previous reports about such body counts have drawn similar denials.

"I don't know of these numbers," said Health Ministry spokesman Qasim Yahya. "The Ministry of Health does not give out such numbers."

He referred all comments to the Interior Ministry, which he said was responsible for releasing such statistics.

Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman, said the Health Ministry was "not authorized to give out such statistics. It's a very big number. It's not close to the truth."

The Interior Ministry's figures are based primarily on data from police stations, police units and emergency patrols. Those numbers do not include the wounded who die later from their injuries, those kidnapped and later killed, armed men who die in clashes with U.S. or Iraqi forces, unidentified bodies, and other categories of deaths.

Another source of data is the United Nations, which relies on reports it culls from the Health Ministry, the Baghdad morgue and government hospitals, and releases death figures every two months. The organization does not include Iraqi police or military casualties in its reports.

The United Nations reported 28,076 violent deaths of civilians in the first 10 months of 2006, including 3,709 killed in October, according to its latest report, issued in November. At that time, Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh disputed the U.N. numbers as "inaccurate and exaggerated" because they were not based on official government reports.

"Yes, we have casualties, but not that huge number of casualties," Health Minister Ali Hussein al-Shamari said on Iraqi television. "The true number might be a quarter that, although we feel sorry for those who are dying. But they want to mislead the world about the conditions in Iraq." During a visit to Vienna that month, however, he said as many as 150,000 Iraqi civilians had died since 2003 as a result of violence. Dabbagh, who is traveling outside of Iraq, was not available for comment on Friday.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, disputed the figures, saying they probably included those who were killed in car accidents or day-to-day crimes.

The Health Ministry official made clear that the statistics counted only those who had died from political violence.

"Everyone can guess, but what is the real number? I'm not sure if anyone knows how many people are killed due to the violence and the terrorism," Rikabi said.

The Associated Press count for last year, assembled from its daily dispatches, is roughly 13,700 civilians, police and soldiers. But the news service has said that it believes its figures are substantially lower than the actual number of deaths because it lacked access to government data. Iraq Body Count, a British-based research group that reports on civilian deaths in Iraq, says the number is at most roughly 58,000 since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The group relies on deaths reported by the news media, and suggests on its Web site that its totals are an underrepresentation because "many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported." Critics have accused the group of grossly underreporting Iraqi deaths.

A study on Iraqi mortality rates published in October by the Lancet medical journal estimated that more than 600,000 Iraqis had died from violence since the invasion. That number was extrapolated from population surveys rather than a compilation of actual deaths. The U.S. and Iraqi governments, as well as Iraq Body Count, dismissed the Lancet findings as inaccurate.

The United Nations is scheduled to release death tolls for November and December within the next two weeks, an official said. According to the Health Ministry figures obtained last week, November's death toll was 3,293, while December's fell to 2,748.

In November, four family members of Abu Taha al-Adhami, a computer engineer in Baghdad, were killed, he said, and one was kidnapped and remains missing. During the first half of last year, he lost no relatives, he said.

"The violence wasn't that obvious during the first half of last year," he said. "During the second half, the violence started to grow and grow and become more severe. It's all because of the political atmosphere."

A Washington Post special correspondent in Baghdad contributed to this report.

Itsdb answered on 01/10/07:

The Iraqi killing of Iraqis goes on and on! Why?

According to the Bush haters it's all because he failed to plan and rushed to his illegal war of choice without enough troops and did not engage the Iraqis in rebuilding the country. Therefore, 655,000 Iraqis are now dead due to Bush's criminal bungling.

Of course now that Bush is taking his time to plan on sending more troops and engaging the Iraqis, the Bush haters can't understand Why it's taking so long to plan, he shouldn't send more troops, and he shouldn't waste any more money on the Iraqi people.

The best - and bravest - thing we can do to help Iraq and save Iraqi lives according to the Bush haters is cut and run, wait until the civil war is over and then "help rebuild Iraq."

Let's ignore the fact that Iran, Syria, al Qaeda and Mookie al Sadr are stirring up as much crap as they can - intentionally targeting Mosques and innocent Muslims as part of the plan and hold only Bush accountable. How stupid, hypocritical and infinitely dangerous.

And what about Darfur? Estimates range from 70,000 to 400,000, dead and as many as 2.5 million displaced. Millions killed, tortured, displaced, entire ecosystems destroyed (as in the southern marshes, decimating one of the oldest cultures in the world) by Saddam Hussein, yet many of the same groups and protesters of Bush's intervention in Iraq are demanding he send troops in to darfur because "the lives of two million people hang on" his every word and action.

What about Somalia, home of some reported 350,000 deaths? Now that we've had airstrikes I'm sure we'll be roundly criticized for interfering in this land of al Qaeda and the Islamic Courts Union.

What about the Congo and it's reported 2.5 million deaths, where UN troops have made sexual assaults a practice?

We could go on and on, but I'm a bit weary of all the hand-wringing over Iraq when the critics can't make up their minds on who's a threat, which lives are worth saving and how, and which aren't.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/10/07 - For your enjoyment

 

I know that it is 10 January 2007 today, and I realize that the following has nothing to do with Christianity, but I want to share this with your all anyway :

REALLY GREAT : The London New Year Fireworks 2007.

 

Itsdb answered on 01/10/07:

Spectacular show. I didn't have time to watch it all but I particularly enjoyed the shots from inside the London Eye at the 1:00 mark. What were those, 6 inch shells? :)

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Misha. asked on 01/08/07 - Young Earth Theory

One of the greatest dilemmas for the "young earth" view is in astronomy. We can see light from stars that took 14 billion years to get here. To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us.

We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation.

The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible

Why would "God" mislead us with the evidence?

Itsdb answered on 01/08/07:

I don't know, maybe light has been slowing down over the millenia?

Steve

Pericles rated this answer Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 01/07/07 - Is the philosophy of sex a Christian can discuss?

Christians believe that God is the author of life and therefore the author of the methods life keeps going on and on.
The bible discusses sex at some points.
The first one was God's directive to Adam and Even to populated the world.
So with that in mind I offer foe your thoughts what the following people have said about the subject.
<><><>
PHILOSOPHY OF SEX

"I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy."
--Tom Clancy

"You know "that look" women get when they want sex? Me neither."
--Steve Martin

"Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand."
--Woody Allen

"Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night."
--Rodney Dangerfield

"There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL."
--Lynn Lavner

"Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
--Matt Barry


"Sex is one of the nine reasons for reincarnation. The other eight are unimportant."
--George Burns

"Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake whole relationships."
--Sharon Stone

"My girlfriend always laughs during sex ---no matter what she's reading."
--Steve Jobs (Founder, Apple Computers)

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch."
--Jack Nicholson

" Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is."
--Barbara Bush (Former US First Lady -- and you didn't think Barbara had a sense of humor)

"Ah, yes, divorce, from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet.."
--Robin Williams

"Women complain about premenstrual syndrome, but I think of it as the only time of the month that I can be myself."
--Roseanne

"Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place."
--Billy Crystal

"According to a new survey, women say they feel more comfortable undressing in front of men than they do undressing in front of other women. They say that women are too judgmental, where, of course, men are just grateful."
--Robert De Niro

"There's a new medical crisis. Doctors are reporting that many men are having allergic reactions to latex condoms. They say they cause severe swelling. So what's the problem?"
--Dustin Hoffman

"There's very little advice in men's magazines, because men think, I know what I'm doing. Just show me somebody naked."
--Jerry Seinfeld

"Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a house."
--Rod Stewart

"See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time."
--Robin Williams

"Sex at age 90 is like trying to shoot pool with a rope."
--George Burns

Comment if you can or want to.

Itsdb answered on 01/08/07:

Now that's a change of pace from the usual. I can relate to Steve Martin.

How about an addendum:

Sex on television can't hurt you unless you fall off. ~Author Unknown

Remember, if you smoke after sex you're doing it too fast. ~Woody Allen

When a man talks dirty to a woman, it's sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $3.95 a minute. ~Author Unknown

Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love. ~Butch Hancock

No matter how much cats fight, there always seem to be plenty of kittens. ~Abraham Lincoln

Familiarity breeds contempt - and children. ~Mark Twain, Notebooks, 1935

If you use the electric vibrator near water, you will come and go at the same time. ~Louise Sammons

Men wake up aroused in the morning. We can't help it. We just wake up and we want you. And the women are thinking, "How can he want me the way I look in the morning?" It's because we can't see you. We have no blood anywhere near our optic nerve. ~Andy Rooney

Whoever called it necking was a poor judge of anatomy. ~Groucho Marx

Men reach their sexual peak at eighteen. Women reach theirs at thirty-five. Do you get the feeling that God is playing a practical joke? ~Rita Rudner

When a man goes on a date he wonders if he is going to get lucky. A woman already knows. ~Frederike Ryder

My father told me all about the birds and the bees, the liar - I went steady with a woodpecker till I was twenty-one. ~Bob Hope

When authorities warn you of the sinfulness of sex, there is an important lesson to be learned. Do not have sex with the authorities. ~Matt Groening

And just for you...

Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't! ~George Bernard Shaw

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 01/07/07 - Is Salvation a Gift or a Deal?

If salvation is a gift as these verses say then it is Salvation by grace + nothing.

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2Co 9:15 Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.


Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If salvation is grace + anything it is not a gift. It is a deal. Do this for me and I will do this for you.
If salvation can be retracted it was never a gift to start with.


Itsdb answered on 01/08/07:

Aha, we can agree on something.

Steve

peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/07/07 - Number of Believers Declining in America

Guess Who Doesn't Believe in God?

"Eleven percent of U.S. adults admit they don't believe in God. Surprisingly, while 73 percent profess a belief in God, they are riddled with doubt, not certain God actually exists. Specifically, 42 percent admit they are not "absolutely certain" there is a God, while 15 percent are only "somewhat certain." Eleven percent think there is probably no God and 16 percent aren't sure, according to this Harris Poll of 2,010 U.S. adults conducted in 2006. There is no consensus on God's gender, form or degree of control over events on earth.

Not all who describe themselves as Christian or Jewish believe in God. Indeed, only 76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Jews say they are "absolutely certain" there is a God. However, 93 percent of Christians who describe themselves as "born again" are absolutely certain there is a God.

How often do we attend religious services?
--35 percent attend once a month or more, including 26 percent of these who attend once a week or more.
--46 percent say they attend services just a few times a year or less.
--18 percent never attend.

Is God male or female?
The public is almost equally divided between those who think of God as male (36 percent) and "neither male nor female" (37 percent), with 10 percent saying "both male and female." Only one percent thinks of God as female.

Does God have a human form?
--A substantial plurality of the public (41 percent) thinks of God as "a spirit or power that can take on human form but is not inherently human."
--27 percent think of God as a "spirit or power that does not take on human form."
--Only 9 percent of adults think of God as being "like a human being with a face, body, arms, legs, eyes, etc."
How much control does God have over events on earth?
--Less than one-third of all adults (29 percent) believe that God "controls what happens on Earth, including 57 percent of born-again Christians.
--A plurality (44 percent) believes that God "observes but does not control what happens on Earth."

Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
--About half (51 percent) of all adults, including a majority of Catholics (63 percent), believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God.
--32 percent believe they do not.
--16 percent are not sure.
--Among born-again Christians, 54 percent say they do not worship the same God, while 34 percent say they do.

Are believers declining?
Three years ago, in an identical survey, 79 percent of adults said they believed in God and 66 percent said they were absolutely certain that there is a God. In this new survey, those numbers have declined to 73 percent and 58 percent respectively."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Do you think that God has a human form or is "spirit"?

Itsdb answered on 01/08/07:

You posted all that to ask "Do you think that God has a human form or is "spirit"?

I believe the bible, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

As for the poll, I think the one interesting finding is ඥ percent of Christians who describe themselves as "born again" are absolutely certain there is a God."

That's what happens when one actually has a relationship with God. It's that "I can't prove there is a God but you'll know Him when you meet Him" thing.

Steve

Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 01/05/07 - What caused the Great Pyramid?

So let me see if I understand. If you don't know the creator of a certain thing and since a creator can't be tested by the scientific method, then you have to conclude that it came into existence by the evolutionary method.

For instance, we know that Mt. Rushmore was not created through evolution because we know it was designed and created by John Gutzon Borglum. If fact, he used the power of dynamite in order to blow away the unneeded rock. I guess you could say he used the Big Bang method.

But what about the Great Pyramid, one of the ancient "Seven Wonders of the World?" No one really knows how it got there. Some people think that some Pharaoh had it made. But there is really no evidence that proves it has a creator. There are no eyewitnesses. No written documents. Therefore, if you don't know the creator then you have to use the scientific method.

So I'm left with one question that I'm hoping some caring science educator would answer for me. Was the Great Pyramid made by wind erosion or a big bang?

Unscientific method

Itsdb answered on 01/05/07:

ok Peddler, now you're embarrassing us. Surely you can do better than this.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/05/07 - THE ONLY MYSTERY THAT ISN'T FICTION:

We exist as people who are ALIVE and BREATHING. Why are we able to enjoy these mysteries? I was looking through my "Family Health and Medical Guide" last evening and studied the different illustrations of the body's organs and major systems. Mindboggling! No causes but just effects! Are we in a state of altered consciousness? Is there actually a basic need to go beyond the ordinary states of wakefulness and sleep? Creativity and growth. Who started all of this? Since denial is certainly a common response to stress, is it important that we serve up a mystery that we can't do anything about?

Questions: Could it be that we are totally out of touch with REALITY when thinking about CREATIVITY and what's handed down to us via the Bible? Is our existence an ILLUSION?

HANK

Itsdb answered on 01/05/07:

Hank,

I'm no philosopher (most will agree), but if nothing else, if our existence is only an ILLUSION then we don't have to consider the skeptics' arguments about "laws and principles we know to operate "within" the universe."

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 01/05/07 - Are the efforts of the atheist a lost cause?????????

If that is what Pericles, the atheist post here what he BELIEVES that is OK for him.

All his attempts to cause people who believe in God to change their mind will not make that belief go away.

Only 8 percent of the world's population BELIEVES as atheists do.
The atheist’s battle was lost before it begun.
Are the efforts of the atheist a lost cause, or should he continue to try to change our beliefs in God with hope that he might succeed?

Itsdb answered on 01/05/07:

Fred, I have no clue as to why so many skeptics feel such a need to attempt to shatter one's faith in God, other than to offer an explanation they would just mock anyway. Don't let 'em get to you. I was looking for an excuse to post this to perhaps give believers a boost, read it and carry on.

Calculated Contempt, Why Bible Critics Do Not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Hwood rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Pericles asked on 01/05/07 - And what about some proof of a creator?

Some ten or more standard arguments are typically bought forth by defenders of religion—arguments cast in form of logical "proofs" of the necessity of a god, or the existence of a god.

1. Prime Mover argument. [St. Thomas Aquinas]: "Motion requires a mover".
2. First Cause Argument. [Thomas Aquinas] : "All effects in the universe have causes".
3. Possibility and Necessity Argument. [Thomas Aquinas] : "In nature things exist or do not exist".
4. The Perfection/Ontological Argument. [Thomas Aquinas, first presented by St. Anselm] : "There are gradations from lesser to greater good, truth and nobility".
5. The Design/Teleological Argument. [Thomas Aquinas] : "Since bodies in nature act toward some outcome or "end", even though they lack knowledge, then some intelligent being must have provided them with "orders" for action".
6. The Miracles Argument : "The miracles of the Bible are suspensions or violations of natural law, therefore they must have been caused by a supernatural power".
7. Pascal's Wager Argument : "If we wager that God does exist and he does, then we have everything to gain and nothing to lose".
8. The Mystical Experience Argument : "I know God exists because I had a mystical experience (or conversion, or vision, etc.)"
9. Fideism, or the Credo Quia Consolans argument. Essentially, "I believe because it feels right, makes me feel good, or consoles me".
10. The Moral Argument. Human beings are capable of moral judgments, animals are not. This "moral sense" must have come from a supernatural being. That is God. This argument has a twin. "Without God there would be no morality and people would do whatever they want, and would do evil, for there would be no reason to be otherwise."


All of these "proofs" have unsupported premises, undefined or poorly defined concepts and even logical gaps. Not one carries the slightest weight. Therefore they are invalid.
Yet the defenders of religion still use them to clobber non-believers, apparently unaware that they are using blunt and broken weapons. How anyone can with a straight face present these as valid arguments is beyond me.
All of these arguments for a god have common faults, and once that fact is exposed, any further examination of the arguments is unnecessary, pointless, and a waste of time :

1. The arguments assume that logic can tell us about an entity that may not be limited by logic.
2. The arguments assume that laws and principles we know to operate "within" the universe also apply broadly even "outside" of the universe (whatever that might mean), to entities imagined to exist independently from the universe.
3. The arguments assume that we can deduce something about an entity postulated to be greater than the universe and greater than any human being, using the limited resources of our imperfect and finite minds and our limited experiences.
4. All of the arguments claim to establish the existence of a supernatural being or entity, then equate it to the traditional "god" entity, without independently defining that entity or proving it to be the same thing as "god".


The bottom line : These "proofs" of the existence of a god are pathetic attempts to justify an emotional commitment to a fantasy that is logically and scientifically impossible to prove. Once this fact is appreciated, all of these proofs of a god are seen to be totally empty of content.
We now also see these same arguments resurrected with "intelligent designer" substituted for "God". But of course that makes no difference at all.

(With my thanks to Donald Simanek)

Any comments?

 

Itsdb answered on 01/05/07:

Just one comment, that there is a God is also "logically and scientifically impossible" to disprove, in spite of some delusional efforts to do so.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Closer_To_The_Heart rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Pericles rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 01/04/07 - Psychotic Christians...

Here is the article I took my info from for the post about psychotic Christians:

"The Associated Press and AOL recently did a year end poll where they asked people to make predictions on 2007. There were some interesting findings, like the fact that there are more Americans who think that the draft will be reinstated next year (35%) than those who think we will withdraw our forces from Iraq (29%).

There are also numbers that showed how well the public is attuned to the current political and economic climate, with eighty percent predicting an increase in the minimum wage and ninety percent predicting higher gas prices.

But there is one number that stands out among the rest as absolutely unbelievable. Twenty-five percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth in 2007. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT! IN 2007!...."

Cenk Uygur, blogging about the results of the AP AOL year end poll. I said ABOUT 30%, it was exactly 25%.

Itsdb answered on 01/05/07:

Choux, since you still can't seem to furnish a link to the drivel upi post here it is. I also see you still haven't become proficient in practicing your 'expertise' in Etiquette & Manners.

With the niceties out of the way, how does a Christian believing in the return of Jesus make him/her 'psychotic?' It's no more 'psychotic' than those with delusions of grandeur like Cenk "win very, very easily" Uygur, or Hillary Clinton, who thinks she was a 'cutie.'

Steve

Choux... rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 12/26/06 - Parents of Slain GIs Travel to Iraq

Parents of Slain GIs Travel to Iraq

December 26, 2006

We're allowed to do stupid things. After her son Justin was killed serving in Iraq, a grieving Jan Johnson resolved to see the place where he died and to better understand why it happened.

Johnson and her husband, Joe, who also served in Iraq, were among a group of seven parents who lost children in the war who were picked to travel to northern Iraq in November as a scout team for a bigger trip next year.

'I wanted to go see where my son died,' she said. 'You hear in the news how bad Iraq is, that it isn't worth saving. ... I wanted to go find out for myself.'

Family members of U.S. casualties of war have made pilgrimages in the past to Vietnam and other war zones where their sons and daughters died.

But the fighting in Iraq was far from over, so a similar journey seemed unlikely until a nonprofit organization called America Moving Forward decided to organize a trip.

By the time plans had been made, Joe had returned from an eight-month tour in Iraq and was willing to return for his wife's sake.

The trip cost between $5,000 and $7,000 per person, but donations came pouring in from across the country, including checks from soldiers. The seven were told to keep their travel plans hidden from the Department of Defense and even their own children.

Robert Dixon, the organization's director, said that because the Kurdistan Regional Government was hosting the group, there was no reason to clue the Defense Department in on their travels. He told them to keep tightlipped because 'we didn't want to endanger anybody by telling people.'

The department did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

The Johnsons abided by Dixon's requirement, telling their two children and other family members they were going to Canada.

The group left in early November for Amman, Jordan, where they spent a day before arriving in Iraq. A few shell-shocked security guards staying at a hotel begged Joe Johnson to rethink their trip into a war zone.

But Jan was determined to press on: 'We've gone this far,' she said. 'We're going to go all the way.'

The next morning, a plane flew the families into Arbil, the capital of the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. It's one of the safest areas of the country, where suicide bombers rarely strike and the insurgency has little support among the Kurds, a minority long oppressed under Saddam Hussein's rule.

The Johnsons were never able to go to Sadr City, the rough-and-tumble Baghdad neighborhood where Justin Johnson was killed by a roadside bomb in April 2004.

Far from the strife of Baghdad and other violent regions, the group's members said they nevertheless found a cause worth fighting for in Arbil.

There, they said, their sons were treated as liberators and the parents welcomed as heroes.

As guests of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the parents visited a parade of politicians and government ministers who thanked them for their visit _ and their sacrifice.

Many told the families their sons were martyrs, a term that at first seemed offensive to some.

'Until I understood the meaning of what a martyr was, it was kind of a slap in the face,' Jan said. 'But they weren't comparing them to suicide bombers. I realized they were comparing them to heroes.'

They traveled to outlying villages and were invited to sip tea with Kurdish dignitaries. One told them of his painstaking efforts to find mass graves and evidence of Iraqi abuse. Another took them on a tour of a prison camp that was transformed into a rose garden after Hussein's grip on the region waned.

Wherever they traveled, fellow mother Debra Argel Bastian of Lompoc, Calif., handed out wallet-sized photos of her son, Derek Argel, who was killed in a May 2005 plane crash near the Iranian border.

One mother tucked the photo into a framed picture of her two sons and husband, who had also been killed during Saddam's rule. 'Now your son is my son,' the woman told Bastian.

She broke down crying.

'I needed to make that trip,' said Bastian, who traveled with her husband, Todd. 'All of us were very, very disappointed in the media coverage over the war. I had so many avenues that were telling me different, that there were good things happening in Iraq, that they were just reporting the bomb of the day.'

Jan Johnson said she was touched by an unexpected meeting with a soldier who was part of the team that tried to rescue her son. 'It brought Justin closer to me,' she said.

The group returned home 10 days later, in time for some to attend Veterans Day parades.

Jan says she hopes to help lead another trip, possibly to Baghdad, with a larger contingent of families.
_____________________________________________________

I am not happy about the war in Iraq and it hurts to read about our service members getting hurt and killed. But I have to agree with these parents that the media tends to only show the "bad" side of any news they give.

May the New Year bring peace, love and kindness into a world so filled with hate.

MaggieB

Itsdb answered on 12/27/06:

Thanks for posting this Maggie. As ugly as the war has been there is still a noble cause, and not enough of the positive has been reported.

>>the group's members said they nevertheless found a cause worth fighting for in Arbil.<<

Like people. Unfortunately to some on the left the Iraqi people are not worth fighting for.

Steve

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 12/26/06 - Has the Government Declared War on God?

Congressional Report Exposes Federal Officials' Contempt for Free Speech of Scientists Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution
Congress's recent report documenting the harassment of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian reveals a shameful lack of respect for the free speech rights of scientists skeptical of Darwinian evolution on the part of federal officials. It is important to emphasize that pro-Darwin officials at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) tried to punish Dr. Sternberg for his activities outside of the museum.

The Smithsonian conceded that Dr. Sternberg had fulfilled all of his obligations as a Research Associate, and that his editorship of a biology journal that published a pro-ID peer-reviewed article was outside of its authority to supervise. Hence, efforts to punish and harass him for allowing publication of the pro-ID article clearly violated his free speech rights as a citizen. As a tax-funded entity, the Smithsonian has no right to punish its scientists for their speech-related activities outside of the Smithsonian. Yet that is precisely what happened in the case of Dr. Sternberg.

But that's not all. The congressional investigative report also reveals clear evidence that Smithsonian officials have allowed pro-Darwin scientists at the NMNH to impose a virtual blacklist on scientists who express skepticism of Neo-Darwinism, no matter how sterling their credentials or research. According to congressional investigators:

Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials. As a taxpayer-funded institution, such blatant discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals based on their outside activities raises serious free speech and civil rights concerns. Some NMNH officials apparently believe that they have the right to use their official positions to punish scientists who in their outside activities express skepticism toward Darwinian theory. The unwillingness of top Smithsonian officials to take proactive measures to correct this discriminatory environment is shameful. Imagine a parallel situation in which government officials expressed their intent to prohibit the appointment of anyone who is found to have participated (on their own time) in a gay or lesbian group, or in an abortion-rights group. Action to stop such an expression of discriminatory intent would be swift and certain. But in the present case, Smithsonian officials seem indifferent to ensuring that NMNH comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution, Title V civil service law, and the Smithsonians own antidiscrimination policy.

Everyone concerned about free speech rights of government scientists--even those who oppose intelligent design--should consider whether they really want government officials to have the power to blacklist scientists simply because outside the government they express skepticism toward Neo-Darwinism.

The full section of the congressional report dealing with the violation of Dr. Sternberg's free speech rights is reprinted below:

2. EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SCIENTISTS BASED ON THEIR OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES REGARDING EVOLUTION
In the emails exchanged during August and September of 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.

In a series of emails on August 30, Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Sues discussed the Smithsonians procedures for hiring and firing a Research Associate and how Dr. Sternberg was approved for his RA position. Sues lamented that The Sternberg situation could not have been prevented by senior management because his CV looks credible and does not reveal his interactions with the creationist movement. Dr. Sues seemed to be suggesting that if Sternbergs supposed interactions with the creationist movement were known, he would not have been approved as an RA, and the situation would have been prevented.

Dr. Ferraris comments also suggested a very real bias in the selection process: I wonder, however, if we might consider a more open process of vetting nominees? For example, while a post doc here Sternberg was listed in an advertisement in the NY Times as a scientist at the Smithsonian Institution who did not believe in evolution. I saw that page and certainly would have spoken up had I known he was a prospective research associate. Ferrari seemed to be suggesting that questioning evolution would disqualify a candidate for a position.

Similarly, in an email on September 9, Dr. Sues blamed the scientist who nominated Sternberg as a Research Associate for not adequately investigating his background. Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would have exposed these connections. The clear implication was that had a background check been conducted on Sternbergs non-governmental activities, he would have been barred from being a Research Associate.

Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials. As a taxpayer-funded institution, such blatant discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals based on their outside activities raises serious free speech and civil rights concerns. Some NMNH officials apparently believe that they have the right to use their official positions to punish scientists who in their outside activities express skepticism toward Darwinian theory. The unwillingness of top Smithsonian officials to take proactive measures to correct this discriminatory environment is shameful. Imagine a parallel situation in which government officials expressed their intent to prohibit the appointment of anyone who is found to have participated (on their own time) in a gay or lesbian group, or in an abortion-rights group. Action to stop such an expression of discriminatory intent would be swift and certain. But in the present case, Smithsonian officials seem indifferent to ensuring that NMNH comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution, Title V civil service law, and the Smithsonians own antidiscrimination policy.

Thought Police

Itsdb answered on 12/26/06:

No, I think it more accurately reflects consensual science as opposed to real science. Consensual science dictates that those scientists who challenge the consensus, particularly in the areas of evolution and climate change, be marginalized and mocked.

Steve

peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
madddawg asked on 12/26/06 - Vicar of Christ

Is the term Vicar of Christ really the Latin equivilent of the Greek word antichristos?

Dave Hunt implies that it is:
"The Latin equilivalent of the Greek "Anti" is "vicarious", from which comes "vicar." Thus the "vicar of Christ" literally means Antichrist. Although the Roman Catholic popes have called themselves vicar of Christ for centuries, they were not the first to do so, but inherited that title from Constantine. His future counterpart, the coming world ruler over the the revived Roman Empire, will be The Antichrist." A Woman Rides the Beast, page 45.

Itsdb answered on 12/26/06:

Sorry, but this is more than a stretch. The same word may be used in Latin, but in Greek it specifically means against.

Steve

madddawg rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 12/25/06 - I LOVE SANTA CLAUS

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

I Love Santa Claus
by Cenk Uygur, Blogger



"I like the commercial Christmas we now practice in this country. You know why? Because I'm an American. I love Santa. And Christmas trees, and lights, and presents and everything that makes you feel warm inside. Because I'm an American.

I was born Muslim. Nearly all my family is Muslim and people I love dearly are Muslim.
I support and defend fellow Muslims. But I've got issues with Islam as a religion -- as I do with all of the major religions. And I'm not particularly fond of its culture, either.

Before you jump all over me for being politically incorrect and betraying my people, you should know that I was circumcised at the age of six. I still remember it, not fondly. You go through that and then you can criticize my views on Islam.

When you go to mosque, people take their shoes off and pray on the ground. This was originally meant as an act of cleanliness. It didn't work out that way. You smell a thousand Muslim feet as you bow down to the ground, and then we'll talk. Benches are the best Christian invention ever.

Did I mention I love Santa? Did you know that the original Saint Nicholas is from modern day Turkey? Coca Cola made up all that stuff about the North Pole. Actually it was an American poet in the late 1860's who made up Santa's residence, but Coke commercialized it. And that's what made it magical - and universal.

It turns out there were also no elves or polar bears that drink Coke. But you have to admit, those polar bears sure do look cute.

There are no cute polar bears in Islam. I was introduced to a cute little lamb after my circumcision. Just as I got used to it, it was sacrificed in my honor. You wonder why I prefer Christmas presents.

I am not a self-hater. I am proud of being a Turkish-American, as evidenced by the Santa Claus is from Turkey story. In fact, growing up with my dad I can tell you exactly how everyone is secretly Turkish, including Abraham Lincoln and Elvis Presley. I'm not kidding. I don't believe it either, but my dad found an American professor who does.

Another thing I don't believe - Islam. After studying all the major religions in college, I came to realize that they are all absolutely ridiculous.

According to the Old Testament, God will punish you to eternal damnation if you eat shrimp. Once again, I'm not kidding. This is less likely to be true than Elvis being Turkish. Yet, the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The Old Testament also says you can - no, you must - kill your child if he or she makes the mistake of cursing you. That kind of cruelty makes my circumcision story look like a walk in the park. I'm not for that God. I'm for Santa. You see, I'm an American.

I am amused when Christians say Islam is violent. Yeah, I didn't notice the Crusades, the Inquisition, two World Wars, the Holocaust, the genocide of the Native Americans or slavery either. All of that makes taking your shoes off in mosque seem relatively benign.

On the other hand, who thought bringing the suicide bomber back into fashion was a good idea? I recently heard Salman Rushdie tell the story of Islamic scholars debating whether the line about 72 virgins waiting in paradise for martyrs was a mistake. It turns out the Koran might mean 72 raisins instead. Rushdie asked the crowd to imagine the look on Mohammed Atta's face when Allah lets him in on that small misunderstanding.

Why would anyone need 72 virgins in heaven anyway when you could have 72 strippers in Vegas? Did I mention I'm an American?

This is the greatest country on earth. Not because we do senseless invasions of countries that did not attack us. Not because we believe a man was tortured and executed two thousand years ago for our sins - by the way, that is a profoundly weird idea if you have not been brought up to believe it. Not even because we have the greatest military ever built or that God loves us more.

America is the greatest country on earth because we invented Santa Claus. Yes, he might have been born in Turkey but he would have died in obscurity in a dusty, backwater town if it weren't for the genius of American marketers. Capitalism, baby. You can't beat it.

Just ask the Vietnamese. They resisted tons of our bombs and weaponry, but they were no match for Levi's and McDonald's.

You know why I love Santa? Because he doesn't hate anybody, he doesn't start any wars and he doesn't discriminate. He just does presents.

A lot of people don't know this, but Santa isn't Christian, either. As a little boy growing up in Turkey, we waited until New Year's Eve for Santa to come and give us our presents. Since he is a marketing invention in no way related to the religion of Christianity, we felt perfectly free to love him, too. Besides he does presents.

I love Christians who pretend that Christmas has anything to do with their religion. Really? Did Jesus come down the chimney before he was crucified? What part of the Bible has the reindeers in it? Was Rudolph from Bethlehem? Is it Blitzen of Nazareth?

The Christmas tree is an old pagan tradition from Germanic lands. Jesus was born nowhere near December 25th according to the Bible. The holiday is celebrated near the winter solstice to placate the pagans of Europe who would adopt Christianity if they didn't lose their fun traditions, like Christmas and Easter. Speaking of which, where is that cute little bunny in the Bible? Oh yeah, he's not there, either.

I love the America that built, or I should say enhanced and sold, this great tradition of Christmas. I love the America that is open and kind. I love the America that gives presents.

I love the America that built the United Nations. And the America that carried out the most magnanimous act since Saladin gave King Richard his horse back - the Marshall Plan. The America that rebuilt its worst enemies into its best allies. That's a country that is a brilliant and shining example to the world.

It turns my stomach to think of an America that now defends Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, spying on Americans without warrants, pre-emptive strikes, secret detentions and secret trials. They're defiling the America I know and love. Somebody bring back Santa.

America isn't the greatest country on earth because we are a Christian nation. We are the greatest because we were the first country to make sure we didn't base our nation on religion and ancient hatreds. We based it on reason, liberty and capitalism. And that brought us Santa and the Christmas we all know and love now. The commercial Christmas, the capitalist Christmas, the Christmas that makes you feel warm inside.

I love Santa. I am an American".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Itsdb answered on 12/26/06:

Cute, clever, sounds like something Michael Moore might have come up with. So Christ has nothing to do with Christmas, eh? Let's just rename it Clausmas then. Would be a prefect answer to this war on Christmas thing, those who want to celebrate Christmas can and those who want to live in fantasyland can do so as well.

Steve

Choux... rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/21/06 - Any Christians here????

In the past two weeks, the self proclaimed Christian 'freak' Jesse James Dupree (a drunk and purveyor of filth) has perverted the rating system by multiple rating Toms777s answers with multiple five star ratings, twice...and now rates Istbs response EIGHTEEN TIMES. Toms777 has YET to 'admonish' his "brother in Christ", being too intent on denigrating Catholics. Are there any Christians on this board willing to take this idiot to task????? Or is it only the non-Christians who put any stock in the words of Jesus?????

Itsdb answered on 12/22/06:

At...er, domino, are you asking us to parade our Christianity around on this board? Is that what we're good for, stepping up for what matters to you? Anyway, you already know my answer if you've checked your followups.

I haven't spent much time on this board as it's been rather dreadful, so forgive me for not knowing what JJD's been up to. But I must ask, does he just like to follow you around? :)

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 12/22/06 - Is this a profit deal?

St. Juan Diego Specialty Page

The Story of Juan Diego
On December 9, 1531, a native Mexican named Juan Diego rose before dawn to walk 15 miles to daily Mass in what is now Mexico City. Juan lived a simple life as a weaver, farmer, and laborer. That morning, as Juan passed Tepeyac Hill, he heard music and saw a glowing cloud encircled by a rainbow. A woman's voice called him to the top of the hill. There he saw a beautiful young woman dressed like an Aztec princess. She said she was the Virgin Mary and asked Juan to tell the bishop to build a church on that site. She said, "I eagerly desire that a church be built on this site, so that in it I can be present and give my love, compassion, help, and defense, for I am your most devoted mother... to hear your laments and to remedy all your miseries, pains, and sufferings."

The bishop was kind but skeptical. He asked Juan to bring proof of the Lady's identity. Before Juan could go back to the Lady, he found out his uncle was dying. Hurrying to get a priest, Juan missed his meeting with the Lady. The Lady, however, met him on his path and told him that his uncle had been cured.

She then told Juan to climb to the top of the hill where they first met. Juan was shocked to find flowers growing in the frozen soil. He gathered them in his cloak and took them at once to the bishop.

Juan told the bishop what had happened and opened his cloak. The flowers that fell to the ground were Castilian roses (which were not grown in Mexico). But the bishop's eyes were on the glowing image of the Lady imprinted inside Juan's cloak.

Soon after, a church was built on the site where our Lady appeared, and thousands converted to Christianity. Our Lady of Guadalupe was declared the patroness of the Americas. Juan Diego was canonized July 31, 2002.



St. Juan Diego
16" x 20"
Linen Print set in an Antique Gold Wood Frame with a Linen Liner.
Exclusively from the Studios of Cromo NB (Milano Italy).
Reproduced from the Original of the World Famous Simeone.
Copyright Cromo NB Milan Italy.
Please allow 3 - 4 weeks for delivery.
Price: $55.00 Shipping: $15.00
Add to Cart







Saint Juan Diego Patron Saint Medal
15/16" in height

Available in Sterling Silver, Gold Filled and 14Kt. Gold.
Sterling Silver $30.00. Comes with 24" Stainless Steel Chain.
Gold Filled $54.00. Comes with 24" Gold Filled Chain.
14Kt. Gold $325.00. Chain not included.
Click here for 14 Kt. Gold Chains.


To purchase a medal, click here.







Click on picture for larger view
Statue
St. Juan Diego & Our Lady of Guadalupe
8" Resin Statue on Wood Base
Price: $30.00 Shipping: $9.00
Add to Cart


Also available in 12" size for $40.00 Add to Cart





St. Juan Diego Statue
Resin Statue on Wood Base
To view close-up of cloak, click here
Price: $20.00 Shipping: $7.00
Add to Cart






Video
Juan Diego: Messenger of Guadalupe
This new video release narrates how Our Lady appeared to this Aztec Indian on the Tepeyac Hill in Mexico. A miracle happened when Juan Diego had to prove to the bishop that the Virgin Mary had requested that he tell the bishop to build a church in her honor. 30 min.
Price: $14.99 Shipping: $4.00 Code: 14011
Add to Cart





For Our Lady of Guadalupe Specialty Items, click here.



Personally I am a fan of Juan Valdez. The only Columbian who still picks coffee beans instead of Coca.

Itsdb answered on 12/22/06:

I won't comment on Juan Diego, but in this case it is a for profit deal, but shame on you for not citing your sources. If you feel a need to chastise the owners of discountcatholicstore.com, you should probably chastise the owners of this place as well.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 12/21/06 - Why do Catholics Pray to Walls?




Bizarre is all I can say.

Itsdb answered on 12/22/06:

Peddler, I don't know what your fascination with Catholics is, and I don't understand this sort of thing either other than people long for a sign from God. In fact, many, many people are desperate for God, so what's the point in mocking them? Discuss the issues by all means, ask questions, make your points, but you do no service to God or Christianity by mocking and purposefully agitating others.

Steve

Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 12/21/06 - Do Catholics Receive the Blessings of the Holy Toast?

This is for Tiff for his daily laugh.



'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000
A decade-old toasted cheese sandwich said to bear an image of the Virgin Mary has sold on the eBay auction website for $28,000.
An internet casino confirmed it had purchased the sandwich, saying it had become a "part of pop culture".

Goldenpalace.com says it will take the sandwich on world tour before selling it and donating the money to charity.

Diane Duyser, from Florida, says the sandwich has never gone mouldy since she made it 10 years ago.

By the time the sandwich auction closed on Monday the sale had received over 1.7 million hits on the auction site.

'Mystical power'

"We will definitely use the sandwich to raise money for charity, and we hope it will raise people's spirits as well," said Richard Rowe, the casino's CEO.

"With the... thousands of search engine queries, it is obvious that this is something people want to know more about... and Golden Palace will help spread the word.

"We believe that everyone should be able to see it and learn of its mystical power for themselves."

Last week, Mrs Duyser told reporters the sandwich had brought her luck - including winnings of $70,000 at a casino near her Florida home.


I went to take a bite out of it, and then I saw this lady looking back at me. I hollered for [my husband]. It scared me at first
Diane Duyser

Mrs Duyser says she noticed the image burned into her sandwich as she was about to tuck into it in autumn 1994.

"I went to take a bite out of it, and then I saw this lady looking back at me," she said, according to the Chicago Tribune newspaper.

"I hollered for him," she said, gesturing to her husband, Greg. "It scared me at first."

She says she has done nothing to preserve the sandwich except keeping it in a plastic box, but "it doesn't fall apart or crumble or anything".

Nevertheless, before auctioning her sandwich Mrs Duyser cautioned buyers that it was "not intended for consumption".

The item has inspired sellers to place dozens of spin-off items on the online auction site, including attempts at replica burnt toast, T-shirts, ornamental plates, and domain names.

One seller is even offering a "Virgin Mary" sandwich toaster - though the item description includes the caveat that the item "may or may not reproduce the Virgin Mary image".


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm

Published: 2004/11/23 11:54:47 GMT

BBC MMVI

Itsdb answered on 12/22/06:

Poor joke, but since it's out there I have to say the image looks more like Ingrid Bergman to me...

peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/20/06 - What happened to them?

Of all the myths and legengs surrounding the death and alleged resurrection of Christ, one of the strangest is penned by Matthew 27:51, giving an account on what happened at the Crucifixion:

"An behold, the curtain of the temple was torn, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, AND MANY BODIES OF THE SAINTS WHO HAD FALLEN ASLEEP WERE RAISED, and coming out of their tombs AFTER his resurrection they went into the city and were seen by many."

Now, for the moment ignoring the fact that not one word of these prodigious signs was noted by anyone outside of the bible, and are reported ONLY by Matthew, It is difficult to see how the bodies of the resurrected dead could have arisen at the TIME OF CHRIST's DEATH, on the eve of the Sabbath, but have been content to lay in their tombs, twiddling their thumbs (if they had any thumbs left) and only emerge AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, the day AFTER the Sabbath.

Was this Matthew's attempt to keep holy the Sabbath, and not incur the wrath of the Jews???

Why is there no mention ANYWHERE of anyone having seen the resurrected sainted dead??? Why was not half of Jerusalem either, terrified to death, or converted at seeing the dead strolling the streets??

And what happened to them subsequently??? Were they forced to DIE all over again??? Were they taken to heaven with Christ??? Or are they still roaming the back alleys of Jerusalem???

Itsdb answered on 12/21/06:

I have no idea, perhaps they're still roaming the back alleys of Jerusalem looking for their thumbs?

>>AND MANY BODIES OF THE SAINTS WHO HAD FALLEN ASLEEP WERE RAISED, and coming out of their tombs AFTER his resurrection<<

I know what it appears to say but let's say you take that comma out of there it sounds like one event. They were raised and coming out of their tombs after his resurrection. I don't even see that the comma should necessarily change that meaning.

Did it happen? Who can offer any definitive proof? But it wasn't the only story of resurrections after this event, just ask Binny Hinn. :)

Steve

domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/20/06 - Did he or didn't he???

Why can't the Evangelists seem to get it together???
Except for the fact that none of them were eye-witnesses to Jesus, that is. They can't seem to agree on when Jesus Ascended, in one day, or after 40 days??? Did he appear to Peter first, after the Resurrection, or to Mary of Magdala??? Did he......did he....did he.....

But for this posting, one serious ommission is considered:

Matthew, in chapter 12:38ff, relates the following:

"Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, 'Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you'. He said to them in reply, 'an evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the Prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."

But Mark 8:11ff, in reporting the same Scenario writes: "The Pharisees came and began to argue with him (Jesus), seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generataion'. And he left them, and getting into the boat again he departed to the other side."

Who are we supposed to believe, and why???? Either Jesus gave a sign or he did not! With something as earth-shattering as his prophecy of his own death and resurrection, you would think that EYE WITNESSES could get the story right. So either the Evangelists were NOT eye witnesses, or one of them was mistaken. How can mistakes occur in a divinely inspired, inerrant book???

Or...was it because Mark, the FIRST gospel written, was written before the myths and legends surrounding Jesus death and resurrection were formulated?

Itsdb answered on 12/21/06:

>>Either Jesus gave a sign or he did not!<<

In the parallel passage to Mark 8 which is Matthew 16, he had just fed 4,000-plus people with a few loaves of bread and fishes. I'd say that was a sign. Both Matthew and Mark recorded a number of signs, but why should he accede to the demands of the scribes and Pharisees in particular to show them a specific sign?

I'm unsure how Mark's failure to include "except the sign of Jonah" makes a critical difference, let alone being a mistake, but I'm sure you'll tell me. :)

Steve

domino rated this answer Average Answer
JesseJamesDupree rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/19/06 - What was there to subdue?

Yahweh is said to have created a PERFECT world for Adam and Eve, yet he instructs them, in Genesis to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'!!! What could there be in the PERFECT earth that they had to subdue????

Itsdb answered on 12/20/06:

In this case I believe it means exactly what it says, "subdue" the earth and "have dominion." You do know of course that "subdue" does not necessarily mean put it in a choke hold and force it into submission. I think the general idea here is God put man in charge of the earth and all that's in it.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/19/06 - God or man?

Christians have been trying, for years, to blame man for creating the evil in this world, primarily poor Eve. So how do Christians deal with what they claim are God's inerrant inspired words in Isaiah 45:6-7..."I am the Lord and there is none other. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I am the Lord, that doeth all these things." [Masoretic text] Could it be any plainer???

Does this not explain those passages where cause 'an evil spirit' to come on his followers, or causes Pharoah to forbid the Hebrews from leaving Egypt, or causes David to sin by numbering the Israelites?

Itsdb answered on 12/20/06:

Now this is an easy one.

I form the light, and create darkness

A parallel, no? Darkness is the antithesis of light.

I make peace and create evil

Another parallel, correct? The first is peace (shalom). Nowhere does scripture translate shalom as moral goodness, or if it does perhaps you could point it out for us. Why then would you expect the parallel, the antithesis of a word that does not indicate moral goodness, to indicate moral evil? It doesn't, it would more closely indicate adversity.

Now if you want to argue about why God would create adversity then by all means do so.

Steve

domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/19/06 - A priestly plot???

In his brilliant book, "The Bible, the Quran and Science", Maurice Bucaille offers a reason for the 'six-day creation myth':

"It is quite clear that the 'rest' that God is said to have taken after his six days work is a legend. There is nevertheless an explanation for this. We must bear in mind that the description of the creation examined here is taken from the so-called Sacerdotal version, written by priest and scribes who were the spiritual successors of Ezekiel, the prophet of the exile to Babylon, writing in the Sixth Century b.c.e.. Whereas the Yahvist text of the creation, written several centuries BEFORE the Sacerdotal text, makes no mention of God's Sabbath, taken after the fatigue of a week's labor, the authors of the Sacerdotal text bring it into their description. They divide the latter into separate days, with the very precise indication of the days of the week. They build it around the Sabbatic day of rest which they HAVE TO JUSTIFY to the faithful by pointing out that God was the first to respect it."

Makes a lot more sense than an Omnipotent God who gets worn out after six days and needs to rest.

Comments?

Itsdb answered on 12/20/06:

Who ever said God was worn out and needed to rest? I have not found that in the bible, perhaps you could be more specific?

Steve

domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
domino asked on 12/19/06 - How old??????

Why would the authors of the Old Testament contradict the words (and commands) of their own god???? Genesis 6:3 has god changing his mind about how long men should live. Probably because he saw that the "sons of God were taking human wives that might, then, live forever; so he orders: "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever; for that he also is flesh; therefore his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." Makes sense to me. No-one lives beyond 120, anywhere.

Yet in Genesis 11, the authors give us ages for the nine descendents of Noah ranging from 148 for Nahor to 600 for Shem!!!

Is this one of the reasons bible literalists are so confused about the age of the earth??? Because the authors of Genesis relied on two different myths, the Babylonian creation epic, and the Accadian king lists that gave impossibly long reigns for their kings....lasting thousands of years...One reigning for 28,000 years?????

Itsdb answered on 12/20/06:

domino,

Good question, but Genesis 6:3 isn't referring to man's lifespan as maddawg pointed out. Try again.

Steve

domino rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/19/06 - This question is for Christians because Im not.......

interested in what non-Christians will say.
Im mentioning that the lady is Catholic so that the bigots can have their field day with it if they so desire.
A Catholic lady just told me this, True love comes by way of the cross.
Do you agree?
If so in what way?
If not why not?

Itsdb answered on 12/19/06:

Fred,

"Twu wuv" comes by way of the Cliffs of Insanity, the Fire Swamp, Miracle Max and "stormin' the castle." But I will say I don't believe you'll find perfect love anywhere but at the cross of Christ.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Toms777 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
arcura asked on 12/18/06 - Mr. Clear Eyes, Ben Stein, a Jew, tells us what

he thinks about people saying Merry Christmas and Christmas Trees and manger scenes.
<><><>
Ben Stein, a lawyer by training, has also served as a speechwriter for President Richard M. Nixon, has to date authored sixteen books (both novels and non-fiction efforts), and continues to write editorials and columns for a number of prominent publications. He is perhaps best known to the world at large, however, for his in-front-of-the-camera work as the dreadfully dull economics teacher in the film Ferris Bueller's Day Off (and his similar role as the monotonic science teacher Mr. Cantwell on the TV series The Wonder Years) and as the keenly competitive host of the Comedy Central game show Win Ben Stein's Money.

Mr. Stein currently offers occasional commentaries for the CBS Sunday Morning news program, and the item quoted above is based on one such commentary, entitled "Confessions for the Holidays" and delivered by Mr. Stein on that program on 18 December 2005, one week before Christmas. However, the version widely circulated via e-mail includes some transcription errors and modifications that were not part of the piece as originally aired. Here is the full version as broadcast, taken from a CBS News transcript of the program:
CHARLES OSGOOD, host: We all have our own thoughts about the holidays. Here's Ben Stein with his.

BEN STEIN: Here at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart. I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are.

I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I'm buying my dog biscuits. I still don't know. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores who they are. They don't know who Nick and Jessica are, either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they've broken up? Why are they so darned important?
I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I don't care at all about Tom Cruise's baby.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I'm a subversive? Maybe. But I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young? Hm, not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish, and it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautifully lit-up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees.
I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they're slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. I shows that we're all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year.

It doesn't bother me one bit that there's a manger scene on display at a key intersection at my beach house in Malibu.
If people want a creche, fine. The menorah a few hundred yards away is fine, too. I do not like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way. Where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and aren't allowed to worship God as we understand him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we used to know went to.

Itsdb answered on 12/19/06:

>>I do not like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.<<

Amen. Or should I say "LeChaim?"

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 12/18/06 - Capital Punishment and Old Sparky

"It was the sole means of execution in Florida from 1924 until 2000, when the Florida legislature under pressure from the U.S. Supreme Court replaced it with lethal injection. Florida death row inmates now may be executed in the electric chair only if they choose it. It was located in Florida State Prison in the north Florida town of Starke. It was notorious for malfunctioning in its final years, namely in the cases of Jesse Tafero (executed May 4, 1990), Pedro Medina (executed March 25, 1997), and Allen Lee Davis (executed July 7, 1999). Reportedly flames shot out of the convicts' heads during the execution of Tafero and Medina, raising the question whether use of the electric chair was cruel and unusual punishment. After the Medina execution, then Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth commented, "People who wish to commit murder, they'd better not do it in the state of Florida because we may have a problem with the electric chair." [2]

The malfunctions probably were due to practices of the prison staff and not because of the electric chair itself. There was evidence that the first two malfunctions occurred because of how sponges were used in the headpiece containing an electrode. To assure proper contact between the inmate's head and the electrode, a saline-soaked sponge stuffed between the two was necessary. In the Tafero incident, a natural sponge was replaced with a synthetic sponge that caught fire during the execution. For Medina, prison officials apparently did not properly soak the sponge in saline, and it caught fire, too. Tiny Davis' execution photographs clearly showed that his nose had been severely compressed by a badly fitted headstrap.

"Tiny" Davis' execution

The 1999 execution of Allen Lee Davis, also known as "Tiny" Davis, created international news after witnesses saw his white shirt rapidly turn red with blood during his execution. Prison officials later determined the blood came from an unusually profuse nosebleed most likely caused by an improperly fitted headstrap. The source of the blood was not evident to witnesses during execution, because Davis' head was covered with a traditional hood. A prison inspector general took photographs of Davis body, still bloody and strapped in the chair, shortly after execution. These photographs later became key evidence in several cases mounting yet another challenge to the constitutionality of Old Sparky. These lawsuits ultimately came to the Florida Supreme Court in the fall of 1999, when a bare majority (4 of the 7 Justices) found that the electric chair was constitutional in a case brought by death row inmate Thomas Provenzano. One of the dissenting Justices, Leander J. Shaw, Jr., took the extraordinary step of attaching to his opinion three color photographs of Tiny Davis' bloody body in the chair. This publication marked the first time those photographs had appeared on the Internet or, for that matter, anywhere outside of court and prison files...." Wikipepdia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to STONY'S post, the incompetent executioners in Florida have not botched an execution by lethal injection.

Only a barbarian can support this sort of horror, do you agree?

Capital punishment is immoral, do you agree?

Itsdb answered on 12/19/06:

Not a fan of Old Sparky. I'm not even a fan of capital punishment, but I'm not opposed either. For a change of pace however, why not teach us how it's immoral to execute someone like this guy.

On another note, in spite of your opinion of me I thought I'd offer some advice here since you closed your post. For minor burns - even splattered grease - there are two products on the market and one should be in every kitchen. If the burn is not severe and already blistered I guarantee if you use this stuff immediately you'll be amazed.

Water*Jel

Burn Free

I prefer the latter, and I'm not kidding, it's amazing stuff.

Steve

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Choux... rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Misha. asked on 12/17/06 - All Things Dull And Ugly....Why?


from Monty Python's Contractual Obligations Album

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures, short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

Itsdb answered on 12/19/06:

Can't say that I'm a big Monty Python fan, although The Taunter was a riot and his "I fart in your general direction" was one of the funniest lines ever in a movie. Fawlty Towers on the other hand has got to be one of the most hilarious shows ever made.

As to your post, I can offer nothing beyond what scripture says to show otherwise, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good." Gen. 1:31 It was not God that introduced the "Dull And Ugly" into this world, but he did create us with the freedom to choose.

I'm certain this was one of his good creations, but who can explain what happened after that?

Misha. rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 12/19/06 - perhaps Evolution is like HIV?

Science may not be able to prove everything but apparently it is able to demonstrate what might not exist.

Is evolution like HIV, an urban legend?

Expert witness says HIV 'doesn't exist'

By Todd Cardy

December 19, 2006 06:35pm
Article from: AAP



A PERTH medical researcher has told an Adelaide court that Africa does not have an AIDS crisis because HIV does not exist.

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos today told the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal that no one had proven that HIV exists.

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos is a witness in the appeal case of Andre Chad Parenzee, 35, who was convicted on January 31 this year of endangering the lives of three women.

Parenzee had unprotected sex with the women, knowing he was HIV-positive.

One of the women, a mother of two, became infected with HIV while the other two tested negative to the virus.

Parenzee's lawyer, Kevin Borick, QC, argued Parenzee could not have committed the crimes because HIV does not exist.

Under cross examination today from Prosecutor Sandi McDonald, Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a medical engineer from Royal Perth Hospital, dismissed recent World Health Organisation and United Nations reports that outline the world AIDS epidemic.

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos said there was no published reports that conclude HIV exists or could be linked to AIDS.

The 5000 people who signed the Durban Declaration in 2000, which says AIDS was an epidemic in Africa, linked to HIV and spread by sexual contact, were backed by politicians, not scientists, she said.

"I am a scientist, I look for science - I do not look for consensus,'' she told the court.

"There is no massive epidemic of HIV infections because no one has proven it.''

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos denied she was appearing at the case to gain publicity for her theories and her research organisation, the Perth Group.

The Perth Group, which Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos heads, believes there is no link between HIV and AIDS.

Parenzee's appeal application continues tomorrow before Justice John Sulan.

Itsdb answered on 12/19/06:

What, is everyone afraid to actually answer the question? The trial may be news but the argument that says HIV doesn't exist isn't.

See here and here for instance.

If it doesn't exist however, maybe Papadopulos-Eleopulos can explain what nearly killed my daughter and what this is:

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
peddler7118 asked on 12/14/06 - Did Pretty Girls Evolve?

The evolution of pretty girls
by Chuck Colson

Why do we find some people beautiful and others, well, plain? One psychologist says were responding to evolutionary pressures. To encourage the survival of the species, this psychologist says, evolution programs males to be attracted to females who look young and healthy, at the peak of their reproductive potential. Females, on the other hand, are programmed to be attracted to males who look powerfulable to protect and provide for offspring.

Well, I doubt that many young couples in love think much about the survival of the species. But such is the nature of evolution that it has become an explanation for everything.

Were often told that evolution is just a scientific theory, but it has become much more than that. Its become an entire philosophy of life, shaping every subject area.

Take, for example, sociology. The founder of sociology was French philosopher Auguste Comte, who proposed three stages of social evolution. All societies, Comte said, move upward until they reach a stage of scientific enlightenment.

Since Comte, most sociologists have accepted the assumption of evolution. We can only understand Karl Marx, for example, if we realize he taught a form of social evolution through a series of economic stages.

In the field of law, most students today are trained in what is sometimes called sociological law. It rejects any transcendent standard of justice and bases law on the judges perception of changing social norms. This is explicitly labelled an evolutionary approach to law.

In psychology virtually all the leaders in the field have been committed Darwinists, from Freud to Pavlov to B. F. Skinner. They began with the assumption that human beings were merely advanced animals, and sought to reduce human nature to animal functionsinstincts and reflexes.

For a vivid example, read Alfred Kinseys books on sexuality. The highest moral impulses of love and commitment are reduced to physiological reactions.

What about education? John Dewey, regarded as the father of American education, was an enthusiastic evolutionist. He argued that the human mind is a tool that has evolved by adaptation to the environment, just like a fin or a claw. The test of an idea is therefore not whether it is true, Dewey said, but merely whether it workswhether it helps us adapt to our circumstances.

Deweys evolutionary philosophy led to a profound relativism that is evident in our schools today. Modern values teaching tells children they can choose whatever values work for them.

So you sec, evolution is not just a theory that tries to explain how fish grew legs and how birds developed feathers. It affects every subject area. It serves as scientific justification for a philosophy that treats human beings as merely evolving organ-isms.

As Christian parents and teachers, we need to start by teaching our children how to respond to evolution as a scientific theoryhow to talk about genetics and fossils.

But we cant stop there. We also need to teach our children that evolution is a total world view. We need to show them the flaws in that world viewand to develop a total Christian world view to take its place.

Itsdb answered on 12/15/06:

Did Pretty Girls Evolve? No, but if they keep at it they just might abort themselves to extinction.

Steve

peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MaggieB asked on 08/29/06 - Polygamist sect leader caught!

Polygamist sect leader held By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Warren Steed Jeffs, the fugitive leader of a polygamist sect and one of the FBI's 10 most wanted, was arrested in a routine traffic stop outside Las Vegas, authorities said on Tuesday.

Jeffs, 50, considered a "prophet" by his estimated 10,000 followers, is wanted for alleged sexual misconduct with minors in Arizona and as an accomplice to rape in Utah, the FBI said on its Web site.

He was stopped by the Nevada Highway Patrol on Monday night for expired license plates on his vehicle, and the patrolman recognized Jeffs, holding him at the scene until FBI agents could arrive to positively identify him, according David Nanz, an FBI special agent in Las Vegas.

Jeffs was traveling with one of his wives and a brother at the time of the arrest, which occurred about 6 miles north of Las Vegas, Nanz said, adding that Jeffs was being held in a county jail in Las Vegas awaiting extradition to Utah or Arizona.

Jeffs assumed control of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, or FLDS, from his now-deceased father when the elder leader suffered a debilitating stroke in 1998.

The sect, long based in an enclave on the twin border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona, split from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when the mainstream Mormon Church banned polygamy more than a century ago.

Jeffs, who had been on the run for at least two years, is accused of arranging marriages between older men and underage girls in the FLDS settlement, which is generally closed to outsiders. At the enclave, young men and boys are often forced out to ensure a supply of young brides for male elders.

His group is believed to be one of the largest polygamist sects that exist in the United States. A joint Utah-Arizona attorneys general report has estimated that 20,000 to 40,000 Americans still engage in the outlawed practice of plural marriage.

Elaine Tyler, the head of the Utah-based group HOPE, which helps people leave polygamist homes, hailed Jeffs' arrest.

"I cant believe they found him," she told Reuters. "He has broken up families. He has married off young girls against their will. It is time he started paying for what he did."

QUESTION: What should be the punishment for Warren Jeffs? Who will get all the millions he has acquired over the years? Who will be the next leader of this so-called cult?

MaggieB

Itsdb answered on 08/29/06:

Good...and good that the sorry dog isn't in Texas any more. For punishment how about a life sentence to be carried out in the Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, Ca? Of course he'll probably get 10 years in a federal camp where he can still assign wives and children at will.

Who will get all the millions? Probably Jeffs himself. For now it's tied up in Utah courts.

Who will be the next leader? Who says he'll be replaced?

Steve

MaggieB rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
STONY asked on 08/29/06 - IT'S ALL A HOAX!!

AFTER MILLIONS MORE $$ ARE SPENT BY DENVER'S DISTRICT ATT'Y, THERE IS NO DNA EVIDENCE TO CONVICT MR. KARR.
ANOTHER FREAK LOOKING FOR HIS 15 MINUTES OF FAME IN THE SPOTLIGHT. CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO WASH THE EGG OFF OF THIS FACE...

I GUESS THE ONE LESSON SHE NEVER LEARNED IS: IF IT TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE THEN IT PROBably isn't real.

Itsdb answered on 08/29/06:

Stony,

I think most of us figured this guy was just a nutjob looking for publicity the first or second day of this spectacle. Heck, his family offered movie and book rights almost a week ago.

Hopefully it wasn't a total waste though, he'll be facing child pornography charges in California.

Steve

arcura rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
STONY rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
paraclete asked on 08/28/06 - jewish politician disgusted at christian politician comments

Rep. Harris: Church-state separation 'a lie'
POSTED: 5:37 p.m. EDT, August 28, 2006

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

Harris made the comments -- which she clarified Saturday -- in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Electing non-Christians allows 'legislating sin'
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.

Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans, who called them offensive and not representative of the party.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was "disgusted" by the comments.

Harris' campaign released a statement Saturday saying she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."

The comments reflected "her deep grounding in Judeo-Christian values," the statement said, adding that Harris had previously supported pro-Israel legislation and legislation recognizing the Holocaust.

Harris' opponents in the GOP primary also gave interviews to the Florida Baptist Witness but made more general statements on their faith.

Harris, 49, faced widespread criticism for her role overseeing the 2000 presidential recount as Florida's secretary of state.

State GOP leaders -- including Gov. Jeb Bush -- don't think she can win against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in November. Fundraising has lagged, frustrated campaign workers have defected in droves and the issues have been overshadowed by news of her dealings with a corrupt defense contractor who gave her $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Itsdb answered on 08/29/06:

Take it for what it is, but at least read it in context:

    The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people arent involved in helping godly men in getting elected than were going to have a nation of secular laws. Thats not what our founding fathers intended and thats certainly isnt what God intended. So its really important that members of the church know peoples stands. Its really important that they get involved in campaigns. I said Im going to run a campaign of integrity. Im not going to run it like all of the campaigns that Ive seen before. And you know, its hard to find people that are gonna behave that way in a campaign and be honorable that way in a campaign. But thats why we need the faithful and we need to take back this country. Its time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit. And thats why Ive gone to churches and Ive spoken in four churches, five churches a day on Sunday and people line up afterwards because its so important that they know. And if we dont get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back?


It's entirely consistent with her clarification, she had been "speaking to a Christian audience, addressing a common misperception that people of faith should not be actively involved in government."

She's right. Anyone breathing, with basic comprehension skills knows there has been an aggressive push to eliminate religion (read Christianity) from politics, from government, from the law. It's blatantly obvious. Don't believe me? Check out infidels.org's Separation of Church and State page. They offer an article on electing atheists, because It is long overdue that people who do not believe in any god are elected to significant political office.

Not enough? Then what is the purpose of Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Ok, well I know there purpose is to eliminate Christianity from government, they have no problem fighting for government endorsement of the Wiccan symbol while battling against the Mt Soledad memorial.

Or how about my old favorite, Theocracy Watch.

As for her "legislating sin" remark, well that's a stretch, but she was speaking to a friendly audience, just as my ol' buddy John Kerry did time and time again.

Anyway, it doesn't much matter, Harris won't win.

Steve

paraclete rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 08/27/06 - Devilish Deals

When Republican Nixon was impeached and left office in disgrace, the Republican party was in ruins. They had to devise a strategy in order to survive.

The powers decided on the strategy of forming an alliance with Fundamental Christianity through the leaders such as Fawell and Robertson. The deal was that the Republican Party would support the issues of interest of Christians....abortion, changing values for example, and Christians would support the interests of Big Business and the monied class.

And so, the end result of this alliance struck up in the 1970 ies is what we have in the White House today and in Congress.

What I want to ask Christian Fundamentalists.....WHERE IS YOUR ATTACK ON PORNOGRAPHY ON THE INTERNET AND IN THE MEDIA EVERYWHERE?? Is it because the moguls of the media and big business make a lot of profit from exploiting women's bodies....and they want to be left alone? The deal....you have to leave this alone because of your deal with the devil. Television should be cleaned up! But, you have a deal with the devil.

Pornography is destroying men who use it and are addicted to it. It is one of the most important value issues in America today.

Itsdb answered on 08/28/06:

>>The deal was that the Republican Party would support the issues of interest of Christians....abortion, changing values for example, and Christians would support the interests of Big Business and the monied class...And so, the end result of this alliance struck up in the 1970 ies is what we have in the White House today and in Congress.<<

Not exactly. It's much more complicated than that. If that were the case then how do you explain Pat Robertson's good showing in his first two primaries then getting walloped from there on out? It may have begun 'something' like you imply but Christian leaders learned some hard lessons in politics along the way.

The White House has never - even today - had the ear of evangelicals the way the left and the media portray it. What you have today is the result of grassroots Christian organizations like the Christian Coalition mobilizing the people, not the politicians. Even there, this coalition compromised - yes, compromised - in order to build a wide base. They were even willing to make exceptions on abortion in order to build this base.

With that said, these so-called "Christian Fundamentalists" are very active in both engaging the problems of pornography and restoring those affected by it.

All of the big 'evil' fundamentalist organizations are fighting pornography every day.

Check out this list of resources from Promise Keepers, not to mention their filtered internet service.

Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family are very active in battling this problem.

Dr. Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries are involved in the fight, as is Dr. Wildmon and the American Family Association.

I could go on all day to show how misguided this accusation of 'Christian fundamentalists' having "a deal with the devil" over pornography is, but hopefully I've given enough for you to change your mind and retract the charge.

Steve

MarySusan rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jimbo asked on 08/27/06 - Why can't Christians answer questions about their Bible??

I ask a question, quoting chapter & verse, & Toms777 tells me to ask HIS god as he cant be bothered to answer it!!

What say you??

Shall I stop looking??

Jimbo

Itsdb answered on 08/28/06:

>>Why can't Christians answer questions about their Bible??<<

So we're all lumped together over your dissatisfaction with one?

Here's the thing as I see it Jimbo. It isn't that 'Christians' can't answer questions about their bible (although too many can't), it's more like why bother when the questioner's mind is closed before asking the question?

Keep looking, but not just to see how many 'errors' you can find to try and trip us up on. If you're speaking of your question to Tom about talking animals (which makes me wonder even more why you specifically asked the question of one and addressed this one to "Christians"), a skeptic will never be satisifed with my answer.

My answer to that is a question, why does it matter? If the sovereign, omnipotent creator chooses to speak through an ass but not a grasshopper, so be it. It's His choice, His right and His ability to speak through whatever means he feels necessary.

Steve

Judgment_Day rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
peddler7118 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
TTRalph asked on 08/26/06 - How can one place any faith in the Gospel of Mark, when he had not a clue about time and place?

Fundamentalist Christians claim that Mark was either an eye-witness to the times of Christ, or got his ideas from those who were. How then does he come up with so many anachronisms like this:

Mark 10:12 "...and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery".

How could this utterance have even made sense to Jesus hearers since, in that time or place, no woman could even institute divorce proceedings, let alone be granted a divorce. ONLY THE HUSBAND Could institute divorce proceedings.

Just one more anachronism....a later idea that Mark puts into the mouth of Jesus. If so how can Christians continue to claim that the Gospels are the inerrent TRUE words of Jesus..and not just the agendas of the Evangelists?

p.s. Mark makes even less sense if, as scholars have noted, the Hebrew work "Shalach"...usually translated 'divorce' really means 'putting away or abandoning without provision'...something no women of Jesus time could do...logistically or legally.

Itsdb answered on 08/28/06:

Ralph,

Again you think we should be outraged over biblical 'error' based on your one-sided arguments. What else did you leave out?



Apparently it happened. And apparently there were exceptions to the law:


    The following causes are recognized as entitling the wife to demand a bill of divorce from her husband: refusal of conjugal rights (Ket. v. 6); impotence (Ned. xi. 12); when the husband has some loathsome disease, or leprosy, or is engaged in some malodorous business (Ket. vii. 9); the husband's refusal to support her (Ket. 77a); cruel treatment anddeprivation of her lawful liberty of person (Ket. vii. 2-5, v. 5); wife-beating (Eben ha-'Ezer, 154, 3, gloss); the husb