Newt Gingrich says U.S. at risk of atheism and radical Islam

[MR2-Sooner86]

"I have two grandchildren -- Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20048494-503544.html)

:pop:

[Mississippi Sooner]

I hate radical atheist muslims.

[NormanPride]

I thought this country was supposed to be defined by the people that live in it, not old white men that have power?

[OUMallen]

That's cool. If you're wanting to promote religion, Newtie, you can do that. Probably shouldn't be running for politics. Just go head up a church.

Oh wait. You're just hitting the talking points? Nothing to see here.

IT'S GONNA BE ATHEIST! WITH MUSLIMS! BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT CHRISTIAN, YOU'RE ATHEIST!

[OUMallen]

I thought this country was supposed to be defined by the people that live in it, not old white men that have power?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NormanPride again.

[OklahomaTuba]

Well i'm not worried. Not with High-Speed Rail in our future. Choo Choo!!!

[Aldebaran]

http://www.tdaxp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/america_christmas-480x358.jpg

[MR2-Sooner86]

I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States because only in the United States does citizenship start with our creator...I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history. We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.

:pop:

[Turd_Ferguson]

nm

[Viking Kitten]

I bet all the right wing evangelical nutjobs Gingrich is pandering to totally had an orgasm when they read that.

[Ike]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Viking Kitten again


I guess I need to use my spekker more.

[Jammin']

It's good to see that bat-**** crazy has a leader.

Good Luck Newt, I hope you fail miserably.

[NormanPride]

Okay, I'm beginning to think he's just trolling.

[The Maestro]

Congrats to Newt for sounding more insane than Palin. That takes some effort.

[cccasooner2]

When a witch turned him into a newt, he stayed that way..

[The Maestro]

I love the last sentence which makes a helluva lot of sense...

"The former speaker, who has been married three times, has expressed regret about his past personal behavior, which he suggested was driven in part by his passion for the country."

I love America!!! And some strange!!!

[Ike]

Maybe Newt and Alan Greenspan had a bet on who could produce a more internet-famous quip this week:


Today’s competitive markets, whether we seek to recognise it or not, are driven by an international version of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” that is unredeemably opaque. With notably rare exceptions (2008, for example), the global “invisible hand” has created relatively stable exchange rates, interest rates, prices, and wage rates.

http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/30/with-notably-rare-exceptions/


my favorite spin off of that one is:
"Though unredeemably(sic) opaque, Mr. Madoff’s operations delivered excellent returns, with notably rare exceptions."

[okie52]

I thought this country was supposed to be defined by the people that live in it, not old white men that have power?


You may be on to something...there are a lot of brown people here illegally. Maybe they should/will define it.

One brown person has erroneosly been mowing my yard the last 3 weeks. Once he gets finished with the flower beds I'm going to tell him.

[OhU1]

I didn't know Pat Robertson decided to run again.

[Canyonero]

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/49/newt-gingrich-portrait-0910-lg.jpg

"There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."

[NormanPride]

You may be on to something...there are a lot of brown people here illegally. Maybe they should/will define it.

One brown person has erroneosly been mowing my yard the last 3 weeks. Once he gets finished with the flower beds I'm going to tell him.

They probably will. I suggest you adapt.

[3rdgensooner]

IT'S GONNA BE ATHEIST! WITH MUSLIMS! BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT CHRISTIAN, YOU'RE ATHEIST!OR MUSLIM!


They probably will. I suggest you adapt.:slowclap

[okie52]

They probably will. I suggest you adapt.

Not much more I can do for them until I need a new roof. Hopefully they will do that for free, too.

[JLEW1818]

I thought this country was supposed to be defined by the people that live in it, not old white men that have power?

well they have done a pretty god job so far ......

[KantoSooner]

I'd really like to vote republican. I mean, I always used to. I'd like to vote for a party that values the individual above the collective. That feels that government should be limited and small and non-intrusive. A party that stands for rule of law and local control of all that can be controlled locally.

But instead I get the option of voting for crypto-socialists or one of a gaggle of guys who are convinced that gay-muslim-feminists taking away my guns and forcing me to have an abortion as they burn down my church are really and truly what I spend my waking hours worrying about.

Newt's comments would indicate that we've completed the evolution from tragedy into farce.

[OhU1]

I'd really like to vote republican. I mean, I always used to. I'd like to vote for a party that values the individual above the collective. That feels that government should be limited and small and non-intrusive. A party that stands for rule of law and local control of all that can be controlled locally.

But instead I get the option of voting for crypto-socialists or one of a gaggle of guys who are convinced that gay-muslim-feminists taking away my guns and forcing me to have an abortion as they burn down my church are really and truly what I spend my waking hours worrying about.

Newt's comments would indicate that we've completed the evolution from tragedy into farce.

Totally agree. Over the last few years the Repubs have alienated me with too much demagoguery and ignorant rhetoric. I really liked Newt and what he wanted to do in the early 90's, I'll keep an open mind about him but quotes such as at the top of the thread do not bode well.

[Jammin']

I love the last sentence which makes a helluva lot of sense...

"The former speaker, who has been married three times, has expressed regret about his past personal behavior, which he suggested was driven in part by his passion for the kuntry."

I love America!!! And some strange!!!

Agreed. I fifnewt. (on edit: damn filter)

[Fugue]

Thataboy Newt, go get 'em.

[okie52]

It's a shame the pubs are against legalizing pot.

Now there's a crop that wouldn't need any farm subsidies.

[soonercruiser]

Let's be honest.
This country was established on Judeo-Christian principles.
It HAS done pretty well for over 200 years.

You are not being honest if you don't admit that Judeo-Christian values are under attack in our present culture. GOD is being thrown out; and progressive liberals are allowing Islam in.

Where Islam goes, extremist Muslims follow closely.
So, we must remain vigilant.

If only "moderate" Muslims were as hard on their "extremists", as you guys are on Christians.
So, I guess if you don't stand for something, you will "stand for anything"!
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

It's a shame the pubs are against legalizing pot.
Now there's a crop that wouldn't need any farm subsidies.

But, can i run my car on Pot?
;)

[NormanPride]

I don't think anyone is attacking Christianity in here, despite the white knight defenders. I was trying to say that one of the core principles that America was founded on was "I want to worship this way. Leave me alone." Now that new people are coming in and worshiping their own stuff their own way everyone is all up in arms about the n00bs. Simmer down, Francis. This is the way America has always been.

[OhU1]

GOD is being thrown out; and progressive liberals are allowing Islam in.

It must be one of those weakling gods if a progressive liberal is able to throw him out.

[AlboSooner]

As a Christian, I don't feel my values are under attack. Just because someone else has a different opinion than me on how to live their lives, I don't feel my values are at stake.

Christian values are ridiculed mainly by Christians themselves. As a result of examining my self, I don't think anybody has forced me to bring shame to the Lord from time to time. When I go to Christian homes, I don't see anybody forcing them to curse, yell, overeat, watch terrible TV, watch porn, read romantic novels rather than the Bible, be hateful, lazy, fornicate, and even worse not love the neighbor as themselves and be prideful.


I always wonder when I hear the word Judeo-Christian values, if that means the values came from the Jews and the Christians? Or does it mean, the moral law we have is scripted in our hearts as a result of being made in God's own image? Is God not the creator of all people? Did the Jews not displease God many times? Have Christians lived a perfect life? Judeo-Christian values are not perfect, contradict themselves at times: one value system says Jesus was the son of a whore, and the other value system says Jesus was the Son of God. One value system says only Jews can be saved, the other says everybody can be saved. One value system would have stoned the adulterous woman, and the other value system tells her "I don't condemn you, go an sin no more."

The lie that Christian values are under a sudden, and unprecedented attack, keeps us from examining our churches and our own souls, because therein lies the true problem.

[okie52]

As a Christian, I don't feel my values are under attack. Just because someone else has a different opinion than me on how to live their lives, I don't feel my values are at stake.

Christian values are ridiculed mainly by Christians themselves. As a result of examining my self, I don't think anybody has forced me to bring shame to the Lord from time to time. When I go to Christian homes, I don't see anybody forcing them to curse, yell, overeat, watch terrible TV, watch porn, read romantic novels rather than the Bible, be hateful, lazy, fornicate, and even worse not love the neighbor as themselves and be prideful.


I always wonder when I hear the word Judeo-Christian values, if that means the values came from the Jews and the Christians? Or does it mean, the moral law we have is scripted in our hearts as a result of being made in God's own image? Is God not the creator of all people? Did the Jews not displease God many times? Have Christians lived a perfect life? Judeo-Christian values are not perfect, contradict themselves at times: one value system says Jesus was the son of a whore, and the other value system says Jesus was the Son of God. One value system says only Jews can be saved, the other says everybody can be saved. One value system would have stoned the adulterous woman, and the other value system tells her "I don't condemn you, go an sin no more."

The lie that Christian values are under a sudden, and unprecedented attack, keeps us from examining our churches and our own souls, because therein lies the true problem.

Nicely said Albo. However, as an Episcopalean, we have no rules other than being as irregular in church attendance as possible.

[okie52]

I don't think anyone is attacking Christianity in here, despite the white knight defenders. I was trying to say that one of the core principles that America was founded on was "I want to worship this way. Leave me alone." Now that new people are coming in and worshiping their own stuff their own way everyone is all up in arms about the n00bs. Simmer down, Francis. This is the way America has always been.

We've had evangelicals around forever in this country and usually they are the hardest on fellow Christians. He11, I think Falwell and Robertson said we had 911 coming (because of our sinful ways).

How's the islamic immigration working out in Europe, by the way? France, Germany, England, etc..?

[KantoSooner]

Judeo-Christian values = Abrahamic values = Judeo-Christian-Muslim values. All THREE religions are part of the same tradition and very little separates them.

Any real threat to any of them comes mainly from the increasing number of people who consider all of them intellectually irrelevant and important only in their connection to history and in their present ability to inspire acts of terrorism.

[champions77]

As a Christian, I don't feel my values are under attack. Just because someone else has a different opinion than me on how to live their lives, I don't feel my values are at stake.

Christian values are ridiculed mainly by Christians themselves. As a result of examining my self, I don't think anybody has forced me to bring shame to the Lord from time to time. When I go to Christian homes, I don't see anybody forcing them to curse, yell, overeat, watch terrible TV, watch porn, read romantic novels rather than the Bible, be hateful, lazy, fornicate, and even worse not love the neighbor as themselves and be prideful.


I always wonder when I hear the word Judeo-Christian values, if that means the values came from the Jews and the Christians? Or does it mean, the moral law we have is scripted in our hearts as a result of being made in God's own image? Is God not the creator of all people? Did the Jews not displease God many times? Have Christians lived a perfect life? Judeo-Christian values are not perfect, contradict themselves at times: one value system says Jesus was the son of a whore, and the other value system says Jesus was the Son of God. One value system says only Jews can be saved, the other says everybody can be saved. One value system would have stoned the adulterous woman, and the other value system tells her "I don't condemn you, go an sin no more."

The lie that Christian values are under a sudden, and unprecedented attack, keeps us from examining our churches and our own souls, because therein lies the true problem.

Lie? Sudden attack? Christians have been under attack in this country for decades, starting with that ridiculous interpretation of "separation of church and state" nevermind that it does not appear in either the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Makes one wonder how we ever began using the Bible to swear in the President, or have "In God We Trust" on our currency. The "true" problem lies in the willingness of liberals in this country to be "tolerant" of any religion, as long as it's not Christianity. Look no further than liberal Europe to see how all of their "tolerance" of Islam is working out. Now leaders over there are stating the obvious, that efforts in Multiculturalism and diversity have led to disasterous consequences. If you don't think that Muslims have plans to incorporate Sharia law in this country, then you have not been paying attention...or are extrememly naive.

Until the "non-radical" Muslims, the "Peace Loving" Muslims we often hear about, take it upon themselves to join the fight to defeat the Jihadists, we will never defeat them.

[AlboSooner]

I think we went down the moral relativism road before and it didn't work out too well. We found out, that despite our hatred of the Holy, we dearly needed him. We found out that our pseudo-intellectualism were merely ancient and unsophisticated customs of the barbarians, regardless if we went to university.

GK Chesterton said, without God there would be no atheists.

[KantoSooner]

...but there could very well be non-theists.

[Aldebaran]

Lie? Sudden attack? Christians have been under attack in this country for decades, starting with that ridiculous interpretation of "separation of church and state" nevermind that it does not appear in either the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Makes one wonder how we ever began using the Bible to swear in the President, or have "In God We Trust" on our currency. The "true" problem lies in the willingness of liberals in this country to be "tolerant" of any religion, as long as it's not Christianity. Look no further than liberal Europe to see how all of their "tolerance" of Islam is working out. Now leaders over there are stating the obvious, that efforts in Multiculturalism and diversity have led to disasterous consequences. If you don't think that Muslims have plans to incorporate Sharia law in this country, then you have not been paying attention...or are extrememly naive.

Until the "non-radical" Muslims, the "Peace Loving" Muslims we often hear about, take it upon themselves to join the fight to defeat the Jihadists, we will never defeat them.

You can find the answer to most of your questions on the internets. Also, Europe is not and has not ever been our paradigm of hope. We are not a monolithic culture. It's been a melting pot from the beginning. Hybrid vigor.

[AlboSooner]

...but there could very well be non-theists.

The point still remains.


As evidenced by the fervor, passion and subjectivity many non-THEOS discuss in topics, subjects, and issues concerning THEOS.

[Aldebaran]

The existence of people who don't believe in God proves that there is a God. That's awesome logic.

[AlboSooner]

I don't think the quote or my post, meant to bring an argument about the existence of God. I don't know where you got that. The quote meant something else, which I hope we perceive with some humor. The awesome logic comment went from sarcasm to irony, I think.

[soonerscuba]

Lie? Sudden attack? Christians have been under attack in this country for decades, starting with that ridiculous interpretation of "separation of church and state" nevermind that it does not appear in either the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Makes one wonder how we ever began using the Bible to swear in the President, or have "In God We Trust" on our currency. The "true" problem lies in the willingness of liberals in this country to be "tolerant" of any religion, as long as it's not Christianity. Look no further than liberal Europe to see how all of their "tolerance" of Islam is working out. Now leaders over there are stating the obvious, that efforts in Multiculturalism and diversity have led to disasterous consequences. If you don't think that Muslims have plans to incorporate Sharia law in this country, then you have not been paying attention...or are extrememly naive.

Until the "non-radical" Muslims, the "Peace Loving" Muslims we often hear about, take it upon themselves to join the fight to defeat the Jihadists, we will never defeat them.Well, well, well. Showdown at the crazytown corral, ante up Tuba/Rush/Cruiser. You gonna let a new guy out kook you like that?

[Fraggle145]

OH NOES!!!

[KantoSooner]

Let's try that old intellectual chestnut: Occam's Razor.

and, in the spirit of this inspiring debate, I'll waft off, in a holy-man sort of way and let generations of readers interpret that 'point' as they will.

<"The Sandal, THE SANDAL!!! He means us to follow the Sandal! No! No!! You're wrong, it's the ghord, the ghord!!! Kill the dirty Sandalists!!!>

[AlboSooner]

It is a categorical mistake to subject the Creator to the utility of the creation, especially if more assumptions and extraordinary beliefs are needed to explain creation, without a Creator.

In my talks with many who don't believe in God, I have noticed that behind the façade of intellectualism, there lies an emotional reason against the God's existence. Something like "If God was good, then this would have not happened...."


Or like Huxley said:

[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores

Source: http://www.famousquotesabout.com/quote/_I-suppose-the-reason/533990#ixzz1IDaRcM3v

[okie52]

You can find the answer to most of your questions on the internets. Also, Europe is not and has not ever been our paradigm of hope. We are not a monolithic culture. It's been a melting pot from the beginning. Hybrid vigor.

We are the World, we are the children....

[StoopTroup]

Newt isn't even a good choice for VP.

[Curly Bill]

I'd vote for him in a second. I'm tired of pansy-assed PCers!

[StoopTroup]

I'd vote for him in a second. I'm tired of pansy-assed PCers!

baiter

[Serenity Now]

Classic newt quote. All too typical.

Sharia law! Whatever. Anyone who thinks this is anything but fear-mongering on the behalf of the beck's of the world is foolish.

Christian here. The muslim I know is so much a better person than most of the non-muslims I know.

[soonercruiser]

As a Christian, I don't feel my values are under attack. Just because someone else has a different opinion than me on how to live their lives, I don't feel my values are at stake.

Christian values are ridiculed mainly by Christians themselves. As a result of examining my self, I don't think anybody has forced me to bring shame to the Lord from time to time. When I go to Christian homes, I don't see anybody forcing them to curse, yell, overeat, watch terrible TV, watch porn, read romantic novels rather than the Bible, be hateful, lazy, fornicate, and even worse not love the neighbor as themselves and be prideful.


I always wonder when I hear the word Judeo-Christian values, if that means the values came from the Jews and the Christians? Or does it mean, the moral law we have is scripted in our hearts as a result of being made in God's own image? Is God not the creator of all people? Did the Jews not displease God many times? Have Christians lived a perfect life? Judeo-Christian values are not perfect, contradict themselves at times: one value system says Jesus was the son of a whore, and the other value system says Jesus was the Son of God. One value system says only Jews can be saved, the other says everybody can be saved. One value system would have stoned the adulterous woman, and the other value system tells her "I don't condemn you, go an sin no more."

The lie that Christian values are under a sudden, and unprecedented attack, keeps us from examining our churches and our own souls, because therein lies the true problem.

Albo,
While I agree with most of what you say...
I did not use the terms "sudden", or unprecedented".

[soonercruiser]

Lie? Sudden attack? Christians have been under attack in this country for decades, starting with that ridiculous interpretation of "separation of church and state" nevermind that it does not appear in either the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Makes one wonder how we ever began using the Bible to swear in the President, or have "In God We Trust" on our currency. The "true" problem lies in the willingness of liberals in this country to be "tolerant" of any religion, as long as it's not Christianity. Look no further than liberal Europe to see how all of their "tolerance" of Islam is working out. Now leaders over there are stating the obvious, that efforts in Multiculturalism and diversity have led to disasterous consequences. If you don't think that Muslims have plans to incorporate Sharia law in this country, then you have not been paying attention...or are extrememly naive.

Until the "non-radical" Muslims, the "Peace Loving" Muslims we often hear about, take it upon themselves to join the fight to defeat the Jihadists, we will never defeat them.

Good post!
You expanded on some of my thoughts.

To be a Christian, one is not passive in letting things happen that might place into jeopardy the flesh or spirit of our friend and families.
It is not enought to internalize your faith. You must bring it out from under the basket, and let it shine on the whole culture. Faith requires action too.
That is "The Good Fight".
Radical Islam is pure evil!
We must fight it at "every opportunity"!

[soonercruiser]

Well, well, well. Showdown at the crazytown corral, ante up Tuba/Rush/Cruiser. You gonna let a new guy out kook you like that?

No! You are doing just fine by yourself.
:P

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Let's be honest.
This country was established on Judeo-Christian principles.
It HAS done pretty well for over 200 years.

You are not being honest if you don't admit that Judeo-Christian values are under attack in our present culture. GOD is being thrown out; and progressive liberals are allowing Islam in.

Where Islam goes, extremist Muslims follow closely.
So, we must remain vigilant.

If only "moderate" Muslims were as hard on their "extremists", as you guys are on Christians.
So, I guess if you don't stand for something, you will "stand for anything"!
:rolleyes:
Actually, I think our Judeo-Christian values we were founded on (freedom of religion, expression) are letting Islam in!

[soonercruiser]

Classic newt quote. All too typical.

Sharia law! Whatever. Anyone who thinks this is anything but fear-mongering on the behalf of the beck's of the world is foolish.

Christian here. The muslim I know is so much a better person than most of the non-muslims I know.

So! How does that change the argument?
We are talking about confronting radical Islam.
Talk to your friend (I have some too) about what they see as their responsibility in stopping radical Islam.

Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending everything is just fine (like Harry Reid in SS) is pretty immature, and dangerous.

[soonercruiser]

Actually, I think our Judeo-Christian values we were founded on (freedom of religion, expression) are letting Islam in!

You are correct.
But, the problem isn't letting Islam "in". As, that is a mere result of our freedom of religion.
The problem is the radical Islam that seeps into the foundation of the faith.
The other problem is some judges who are now allowing exercise of Sharia Law, as opposed to U.S. law. (Florida case comes to mind)

[StoopTroup]

Protestant view points I heard from time to time are based on opinions that folks who have never traveled the World seem to have and they seem highly paranoid and supported by fear of the unknown.

One thing I thought many of us had learned from WWII, The Cold War and recent attacks on our Country is that yes there are many folks who are upset with America and Americans. They seem just as paranoid and delusional as many of our own religious zealots in this Country who claim they are followers of Jesus.

Yes America was founded by Christians who felt their Freedom of Religion was being being wiped out by a king with his own agenda. I do not believe they were paranoid nor delusional about that then. The last 30 years in this Country though we have had two of our major party's separate by trying to decide who were the better Christians/People.

I do know both party's have people who are Christians in them. I know one thinks the other is trying to attract Christians by pointing out the other party has people who do not represent a good Christian Value by being open to their Alternative Lifestyle or Abortions, Prayer in Schools....

While the other one preaches they are folks with Good Christian Values, hard working tax paying American Patriots who support a person right to be gay....just not married.

Basically neither of them have a message that isn't full of paranoia, delusions, fear of someone, fear of each other...and yet one backed TEARING DOWN THAT WALL MR. GORBACHEV.....but building up that wall from Mexico to Texas. The other supported getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and closing Guantanamo Bay...yet we are now launching military strikes in Libya...

I think we've lost our Identity as Americans. We put ourselves first and live gluttonous and wasteful lives and fail to give to others without first checking if it will be a good tax write-off.

A good portion of Americans are living a Do unto others before they do unto you type of life.

We watch as Companies use people from all over the World instead of their own people. We buy a high percentage of goods that go to build regimes who would one day see us all starves and be the workers they use to manufacture their products while the 1% in this Country sit back and enjoy the fact they they are us.

We are majorly screwed up.

We spend billions keeping people in jail for drugs but do little to keep drugs out of our Country.

We don't want people to drive home drunk but require a Bar Owner to have plenty of parking in order to operate.

It's pretty amazing to watch as we all have access to message board and blogs and can't even get along in them long enough to even say "Damn....that wasn't our Teams day or best performance". Instead we argue over who was to blame and look to fire someone.

Pretty amazing. I know we are all smart enough to figure this all out and to quit electing guys like Newt with 3 divorces who claim to be a Christian man. He's no better then Henry the 8th who beheaded his Wives as he continued to try and be a leader....but didn't allow others the same courtesies. He an example of someone we don't need. He might be qualified to find the guy we do need....but that's not possible IMO because he like John McCain were really running for their EGOS and not really because they were the best man for the job.

The best guys for the job don't stand a chance and probably never can get close to being considered by their party's because of the posturing and backstabbing that is there for many decades prior to them getting elected. They get bought off or trapped into bad situations and the wrong guys end up as front runners.

When was the last time you saw 3 party's with candidates on the ballot in all 50 states? Why is it not possible to have 3....or 4....or 5?

I am one who really likes Military leaders who run after just leaving the Military. Colin Powell for example. I felt he would have made an excellent first Black President. We really missed that opportunity IMO. General Norman Schwarzkopf. Not perfect....but qualified. Tommy Franks....at the very least...a great VP.

Hell I might even think R.Lee Emory might be better than McCain or Obama.

I fear for our Country more from within than from outside aggressors.

We've got folks who have made fortunes from running companies they do not own.

We the people need to be much smarter and quit arguing.

[87sooner]

You may be on to something...there are a lot of brown people here illegally. Maybe they should/will define it.

One brown person has erroneosly been mowing my yard the last 3 weeks. Once he gets finished with the flower beds I'm going to tell him.

those brown people have such a wonderful system down south...they just decided to come up here and fix all of our problems...they mean well...
just give'em a chance...i'm sure you'll love the result...

[The Profit]

So! How does that change the argument?
We are talking about confronting radical Islam.
Talk to your friend (I have some too) about what they see as their responsibility in stopping radical Islam.

Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending everything is just fine (like Harry Reid in SS) is pretty immature, and dangerous.




The Roman Catholic Church is a much greater threat to the United States than Islamics. Popes and cardinals have stuck their heads in the sand as innocent young children have been cruelly and viscously molested over and over in parishes around the world.

Now the Roman Church seems to be on the side of the illegal immigrants, who have come into this country at the invitation of greedy American employers. States, such as Oklahoma, are attempting to reduce the number of immigrants, yet the newly ordained Roman Catholic Bishop of Oklahoma is speaking out against curtailing illegal immigration. The Roman Church sees the growth of the Hispanic US population as an avenue for Roman Catholicism to someday become the official religion of the US.

As someone said earlier, I worry much more about the collapse of American from within than I do from some boogie men from abroad.

[StoopTroup]

The Roman Catholic Church is a much greater threat to the United States than Islamics. Popes and cardinals have stuck their heads in the sand as innocent young children have been cruelly and viscously molested over and over in parishes around the world.

Now the Roman Church seems to be on the side of the illegal immigrants, who have come into this country at the invitation of greedy American employers. States, such as Oklahoma, are attempting to reduce the number of immigrants, yet the newly ordained Roman Catholic Bishop of Oklahoma is speaking out against curtailing illegal immigration. The Roman Church sees the growth of the Hispanic US population as an avenue for Roman Catholicism to someday become the official religion of the US.

As someone said earlier, I worry much more about the collapse of American from within than I do from some boogie men from abroad.

Another Fear, Paranoid, Delusional viewpoint.

MUSLIMS ARE COMING ! ! !

CATHOLICS ARE INFILTRATING FROM WITHIN ! !

lol

Be right back....Jehovah's are at the front door....

The best thing that could happen right now is keep our personal religious views to ourselves and make this a Country where a Universal Church of Christians work together to make sure we handle our extremists and keep them in check and the Muslims do the same. Otherwise were are definitely headed towards another Holy war in this Country. Turn on Israel, continue to attack Muslims Countries, Bash Mormons, Tag Catholics as an organized Religious Cult and you'll probably find yourselves very alone as the warheads begin to fall on the Nations of the World. May not be today...next week...next month....but eventually there will be no freedom of religion and you'll be praying to the almighty dollar....which BTW isn't worth much anymore....

[Curly Bill]

Dang Cathloics, always flying planes into people's buildings and stuff. I hear they've even been known to strap bombs on themselves, or put em in their shoes, in order to blow up bunches of innocent people in the name of their religion.

[The Profit]

Dang Cathloics, always flying planes into people's buildings and stuff. I hear they've even been known to strap bombs on themselves, or put em in their shoes, in order to blow up bunches of innocent people in the name of their religion.




The Roman Church has approved the murder of many more people than have been killed by modern Islamics. Have you ever heard of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. There are literally hundreds of stories about Roman Catholic sponsored mass murder.

[StoopTroup]

The Roman Church has approved the murder of many more people than have been killed by modern Islamics. Have you ever heard of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. There are literally hundreds of stories about Roman Catholic sponsored mass murder.

I'm pretty sure they never heard of the United States back then either.

Yet....somehow they infiltrated the US and every Country in the World with the words of Christ and his promise of eternal Life

Every man is a sinner....some worse than others. Catholics lay no claim of being free from the trappings of sin...

However....as the first Church of Christ after he died on the cross....they do have a very storied past of good and evil. They never claimed to be perfect....they just continue to try to spread the word of God, recognize they are sinners and ask God for forgiveness.

Hundred's of years of history of the Catholic Church will definitely reveal the struggles of many Men and Women who have succeeded in spreading the work and some failing in sin...

It's no different than the many other religions of the World. Their is no perfect religion. There was only one after Christ died on the Cross however. Others came along after that and some leaders of Countries have even tried to keep them all out. Somehow....America has been the shining light that has been able to allow freedom of religion for everyone no matter their beliefs. I think that says a lot about us as a Country. I hope we never lose track of that as Gods Children.

[Curly Bill]

The Roman Church has approved the murder of many more people than have been killed by modern Islamics. Have you ever heard of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. There are literally hundreds of stories about Roman Catholic sponsored mass murder.

I'm well acquainted with both those events, well enough that I know they were a long time ago, and thus not much of a threat these days.

[Thaumaturge]

Tell Professor Robert Langdon that Catholics don't pose any threat.

[Curly Bill]

Tell Professor Robert Langdon that Catholics don't pose any threat.

Did he die in the Crusades? Or did the Spanish torture him?

[StoopTroup]

Did he die in the Crusades? Or did the Spanish torture him?

I believe the Pope's hit squad took him out. :rolleyes:

[Fraggle145]

It is a categorical mistake to subject the Creator to the utility of the creation, especially if more assumptions and extraordinary beliefs are needed to explain creation, without a Creator.

In my talks with many who don't believe in God, I have noticed that behind the façade of intellectualism, there lies an emotional reason against the God's existence. Something like "If God was good, then this would have not happened...."


Or like Huxley said:

Evolution has nothing to do with creation. It is about what happens after...

[Fraggle145]

Protestant view points I heard from time to time are based on opinions that folks who have never traveled the World seem to have and they seem highly paranoid and supported by fear of the unknown.

One thing I thought many of us had learned from WWII, The Cold War and recent attacks on our Country is that yes there are many folks who are upset with America and Americans. They seem just as paranoid and delusional as many of our own religious zealots in this Country who claim they are followers of Jesus.

Yes America was founded by Christians who felt their Freedom of Religion was being being wiped out by a king with his own agenda. I do not believe they were paranoid nor delusional about that then. The last 30 years in this Country though we have had two of our major party's separate by trying to decide who were the better Christians/People.

I do know both party's have people who are Christians in them. I know one thinks the other is trying to attract Christians by pointing out the other party has people who do not represent a good Christian Value by being open to their Alternative Lifestyle or Abortions, Prayer in Schools....

While the other one preaches they are folks with Good Christian Values, hard working tax paying American Patriots who support a person right to be gay....just not married.

Basically neither of them have a message that isn't full of paranoia, delusions, fear of someone, fear of each other...and yet one backed TEARING DOWN THAT WALL MR. GORBACHEV.....but building up that wall from Mexico to Texas. The other supported getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and closing Guantanamo Bay...yet we are now launching military strikes in Libya...

I think we've lost our Identity as Americans. We put ourselves first and live gluttonous and wasteful lives and fail to give to others without first checking if it will be a good tax write-off.

A good portion of Americans are living a Do unto others before they do unto you type of life.

We watch as Companies use people from all over the World instead of their own people. We buy a high percentage of goods that go to build regimes who would one day see us all starves and be the workers they use to manufacture their products while the 1% in this Country sit back and enjoy the fact they they are us.

We are majorly screwed up.

We spend billions keeping people in jail for drugs but do little to keep them out of our Country.

We don't want people to drive home drunk but require a Bar Owner to have plenty of parking in order to operate.

It's pretty amazing to watch as we all have access to message board and blogs and can't even get along in them long enough to even say "Damn....that wasn't our Teams day or best performance". Instead we argue over who was to blame and look to fire someone.

Pretty amazing. I know we are all smart enough to figure this all out and to quit electing guys like Newt with 3 divorces who claim to be a Christian man. He's no better then Henry the 8th who beheaded his Wives as he continued to try and be a leader....but didn't allow others the same courtesies. He an example of someone we don't need. He might be qualified to find the guy we do need....but that's not possible IMO because he like John McCain were really running for their EGOS and not really because they were the best man for the job.

The best guys for the job don't stand a chance and probably never can get close to being considered by their party's because of the posturing and backstabbing that is there for many decades prior to them getting elected. They get bought off or trapped into bad situations and the wrong guys end up as front runners.

When was the last time you saw 3 party's with candidates on the ballot in all 50 states? Why is it not possible to have 3....or 4....or 5?

I am one who really likes Military leaders who run after just leaving the Military. Colin Powell for example. I felt he would have made an excellent first Black President. We really missed that opportunity IMO. General Norman Schwarzkopf. Not perfect....but qualified. Tommy Franks....at the very least...a great VP.

Hell I might even think R.Lee Emory might be better than McCain or Obama.

I fear for our Country more from within than from outside aggressors.

We've got folks who have made fortunes from running companies they do not own.

We the people need to be much smarter and quit arguing.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to StoopTroup again.

/sigh.

[AlboSooner]

The Roman Church has approved the murder of many more people than have been killed by modern Islamics. Have you ever heard of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. There are literally hundreds of stories about Roman Catholic sponsored mass murder.

While I understand your point, I think the Islamic counterparts of the old Roman Catholic Church, did plenty of killing themselves. The Islamic Turks, committed so many atrocities during their 500 year war with Europe, that to this day they are hated for it, and will never be allowed to join the EU.

The admirable thing is that the Catholic Church has apologized for its actions (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html). Where as the Moslem Turks, don't even recognize the massacre of 1 million Armenian Christians, let alone apologize for raping, massacring, bastardizing, and arresting the Balkan and its people.

[StoopTroup]

Those were Wars. Many a man has pondered whether they could still be a Christian by taking an active role in killing when the Ten Commandments clearly state...."Thou shall not kill".

It's a heck of a thing if you have lived all your life as a peaceful man and never had to take a life. Many a Police Officer has needed counseling and even changed careers after having to make a choice to take a life. I believe that although those things in History happened....the people involved learned a huge lesson from War.

Even though there are plenty of historical events to read about and fields of cemeteries Worldwide.....we still continue to have to fight conflicts with other men all over this World due to disagreements. It's amazing that even a guy like Gaddafi would kill his own people instead of being a part of changing the future so that he could retire and help his People figure out a way to continue to be a part of the Countries of the World who wish to live as free people who believed their leaders had their best interest at heart.
Amazingly he has decided to risk so many peoples lives in an effort only a mad man would be a part of.

[Blue]

Unless he thinks he is free ST and is fighting the inevitable...Global Domination.

[The Profit]

While I understand your point, I think the Islamic counterparts of the old Roman Catholic Church, did plenty of killing themselves. The Islamic Turks, committed so many atrocities during their 500 year war with Europe, that to this day they are hated for it, and will never be allowed to join the EU.

The admirable thing is that the Catholic Church has apologized for its actions (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html). Where as the Moslem Turks, don't even recognize the massacre of 1 million Armenian Christians, let alone apologize for raping, massacring, bastardizing, and arresting the Balkan and its people.




Oh, they apologized alright. Eight hundred years later.

[Position Limit]

the world would benefit greatly if newt sat in a confessional with father fondle for a few hours. this country would benefit greatly if state and federal government would tax the bejesus out of businesses i mean churches.

[KantoSooner]

precisely. If there should be a tax exemption for churches, then each and every citizen should have the right to declare themselves a 'church' and thus tax exempt.
While I may think my neighbors fools for their decision to follow a neolithic origin myth, I have no intention to try to stop them. What I do take umbrage at, however, is when I'm forced to subsidize their beliefs and, secondly, when my family is put at physical risk due to the millenial delusions of 'believers'.
So, let's agree: no more tax exemption for churches and no one who seriously believes in a religion in possession of nuclear launch codes. That seems like little enough to ask.

[Position Limit]

kanto, you got my support. i say go all the way. tax their asses and regulate.

[StoopTroup]

no one who seriously believes in a religion in possession of nuclear launch codes. That seems like little enough to ask.

Well.....I'm gonna stop you right there....

You'd better have a Christian that believes in God on that one as if he at least believes he will have to answer to God for the nuclear Destruction of the World....he might at least pause for a second if he believes he'll answer for it and that pause might just be the thing that gets him to consider another option.

[champions77]

precisely. If there should be a tax exemption for churches, then each and every citizen should have the right to declare themselves a 'church' and thus tax exempt.
While I may think my neighbors fools for their decision to follow a neolithic origin myth, I have no intention to try to stop them. What I do take umbrage at, however, is when I'm forced to subsidize their beliefs and, secondly, when my family is put at physical risk due to the millenial delusions of 'believers'.
So, let's agree: no more tax exemption for churches and no one who seriously believes in a religion in possession of nuclear launch codes. That seems like little enough to ask.

Forced to subsidize beliefs? Join the club pal. I have been taxed for decades to support a welfare state that subsidizes people for being lazy and irresponsible while creating a class of dependency that demands that they are somehow "entitled" to what I earn by "working". To date about 12 Trillion has been spent on this crusade to eliminate poverty. How's that working for you? What used to work much more efficiently is that churches catered to the poor. Made them cut the church lawn and sweep out the church for their meal and shelter. We had fewer people on the government dole back then....amazing.

Tell me how your family is at "physical risk" by believers? If you are speaking of Muslims than I would agree with you. I have a feeling that you are not. Somehow lefties like you give the Muslims a pass. A lot of "tolerance" for Muslims. For "Christians"?...not so much. Go figure.

[StoopTroup]

Oh, they apologized alright. Eight hundred years later.

They have a long and storied past...no one will argue that.

Churches are a product of man. I'm not one to really say one is better than another. There are stories of men and Women from religions all over the World who have done good and bad things. I don't believe any of them are immune to sin. There are some that I don't think are founded on sound principles though. The Bible is a Translated Work which IMO many a man and Woman have devoted themselves in trying to explain so we can read and think about a bit of that good that's happened over and over again to make use of in our daily lives so that God himself is proud of us as his followers. We have all fallen from grace at times in our lives. I know of only one perfect man who died on a Cross for all of our sins. The good thing is....whether an apology was made to satisfy you about something that happened 800 years ago.....was there an apology to God when it happened by the people who sinned against God? Is an apology to the World enough? You really don't know.

God knows. Those that sinned against him 800 years ago....I would think they'd had to answer to God for that long before the Church they were apart of apologized to the World to satisfy the outrage of nearly a thousand years past.

[Position Limit]

Forced to subsidize beliefs? Join the club pal. I have been taxed for decades to support a welfare state that subsidizes people for being lazy and irresponsible while creating a class of dependency that demands that they are somehow "entitled" to what I earn by "working". To date about 12 Trillion has been spent on this crusade to eliminate poverty. How's that working for you? What used to work much more efficiently is that churches catered to the poor. Made them cut the church lawn and sweep out the church for their meal and shelter. We had fewer people on the government dole back then....amazing.

im sure your faux outrage over this welfare is shared with the subsidies of the ag industry, sugar industry, energy industry, banking industry, and just about any other industry you can swing a stick at. or not. i guess it's just easier demonize the welfare mom than understand how the real subsidies work. then draw a line in the sand. good luck.

[champions77]

im sure your faux outrage over this welfare is shared with the subsidies of the ag industry, sugar industry, energy industry, banking industry, and just about any other industry you can swing a stick at. or not. i guess it's just easier demonize the welfare mom than understand how the real subsidies work. then draw a line in the sand. good luck.

Why would you assume I'm for corporate welfare? Because I'm not. Welfare mom? You think she might be a little more careful if she knew her monthy check from the feds wouldn't get any larger with the next kid, and the next? The way to regulate bad behavior is not through giving someone more money if they do it, that encourages it. Bad behavior needs to be treated with some degree of pain, not a payment, otherwise you will get more of the same. It's too bad all of the social engineers in the 60's could not see where this would take us.

Bad choices in life need not be rewarded. Nor does responsible behavior need to be punished. Social programs in this country have by and large been a disaster. They have undermined the very virtues that this country was founded on, work ethic, personal responsibility and self reliance.

I've referred to socialism as a "failed ideology" Why, because not requiring someone to work for their handout leads to more and more of that behavior, then pretty soon you have more people in the government wagon than are pulling the wagon. Today more than 40% of Americans do not pay taxes.
As Margaret Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that at some point, you run out of other people's money" With a national debt exceeding 14 Trillion, I would say that we are on our way. Most would agree that entitlement programs are the main cause of this, so what does our President do right after being elected, while the economy was in the tank? He devotes virtually all of his time and energy to pass another.....entitlement program, Obamacare. Brilliant

[The Profit]

They have a long and storied past...no one will argue that.

Churches are a product of man. I'm not one to really say one is better than another. There are stories of men and Women from religions all over the World who have done good and bad things. I don't believe any of them are immune to sin. There are some that I don't think are founded on sound principles though. The Bible is a Translated Work which IMO many a man and Woman have devoted themselves in trying to explain so we can read and think about a bit of that good that's happened over and over again to make use of in our daily lives so that God himself is proud of us as his followers. We have all fallen from grace at times in our lives. I know of only one perfect man who died on a Cross for all of our sins. The good thing is....whether an apology was made to satisfy you about something that happened 800 years ago.....was there an apology to God when it happened by the people who sinned against God? Is an apology to the World enough? You really don't know.

God knows. Those that sinned against him 800 years ago....I would think they'd had to answer to God for that long before the Church they were apart of apologized to the World to satisfy the outrage of nearly a thousand years past.




Great post...

[Position Limit]

Why would you assume I'm for corporate welfare? Cause I'm not. Welfare mom? You think she might be a little more careful if she knew her monthy check from the feds wouldn't get any larger with the next kid, and the next? The way to regulate bad behavior is not through giving someone more money if they do it, that encourages it. Bad behavior needs to be treated with some degree of pain, not a payment, otherwise you will get more of the same. It's too bad all of the social engineers in the 60's could not see where this would take us.

Bad choices in life need not be rewarded. Nor does responsible behavior need to be punished. Social programs in this country have by and large been a disaster. They have undermined the very virtues that this country was founded on, work ethic, personal responsibility and self reliance.

I've referred to socialism as a "failed ideology" Why, because not requiring someone to work for their handout leads to more and more of that behavior, then pretty soon you have more people in the government wagon than are pulling the wagon. Today more than 40% of Americans do not pay taxes.
As Mararet Thatcher said, "The trouble with socialism is that at some point, you run out of other people's money" With a national debt exceeding 14 Trillion, I would say that we are on our way. Most would agree that entitlement programs are the main cause of this, so what does our President do right after being elected, while the economy was in the tank? He devotes virtually all of his time and energy to pass another.....entitlement program, Obamacare. Brilliant

those are some very original thoughts and ideas. never heard or read anything like that before. while were at it, got anymore trite quotes from politicians? like i wrote before, demonize the easiest thing to grasp then draw a line in the sand. now that you've given me the usual unoriginal tripe on welfare moms, care to give me your toughts on the deep pocket subsidies?

[champions77]

those are some very original thoughts and ideas. never heard or read anything like that before. while were at it, got anymore trite quotes from politicians? like i wrote before, demonize the easiest thing to grasp then draw a line in the sand. now that you've given me the usual unoriginal tripe on welfare moms, care to give me your toughts on the deep pocket subsidies?

Demonize? Or facts? Tell me where I am wrong?

Subsidies? The only positive thing is that corporations do hire people, some hire a lot of people. Those folks that work are paying taxes and....not taking government handouts, so that's a win win.
But I am not for corporate handouts. They are a result of the lobbyist and their efforts to control policy. If a company cannot survive on their own...then they should pay the consequences.

[KantoSooner]

Well.....I'm gonna stop you right there....

You'd better have a Christian that believes in God on that one as if he at least believes he will have to answer to God for the nuclear Destruction of the World....he might at least pause for a second if he believes he'll answer for it and that pause might just be the thing that gets him to consider another option.

I totally disagree.

Christians, at least those who actually believe in their religion, have a massive motivation to see the 'end of days' and hasten the coming of the judgement and the big reckoning.

They have every reason to 'blow it all up and let God sort it out'. If that involved only them and their families, I might find it a bit outre, but still, largely a private matter. If it involves more than than their families and, perhaps their co-religionists, then I am not comfortable with those so motivated having such power.

I'd prefer it to be in the hands of people with nothing to 'gain' through production of armageddon.

[StoopTroup]

Again.....we are in real trouble folks. Smacking each other in the mouth about our religions and our beliefs only serve to let all of this go on and on and on....

Start electing people who haven't been divorced 3 times and aren't career politicians. Push to stop Companies and the Wealthy to use their assets to influence policy. Get back to people who do help others by educating them and giving them jobs to do. Stop wasting money subsidizing other Countries that are run by men who build kingdoms instead of Democracies. Quit buying products from Countries like China that have only their own interests in mind. Quit allowing other Countries to buy property here, make them rent.

Quit selling off our country piece by piece so that someone can take a bonus they can retire on to the Bahamas. Make them give back to the Stock Holders. Although it's legal to own more than one Home or property....Tax the 2nd ones at higher rates. Allow people to pass on inheritance. Quit taxing every damn thing you can.

I will agree Obamacare isn't the right plan but the system we have doesn't work either and if we don't start electing folks who will empower Doctors to be Doctors again and not risk everything they have every time some company that made a bad product they used to help a patient....we will continue to lose bright intelligent people who really do become Doctors because they love it and not because if they do enough knee surgeries or breast implants over the next ten years they can retire to a life of luxury. That's usually a pipe dream anyways. Folks who are Doctors and lawyers all know that most the folks who study to become doctors or lawyers for the money usually don't end up rich. They end up just like the rest of us. the ones that do it because of the right reasons do it for years and thought of retiring isn't something they obsess about for 20 years....it's something that is usually forced upon them due to old age. They love it and wouldn't stop until they had to crawl to work....

[StoopTroup]

I totally disagree.

Christians, at least those who actually believe in their religion, have a massive motivation to see the 'end of days' and hasten the coming of the judgement and the big reckoning.

They have every reason to 'blow it all up and let God sort it out'. If that involved only them and their families, I might find it a bit outre, but still, largely a private matter. If it involves more than than their families and, perhaps their co-religionists, then I am not comfortable with those so motivated having such power.

I'd prefer it to be in the hands of people with nothing to 'gain' through production of armageddon.

That's something you think but we've had plenty of chances to have already pushed the button and it didn't happen.

Russia was run by a Country that didn't allow religion and now....

You would have us all believe your view was possible but it's been tried and this was the result....


Putin's father was "a model communist, genuinely believing in its ideals while trying to put them into practice in his own life". With this dedication he became secretary of the Party cell in his workshop and then after taking night classes joined the factory’s Party bureau. Though his father was a "militant atheist", Putin's mother "was a devoted Orthodox believer". Though she kept no icons at home, she attended church regularly, despite the government's persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church at that time. She ensured that Putin was secretly christened as a baby and she regularly took him to services. His father knew of this but turned a blind eye. According to Putin's own statements, his religious awakening followed the serious car crash of his wife in 1993, and was deepened by a life-threatening fire that burned down their dacha in August 1996. Right before an official visit to Israel his mother gave him his baptismal cross telling him to get it blessed “I did as she said and then put the cross around my neck. I have never taken it off since.” Putin repeated the story to George W. Bush in June 2001, which might have inspired Bush to make his remark that he had "got a sense of Putin's soul". When asked whether he believes in God during his interview with Time, he responded saying: "... There are things I believe, which should not in my position, at least, be shared with the public at large for everybody's consumption because that would look like self-advertising or a political striptease."

Your view would pus us closer and closer towards Armageddon.

[Position Limit]

Again.....we are in real trouble folks. Smacking each other in the mouth about our religions and our beliefs only serve to let all of this go on and on and on....

Start electing people who haven't been divorced 3 times and aren't career politicians. Push to stop Companies and the Wealthy to use their assets to influence policy. Get back to people who do help others by educating them and giving them jobs to do. Stop wasting money subsidizing other Countries that are run by men who build kingdoms instead of Democracies. Quit buying products from Countries like China that have only their own interests in mind. Quit allowing other Countries to buy property here, make them rent.

Quit selling off our country piece by piece so that someone can take a bonus they can retire on to the Bahamas. Make them give back to the Stock Holders. Although it's legal to own more than one Home or property....Tax the 2nd ones at higher rates. Allow people to pass on inheritance. Quit taxing every damn thing you can.

I will agree Obamacare isn't the right plan but the system we have doesn't work either and if we don't start electing folks who will empower Doctors to be Doctors again and not risk everything they have every time some company that made a bad product they used to help a patient....we will continue to lose bright intelligent people who really do become Doctors because they love it and not because if they do enough knee surgeries or breast implants over the next ten years they can retire to a life of luxury. That's usually a pipe dream anyways. Folks who are Doctors and lawyers all know that most the folks who study to become doctors or lawyers for the money usually don't end up rich. They end up just like the rest of us. the ones that do it because of the right reasons do it for years and thought of retiring isn't something they obsess about for 20 years....it's something that is usually forced upon them due to old age. They love it and wouldn't stop until they had to crawl to work....

very well written.

[StoopTroup]

Also....many trial launches were tried during military operations and not everyone who was commanded to launch did. Why? They didn't want to be held responsible to God for being a part of ending life on this planet.

Your view would put a few non-religious people in power that would never pull the plug on people....they would probably end up putting them in camps though as the masses would never allow what you are suggesting to happen. The result would probably look like this....

http://www.topnews.in/files/adolf-hitler.jpg

[StoopTroup]

Hows that for some Delusional Fear and paranoia? :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well i'm not worried. Not with High-Speed Rail in our future. Choo Choo!!!You have nailed it. Nothing to see, here. Bring it on, Achmadinejihad, I BELIEVE!

[StoopTroup]

You have nailed it. Nothing to see, here. Bring it on, Achmadinejihad, I BELIEVE!

Thank you Lord Vader

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So, now the left is going after Newt, again. They got him back in the '90's, and prolly thought it was permanent. They have a lot of folks to politically destroy this time around, and need to find someone unelectable to get nominated for the Republicans again, like they did last time.

They succeeded for the '08 election, and boy, are we ever better off after 2 yrs of their leadership! It's gonna be fun to see all the constructive advice the left gives the republicans this time around.

[Position Limit]

So, now the left is going after Newt, again. They got him back in the '90's, and prolly thought it was permanent. They have a lot of folks to politically destroy this time around, and need to find someone unelectable to get nominated for the Republicans again, like they did last time.

They succeeded for the '08 election, and boy, are we ever better off after 2 yrs of their leadership! It's gonna be fun to see all the constructive advice the left gives the republicans this time around.

on what planet do you currently reside? newt doesnt need the left to destroy him. looks like he can handle that task on his own. the left should just stay out of his way. that clown can take care of himself. how was the left capable of putting mccain and palin on a ticket? this should be good. i thought palin was the dream candidate of the right.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

on what planet do you currently reside? newt doesnt need the left to destroy him. looks like he can handle that task on his own. the left should just stay out of his way. that clown can take care of himself. how was the left capable of putting mccain and palin on a ticket? this should be good. i thought palin was the dream candidate of the right.They will not only NOT stay out of the way, they will take this event, and even fabricate some chit, until he's marginalized again. But, you know that, and are proud to be part of it. I won't answer the last question. Even you should offer up better stuff than that.

[StoopTroup]

Frank Keating - A Devout Roman Catholic

Governor of the Great State of Oklahoma

He wasn't my favorite Governor but I remember when he was asked to stop an execution in our State when he was Governor. He really struggled with that. To be a devout Roman Catholic means you do not believe in the Death Penalty. Frank could have stuck to his Catholic Principles and stopped the execution but he didn't. When asked how he could do that he responded with a statement that I believe showed he was a very capable leader and someone who could maybe even be trusted with Presidential Launch codes. I may be mis-quoting him a bit but he essentially said that he made the decision to allow the execution to take place as he wasn't elected to lead this State based on his personal beliefs....he was elected to do what the State expected him to do which was protect all Oklahoman's and make sure that when they felt someone deserved the Death Penalty....it was his decision to decide if it was just and that the man or woman facing the sentence had been treated fairly and given every opportunity to prove they didn't deserve to die for their crimes. He wasn't elected to get rid of the Death penalty. The people of Oklahoma are more than capable of deciding whether or not the Death Penalty should be used or not.

He didn't allow his personal beliefs to get in the way....he did the job he felt Oklahoman's wanted him to do.

Later when his Wife ran for Office...I think he lost his mind and now they no longer live in our fair State.

I did find his decision about that execution a very personal and tough moment for him back then and was impressed with how he handled it as a devout Catholic. I think a lot of him for that...I know it was one of the most difficult decisions he ever made as Governor.

[KantoSooner]

That's something you think but we've had plenty of chances to have already pushed the button and it didn't happen.

Russia was run by a Country that didn't allow religion and now....

You would have us all believe your view was possible but it's been tried and this was the result....



Your view would pus us closer and closer towards Armageddon.

Well Howdy do! Suddenly my lack of comfort with having the power of life and death vested in people who believe in what can only be called a Death Cult turns me into a totalitarian and a proponent of a 'system' that's been tried over and over to shocking failure.

Well.

I suggest you brush up on your reading skills and go back and reread my original. It was pretty clear: You stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Pretty pure libertarianism. And that, dearly beloved, really is a 'system' that's never been tried before.

Instead, what we've had since people started planting crops, around 10,000 years ago, has been a series of methods used by rulers to control the general populace. Typically, these have been a combo of a grooving story (call it a 'religion' (too many to count) or a 'history' (the Nazis) or a 'science' (Soviet Russia - though communism of course had nothing to do with science) and the threat of physical compulsion.

It's these social control 'systems', in general, that have proven to be failures. Not the maximization of human freedom.

And as to the red herring of 'religion' being some sort of 'civilizing' force in the world, I suggest you open a newspaper (I know, I know, the liberal media, damn them, reporting the goings on in the world one more time. Inconvenient, terribly.) The vast majority of wars going back at least the last two thousand years have at their roots, yep, religion.

So, how about a truce, eh? I'll not do things that impact your ability to practice your religion if you refrain from doing things that impact on my ability to live my life. And oh, by the way, that means, we keep religion out of politics, the making of laws that apply to the non-faithful and decisions that impact people outside one's own faith.

I'll wait with bated breath to see if this time is the first time in 2,000 plus years that that religious community could give up on a compulsion to mind everyone else's business.

Happy Friday.

[Aldebaran]

Any religion whose adherents allow capitalism to flourish is pretty much beyond redemption.

[The Profit]

Frank Keating - A Devout Roman Catholic

Governor of the Great State of Oklahoma

He wasn't my favorite Governor but I remember when he was asked to stop an execution in our State when he was Governor. He really struggled with that. To be a devout Roman Catholic means you do not believe in the Death Penalty. Frank could have stuck to his Catholic Principles and stopped the execution but he didn't. When asked how he could do that he responded with a statement that I believe showed he was a very capable leader and someone who could maybe even be trusted with Presidential Launch codes. I may be mis-quoting him a bit but he essentially said that he made the decision to allow the execution to take place as he wasn't elected to lead this State based on his personal beliefs....he was elected to do what the State expected him to do which was protect all Oklahoman's and make sure that when they felt someone deserved the Death Penalty....it was his decision to decide if it was just and that the man or woman facing the sentence had been treated fairly and given every opportunity to prove they didn't deserve to die for their crimes. He wasn't elected to get rid of the Death penalty. The people of Oklahoma are more than capable of deciding whether or not the Death Penalty should be used or not.

He didn't allow his personal beliefs to get in the way....he did the job he felt Oklahoman's wanted him to do.

Later when his Wife ran for Office...I think he lost his mind and now they no longer live in our fair State.

I did find his decision about that execution a very personal and tough moment for him back then and was impressed with how he handled it as a devout Catholic. I think a lot of him for that...I know it was one of the most difficult decisions he ever made as Governor.




I flew with him once from OKC to St. Louis. He was going to change planes and end up in Indianapolis. There is no doubt that I am a yellow-dog democrat, but I actually enjoyed talking with him. He was really a nice guy. When the major priest scandal hit, Gov. Keating chaired a committee that made recommendations to the Roman Church, including defrocking of priests, bishops and cardinals, who either molested children, or allowed the molestation to continue. The Roman Church really didn't want to hear about it.

[champions77]

Well Howdy do! Suddenly my lack of comfort with having the power of life and death vested in people who believe in what can only be called a Death Cult turns me into a totalitarian and a proponent of a 'system' that's been tried over and over to shocking failure.

Well.

I suggest you brush up on your reading skills and go back and reread my original. It was pretty clear: You stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. Pretty pure libertarianism. And that, dearly beloved, really is a 'system' that's never been tried before.

Instead, what we've had since people started planting crops, around 10,000 years ago, has been a series of methods used by rulers to control the general populace. Typically, these have been a combo of a grooving story (call it a 'religion' (too many to count) or a 'history' (the Nazis) or a 'science' (Soviet Russia - though communism of course had nothing to do with science) and the threat of physical compulsion.

It's these social control 'systems', in general, that have proven to be failures. Not the maximization of human freedom.

And as to the red herring of 'religion' being some sort of 'civilizing' force in the world, I suggest you open a newspaper (I know, I know, the liberal media, damn them, reporting the goings on in the world one more time. Inconvenient, terribly.) The vast majority of wars going back at least the last two thousand years have at their roots, yep, religion.

So, how about a truce, eh? I'll not do things that impact your ability to practice your religion if you refrain from doing things that impact on my ability to live my life. And oh, by the way, that means, we keep religion out of politics, the making of laws that apply to the non-faithful and decisions that impact people outside one's own faith.

I'll wait with bated breath to see if this time is the first time in 2,000 plus years that that religious community could give up on a compulsion to mind everyone else's business.

Happy Friday.

"The vast majority of wars going back at least the last two thousand years have at their roots, yep, religion."

Interesting comment. You been hanging with Bill Maher again? Please enlighten me as to this claim. I'll make it easy on you, please take it "war by war" since the American Civil War and show me where the war had it's roots in religion. Please don't lay some obscure little ditty on me, Religion has to be the main reason the war was faught.

[AlboSooner]

I totally disagree.

Christians, at least those who actually believe in their religion, have a massive motivation to see the 'end of days' and hasten the coming of the judgement and the big reckoning.

They have every reason to 'blow it all up and let God sort it out'. If that involved only them and their families, I might find it a bit outre, but still, largely a private matter. If it involves more than than their families and, perhaps their co-religionists, then I am not comfortable with those so motivated having such power.

I'd prefer it to be in the hands of people with nothing to 'gain' through production of armageddon.


You have misconceptions about Christians.

[StoopTroup]

I flew with him once from OKC to St. Louis. He was going to change planes and end up in Indianapolis. There is no doubt that I am a yellow-dog democrat, but I actually enjoyed talking with him. He was really a nice guy. When the major priest scandal hit, Gov. Keating chaired a committee that made recommendations to the Roman Church, including defrocking of priests, bishops and cardinals, who either molested children, or allowed the molestation to continue. The Roman Church really didn't want to hear about it.

I don't think they didn't want to here about it. I think they didn't know what to do about it. It's difficult for the Church to believe a guy that has given up so many things in his life would do something to harm the Church like that and especially the children of the Parish These men of God aren't a Police force. I think Frank and many others really were instrumental in getting the RCC in America to realize they needed help from Parishioners. Once they realized they had more than just a few isolated incidents and that parishioners felt they needed to allow law enforcement to investigate these claims and put these guys away instead of hide them as sick men who needed to just be sent to another Parish and do penance...things really changed. I know the Boy Scouts and other organizations have taken steps to make sure children are never in a one on one situation with adult leaders so that the risk of a child being taken advantage of or a child claiming an assault wouldn't happen. The Church definitely didn't do much to protect children from possible abuse or themselves from possible extortion.

I'll never say that things can't still happen but Frank and many others did begin to help protect children and adults and Priests from getting themselves into questionable situations that could lead to anyone being able to take advantage of anyone.

The RCC definitely just didn't do enough and there are men who claimed to be men of God that have been stripped of a life of serving others because of their disgusting fall from grace and sexual assaults of children.

I hope I never see another case of this in my lifetime.

Frank is a good Christian IMO.

[C&CDean]

Any religion whose adherents allow capitalism to flourish is pretty much beyond redemption.

I'm still waiting for your first post that actually adds anything to the debate/discussion. Once sentence soundbites with no purpose other than to attempt to raise someone's hackles. meh.

Anyhow, it's threads like these that make me pine for the No Politics Fridays of the past. I will admit some fairly decent discussion took place in this thread, but it still is boiling down to the "us vs. them" like it always does. WGAS what Newt says does? It's not like he is ever gonna go anywhere politically again. He's a joke, and anything he says should be taken as such. Doesn't matter how right/wrong he is.

[Aldebaran]

You sure find a lot of opportunity to hit the "quote" button to add your special brand of dissmissive rhetoric to something that doesn't add anything to the debate/discussion.

[KantoSooner]

"The vast majority of wars going back at least the last two thousand years have at their roots, yep, religion."

Interesting comment. You been hanging with Bill Maher again? Please enlighten me as to this claim. I'll make it easy on you, please take it "war by war" since the American Civil War and show me where the war had it's roots in religion. Please don't lay some obscure little ditty on me, Religion has to be the main reason the war was faught.

This might take some time, but let's run through some that spring forth:

The Crusades.
The 30 years War.
The English Revolution.
Everything that occured between the Turks and the S.E. Europeans, from, say 1100 to around 1850.
The Reconquista.
Take your pick of wars and war-like behavior between the Poles and Russians from 1,000 to the onset of WWII.
The Russo-Swedish wars of the 18th century.
The conquest of Scotland by the Brits.
The conquest of Ireland by the Brits.
The Spanish conquest of Central and South America.
The Spanish colonization of The Philippines.
The Muslim conquest of North Africa, Persia, India and Indonesia.
The Buddhist conquest of Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos.
The Inquisition. (and, oh, yes, it was a war. Ask anyone who was on the losing side, like the Jews of Spain. And, funnily enough, it's still going on! Yes, the Vatican still has an office of the Holy Inquisition. Not only not apologized for, not even ended after what? 600 years of persecution of the innocent. It's like Buchenwald never closed, just changed commandants. And for what? Failure to pray the 'right' way, or to wear the proper beanie when doing so or what-the-hell-ever)

Now, let's look at some more recent.

"The Troubles" in Ireland.
The genocide of the Armenians.
The genocide of the Jews in Europe, 1937-1945.
The genocide of the Catholic Ukrainians by the Soviets (Orthodox).
Lebanon.
Any of the Arab/Israeli wars.
The Iran/Iraq war.
The Algerian Revolution.
The Biafran/Nigerian Civil war.
The Sri Lankan Civil War
The ongoing Civil war(s) in India one in the NE (Hindu/Buddhist) and another in the SE (Hindu/Buddhist).
The wars between India and Pakistan (Hindu/Muslim).
The ongoing war(s) in the eastern Indonesian islands between Muslim majorities and either Christian or animist minorities.
East Timor's revolution.
Ongoing war against terrorism (Muslims vs. flavor of the week: the West/Christians, the Communist/Buddhist/Taoist Chinese, the Hindu Indians, the Animist South Sudanese...)
Oh, and let's not forget,
Rwanda, Burundi, The Congo and The Sudan

All of these and more had religion at their roots.

Yep, religion has contributed mightily to making our world safe, peaceful, verdant and happy. And no, I don't single Christians out. In fact, after a terrifying run of close to 2,000 years, Christians have calmed down markedly during the last century. It's the mental disease of handing one's logic, reason and morality over to a clergy that is both evocative of bad behavior and common to all religious faiths.

And we need not even get into the rather creepy inability of religious orders to separate themselves from pederasty. And it's not just the Catholic Priesthood. Nope, the good ole Dalai Lama's monks have a well deserved reputation for ramming young boys during their 1-2 year training period. And Muslim religious types seem to have a problem understanding why sex outside of marriage is bad only when it involves a young girl. I mean, they seem to enjoy raping little boys and trying to justify it as somehow formative to the boys' 'character'. Shall we go into the practices of orthodox Jewry? No. You're right. Probably best leave that maggoty stone unturned.

[champions77]

This might take some time, but let's run through some that spring forth:

The Crusades.
The 30 years War.
The English Revolution.
Everything that occured between the Turks and the S.E. Europeans, from, say 1100 to around 1850.
The Reconquista.
Take your pick of wars and war-like behavior between the Poles and Russians from 1,000 to the onset of WWII.
The Russo-Swedish wars of the 18th century.
The conquest of Scotland by the Brits.
The conquest of Ireland by the Brits.
The Spanish conquest of Central and South America.
The Spanish colonization of The Philippines.
The Muslim conquest of North Africa, Persia, India and Indonesia.
The Buddhist conquest of Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos.
The Inquisition. (and, oh, yes, it was a war. Ask anyone who was on the losing side, like the Jews of Spain. And, funnily enough, it's still going on! Yes, the Vatican still has an office of the Holy Inquisition. Not only not apologized for, not even ended after what? 600 years of persecution of the innocent. It's like Buchenwald never closed, just changed commandants. And for what? Failure to pray the 'right' way, or to wear the proper beanie when doing so or what-the-hell-ever)

Now, let's look at some more recent.

"The Troubles" in Ireland.
The genocide of the Armenians.
The genocide of the Jews in Europe, 1937-1945.
The genocide of the Catholic Ukrainians by the Soviets (Orthodox).
Lebanon.
Any of the Arab/Israeli wars.
The Iran/Iraq war.
The Algerian Revolution.
The Biafran/Nigerian Civil war.
The Sri Lankan Civil War
The ongoing Civil war(s) in India one in the NE (Hindu/Buddhist) and another in the SE (Hindu/Buddhist).
The wars between India and Pakistan (Hindu/Muslim).
The ongoing war(s) in the eastern Indonesian islands between Muslim majorities and either Christian or animist minorities.
East Timor's revolution.
Ongoing war against terrorism (Muslims vs. flavor of the week: the West/Christians, the Communist/Buddhist/Taoist Chinese, the Hindu Indians, the Animist South Sudanese...)
Oh, and let's not forget,
Rwanda, Burundi, The Congo and The Sudan

All of these and more had religion at their roots.

Yep, religion has contributed mightily to making our world safe, peaceful, verdant and happy. And no, I don't single Christians out. In fact, after a terrifying run of close to 2,000 years, Christians have calmed down markedly during the last century. It's the mental disease of handing one's logic, reason and morality over to a clergy that is both evocative of bad behavior and common to all religious faiths.

And we need not even get into the rather creepy inability of religious orders to separate themselves from pederasty. And it's not just the Catholic Priesthood. Nope, the good ole Dalai Lama's monks have a well deserved reputation for ramming young boys during their 1-2 year training period. And Muslim religious types seem to have a problem understanding why sex outside of marriage is bad only when it involves a young girl. I mean, they seem to enjoy raping little boys and trying to justify it as somehow formative to the boys' 'character'. Shall we go into the practices of orthodox Jewry? No. You're right. Probably best leave that maggoty stone unturned.

Can we focus on the last 150 years and wars that have affected us more directly or would that kind of ruin the impact of your declaration?

[jkjsooner]

Maybe Newt and Alan Greenspan had a bet on who could produce a more internet-famous quip this week:



http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/30/with-notably-rare-exceptions/


my favorite spin off of that one is:
"Though unredeemably(sic) opaque, Mr. Madoff’s operations delivered excellent returns, with notably rare exceptions."

Greenspan is desperate to regain his credibility and reputation before he dies. It isn't going to happen.

[Chuck Bao]

This might take some time, but let's run through some that spring forth:

The Crusades.
The 30 years War.
The English Revolution.
Everything that occured between the Turks and the S.E. Europeans, from, say 1100 to around 1850.
The Reconquista.
Take your pick of wars and war-like behavior between the Poles and Russians from 1,000 to the onset of WWII.
The Russo-Swedish wars of the 18th century.
The conquest of Scotland by the Brits.
The conquest of Ireland by the Brits.
The Spanish conquest of Central and South America.
The Spanish colonization of The Philippines.
The Muslim conquest of North Africa, Persia, India and Indonesia.
The Buddhist conquest of Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos.
The Inquisition. (and, oh, yes, it was a war. Ask anyone who was on the losing side, like the Jews of Spain. And, funnily enough, it's still going on! Yes, the Vatican still has an office of the Holy Inquisition. Not only not apologized for, not even ended after what? 600 years of persecution of the innocent. It's like Buchenwald never closed, just changed commandants. And for what? Failure to pray the 'right' way, or to wear the proper beanie when doing so or what-the-hell-ever)

Now, let's look at some more recent.

"The Troubles" in Ireland.
The genocide of the Armenians.
The genocide of the Jews in Europe, 1937-1945.
The genocide of the Catholic Ukrainians by the Soviets (Orthodox).
Lebanon.
Any of the Arab/Israeli wars.
The Iran/Iraq war.
The Algerian Revolution.
The Biafran/Nigerian Civil war.
The Sri Lankan Civil War
The ongoing Civil war(s) in India one in the NE (Hindu/Buddhist) and another in the SE (Hindu/Buddhist).
The wars between India and Pakistan (Hindu/Muslim).
The ongoing war(s) in the eastern Indonesian islands between Muslim majorities and either Christian or animist minorities.
East Timor's revolution.
Ongoing war against terrorism (Muslims vs. flavor of the week: the West/Christians, the Communist/Buddhist/Taoist Chinese, the Hindu Indians, the Animist South Sudanese...)
Oh, and let's not forget,
Rwanda, Burundi, The Congo and The Sudan

All of these and more had religion at their roots.

Yep, religion has contributed mightily to making our world safe, peaceful, verdant and happy. And no, I don't single Christians out. In fact, after a terrifying run of close to 2,000 years, Christians have calmed down markedly during the last century. It's the mental disease of handing one's logic, reason and morality over to a clergy that is both evocative of bad behavior and common to all religious faiths.

And we need not even get into the rather creepy inability of religious orders to separate themselves from pederasty. And it's not just the Catholic Priesthood. Nope, the good ole Dalai Lama's monks have a well deserved reputation for ramming young boys during their 1-2 year training period. And Muslim religious types seem to have a problem understanding why sex outside of marriage is bad only when it involves a young girl. I mean, they seem to enjoy raping little boys and trying to justify it as somehow formative to the boys' 'character'. Shall we go into the practices of orthodox Jewry? No. You're right. Probably best leave that maggoty stone unturned.

I disagree. I think all wars are really about power and conquest and in the modern era add in business. The easiest way to consolidate power is to inflame the local population with religious rhetoric about an external enemy. I don't think country leaders way back when or even today are really so pious. They grabbed leadership by stepping on a lot of good folks, good religious folks.

And, I am not talking about defending against real foreign aggression because they didn't start the war and we are talking about the root of the war.

Take for example the muslim uprising in five southern provinces in Thailand. Everyone who is quite knowledgeable about the situation there say that the root of the uprising really isn't religious, at all. The common perception is that it is. The majority muslim population in these provinces have been inflamed by religious persecution and the Bangkok elite, with amazingly stupid sheer arrogance, have played right into it. The real root of the uprising and attempts at ethnic cleansing are some wealthy businessmen who want to control all of the smuggling and prostitution at the Malaysian border without having to give a cut to the Bangkok bureaucrats. Now, if you offer prostitution to Malaysians who cross the border just to have sex, how really religious can you be?

The Bangkok bureaucrats, which include police and military, don't want to lose that revenue source, so we have a lot of young men dying on both sides. How religious is that?

Dare I say it? Newt Gingrich and some other Republicans are just using age-old and proven tactics.

[MR2-Sooner86]

I remember when people in America were scared to death of kids listening to Black Sabbath and Judas Priest because then they were worshiping Satan and killing babies.

vG_w-uElGbM
gG0ncaf-jhI&feature
HwSP3j7RJlU&feature

People fell for this too hook, line, and sinker.

[47straight]

So, how about a truce, eh? I'll not do things that impact your ability to practice your religion if you refrain from doing things that impact on my ability to live my life. And oh, by the way, that means, we keep religion out of politics, the making of laws that apply to the non-faithful and decisions that impact people outside one's own faith.

I'll wait with bated breath to see if this time is the first time in 2,000 plus years that that religious community could give up on a compulsion to mind everyone else's business.

Happy Friday.

Feel free to try to impact my ability to practice my religion or to put my religion into my politics whether it's speaking out or in the ballot box, or any other 1st Amendment right.

[soonercruiser]

I'm still waiting for your first post that actually adds anything to the debate/discussion. Once sentence soundbites with no purpose other than to attempt to raise someone's hackles. meh.

Anyhow, it's threads like these that make me pine for the No Politics Fridays of the past. I will admit some fairly decent discussion took place in this thread, but it still is boiling down to the "us vs. them" like it always does. WGAS what Newt says does? It's not like he is ever gonna go anywhere politically again. He's a joke, and anything he says should be taken as such. Doesn't matter how right/wrong he is.

Thanks for sharing YOUR opinion.
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

The Roman Church has approved the murder of many more people than have been killed by modern Islamics. Have you ever heard of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. There are literally hundreds of stories about Roman Catholic sponsored mass murder.

Boy Profit.,
I guess you never took my advice and got therapy for unresolved Catholic (anti-Catholic) issues.
Please give it a rest!
:rolleyes:

[StoopTroup]

I would approve a murder but I got a 3 day ban for the last one.

[AlboSooner]

Being close to finishing Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin (http://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465002390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301727002&sr=8-1), I find it laughable that KantoSooner, would characterize WWII and the mini-wars around it, as a religious wars.
When Stalin starved to death millions of Ukrainians, as an atheist he couldn't care less about their religion, but just wanted to enslave them and collectivize their lands, so he could use their resources to build up Russia.

In reality it was the logical outworking of atheism that man is the measuring stick for all, which allowed for the killing of more than 50 million people, so one nation could dominate the other and steal its resources. More people died in the 20th century than in all of human history put together, despite us claiming that God is dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead), and putting our hope on science and humanism.

I hope that the bias and intolerance against religion, doesn't make it OK to revise and twist history to fit a certain dogmatic agenda.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Forced to subsidize beliefs? Join the club pal. I have been taxed for decades to support a welfare state that subsidizes people for being lazy and irresponsible while creating a class of dependency that demands that they are somehow "entitled" to what I earn by "working". To date about 12 Trillion has been spent on this crusade to eliminate poverty. How's that working for you? What used to work much more efficiently is that churches catered to the poor. Made them cut the church lawn and sweep out the church for their meal and shelter. We had fewer people on the government dole back then....amazing.

Tell me how your family is at "physical risk" by believers? If you are speaking of Muslims than I would agree with you. I have a feeling that you are not. Somehow lefties like you give the Muslims a pass. A lot of "tolerance" for Muslims. For "Christians"?...not so much. Go figure.no chit. The left's fear of Christianity is ugly, ain't it?

[StoopTroup]

no chit. The left's fear of Christianity is ugly, ain't it?

Sometimes it's funny how you make statements like this that actually imply there are no Christians on the left. Sounds like you are standing in judgement of other people when you do it.

It's very Fred of you Clone.....

http://www.freethunk.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/fred-phelps.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Seems that most of the passionate diatribes I've read fearing a wrath of Christians do not come from those who would be called Conservatives.

Also, what I said doesn't lead one to believe I think there are no Christians on the left.

[StoopTroup]

Seems that most of the passionate diatribes I've read fearing a wrath of Christians do not come from those who would be called Conservatives.

Also, what I said doesn't lead one to believe I think there are no Christians on the left.

And many of those who would call themselves Conservatives do not reflect the ideals of Conservatism.

[OhU1]

The left's fear of Christianity is ugly, ain't it?

Of course if Jesus were here today he would be a right wing Republican! :rolleyes:

[StoopTroup]

I bet he wouldn't talk into a golden microphone either.

[okie52]

Any religion whose adherents allow capitalism to flourish is pretty much beyond redemption.

Socialism is next to Godliness.

[AlboSooner]

Socialism is next to Godliness.

The millions of Ukrainians who died of starvation at the hands of Stalin's collectivization, disagree...

Truthfully speaking, Stalin might be more of a monster than Hitler, but unlike the Germans, the soviets were masters at doing things in the quiet, in the distant lands of Siberia.

[okie52]

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot....

[The Profit]

The millions of Ukrainians who died of starvation at the hands of Stalin's collectivization, disagree...

Truthfully speaking, Stalin might be more of a monster than Hitler, but unlike the Germans, the soviets were masters at doing things in the quiet, in the distant lands of Siberia.




You are confusing socialism with communism.

[Aldebaran]

You are confusing socialism with communism.

A pretty common mistake. Ironic too, since their examples are conservative examples and not liberal ones.

[okie52]

Didn't confuse it all...just went along with Albo's train of thought.

Hugo Chavez

[AlboSooner]

You are confusing socialism with communism.

The process of collectivization which underwent in the soviet union under Stalin did not spread the lands equally, from those who had a lot to those who didn't have a lot, but rather it made private property a property of the state. That my friend is socialism.



The means of production (land, equipment, livestock) were to be totally "socialized", i.e. removed from the control of individual peasant households. Not even any private household garden plots were allowed for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

[Aldebaran]

No, that's still communism. Communism is a regressive conservative political manifestation with socialist lipservice. But is isn't socialist.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Socialism is next to Godliness.It's a form of religion, and apparently, there are some adherants right here on this message board.

[KantoSooner]

I'm not sure there is a compelling distinction between Communism, Socialism and Naziism. All three rely upon centralization of economic and coercive power in the state and control of the state by a party with ability to preempt the will of the people when the people are 'wrong' or 'misled'.

I believe them all to be simply variations on a theme.

Hayek was probably the most succinct observer when he used the shorthand of referring to all of them as 'planners'. (see, 'The Road to Serfdom').

That they all also share the notion that people can be 'remade' into 'new' men and women is also interesting and reflective of their shared belief that human society has a single evolutionary pathway and single destination.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not sure there is a compelling distinction between Communism, Socialism and Naziism. All three rely upon centralization of economic and coercive power in the state and control of the state by a party with ability to preempt the will of the people when the people are 'wrong' or 'misled'.

I believe them all to be simply variations on a theme.

Hayek was probably the most succinct observer when he used the shorthand of referring to all of them as 'planners'. (see, 'The Road to Serfdom').

That they all also share the notion that people can be 'remade' into 'new' men and women is also interesting and reflective of their shared belief that human society has a single evolutionary pathway and single destination.A "slightly" different concept than the framers of our Constitution had in mind, no?..haha

[AlboSooner]

I'm not sure there is a compelling distinction between Communism, Socialism and Naziism. All three rely upon centralization of economic and coercive power in the state and control of the state by a party with ability to preempt the will of the people when the people are 'wrong' or 'misled'.

I believe them all to be simply variations on a theme.

Hayek was probably the most succinct observer when he used the shorthand of referring to all of them as 'planners'. (see, 'The Road to Serfdom').

That they all also share the notion that people can be 'remade' into 'new' men and women is also interesting and reflective of their shared belief that human society has a single evolutionary pathway and single destination.

Good point.

Stalin and Hitler being best buds was not as unfathomable as one may think, like you said though Nazism and Communism are at opposite sides of the political spectrum, they are two sides on the same crappy coin.

I have enjoyed the discussion by all here.

[okie52]

It's a form of religion, and apparently, there are some adherants right here on this message board.

Capitalism is a dirty word.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Capitalism is a dirty word.synonyms: Dracula, Satan, Reagan, Palin, Milton Friedman

[Turd_Ferguson]

Milton FriedmanNow that's a mother****er that had his **** together right there...

[StoopTroup]

A "slightly" different concept than the framers of our Constitution had in mind, no?..haha

Thank goodness they all framed the perfect document so that Conservatives of the future could blast us all back into taking away the right for Women to vote and re-instituting slavery.

[Fraggle145]

synonyms: Dracula, Satan, Reagan, Palin, Milton Friedman

I cant believe you put Palin with them...

[The Profit]

synonyms: Dracula, Satan, Reagan, Palin, Milton Friedman




Palin is not a pure capitalist. I would agree that Dracula and Satan were/are capitalists, and would probably be considered conservative Republicans. Jesus, on the other hand, was definitely a socialist.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Stalin and Hitler being best buds was not as unfathomable as one may think

No.

Hitler, along with all Germans, looked down on the Russians as sub-human. They only got a treaty with them so they wouldn't have to fight them when they invaded Poland. They were going to invade and fight Russia but they wanted to do it on their terms.

Hitler wouldn't be "best buds" with a person he considered inferior to himself.


like you said though fascism and Communism are at opposite sides of the political spectrum

Fixed.

[Aldebaran]

I don't care for Reagan, but I'm all about Reaganing.

[soonerscuba]

I would assume that Dracula would be a monarchist, and when I think capitalism, I don't think 15th century Romania. Satan controls a secondary market, so I think the label fits.

[Aldebaran]

Blood sucking creatures of the dark are blood sucking creatures of the dark irregardless of epoch.

[The Profit]

Blood sucking creatures of the dark are blood sucking creatures of the dark irregardless of epoch.


:D

[KantoSooner]

Good point.

Stalin and Hitler being best buds was not as unfathomable as one may think, like you said though Nazism and Communism are at opposite sides of the political spectrum, they are two sides on the same crappy coin.

I have enjoyed the discussion by all here.

I don't think Naziism and Communism are opposite at all, or only in the sense that they are opposite 'ends' of a circle.

One primary division in governments is whether the individual or the collective are placed at the foundation of the society. For the U.S., thankfully, the individual has at least some of their rights enshrined even against the government or rest of society as a group. For the Nazis and Communists, the collective was and is superior.

[Aldebaran]

Communism is to collective as conservative is to compassionate. Lip service in the name of control of the many by the few.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I cant believe you put Palin with them...She's an outspoken proponent of Capitalism. It's about Capitalism, and the Left fears and despises her because she's so loved by Capitalists and Constitutionalists. Why shouldn't she be there?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Palin is not a pure capitalist. I would agree that Dracula and Satan were/are capitalists, and would probably be considered conservative Republicans. Jesus, on the other hand, was definitely a socialist.Socialists believe it's the right of the state to control and own the economic system. I know of nowhere that Jesus espoused such behavior. IOW, you are a confusenick, Bubba.

[StoopTroup]

She's an outspoken proponent of Capitalism. It's about Capitalism, and the Left fears and despises her because she's so loved by Capitalists and Constitutionalists. Why shouldn't she be there?

No....I think it's because she loves Rupert Murdock's money more than being an elected official.....

Clone....you are so far out of touch with what Americans are pissed about.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't think Naziism and Communism are opposite at all, or only in the sense that they are opposite 'ends' of a circle.

One primary division in governments is whether the individual or the collective are placed at the foundation of the society. For the U.S., thankfully, the individual has at least some of their rights enshrined even against the government or rest of society as a group. For the Nazis and Communists, the collective was and is superior.So many folks don't get this. I don't think that they're stupid, by any means, but some wires have been crossed in their edumacation, or something.

They prefer to paint the American Right, freedom loving, individual rights' loving people, as "fascists". That has to be some kind of brainwashing by somebody, because it sure doesn't make sense.

[KantoSooner]

In a way.

the problem is, you can't 'empower' the many without creating tyranny. Everyone's a minority in some way; and, if you clear the way for the many to run things, sooner or later you're bound to empower a monster who exploits everyone.

Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Cromwell
the French Revolutionaries
The Pilgrims and Puritans

When you destroy the absolute rights of the individual, the azzholes start cllimbing in the windows.

[Aldebaran]

Socialists believe it's the right of the state to control and own the economic system. I know of nowhere that Jesus espoused such behavior. IOW, you are a confusenick, Bubba.


Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 17:14, 25:31-46
Mark 7:31, 8:22
John 9:51
James 2:1-7

[KantoSooner]

So many folks don't get this. I don't think that they're stupid, by any means, but some wires have been crossed in their edumacation, or something.

They prefer to paint the American Right, freedom loving, individual rights' loving people, as "fascists". That has to be some kind of brainwashing by somebody, because it sure doesn't make sense.

the intellectual consensus between the wars was decidedly socialist. There was no way they would ever admit that their pet system had coughed up a Hitler, or a Mussolini. Look at how long it took for people to condemn the Soviets. There were still deniers of the Gulag when the Berlin Wall fell.

Manchester spent a tediously long book trying desperately to show how fascism was sooooo different from communism. It's amusing now, but influenced several generations of students.

That being said, I don't think Palin can be labelled as pro- or anti- much of anything. If she had even a nodding acquaintance with more than 3% of the concepts she lip synchs in her speeches, I'd be frankly stunned. I am so happy she is no longer in any position of responsiblity.

[StoopTroup]

So many folks don't get this. I don't think that they're stupid, by any means, but some wires have been crossed in their edumacation, or something.

They prefer to paint the American Right, freedom loving, individual rights' loving people, as "fascists". That has to be some kind of brainwashing by somebody, because it sure doesn't make sense.

You mean like joining the Tea Party because they are tired of the lazy ****s in America who live off the Government while they were paid Government Subsidies to not grow certain Crops on the 500 acres on the backside of their property that's all rock and never been tilled?

That kind of brainwashing?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That being said, I don't think Palin can be labelled as pro- or anti- much of anything. If she had even a nodding acquaintance with more than 3% of the concepts she lip synchs in her speeches, I'd be frankly stunned. I am so happy she is no longer in any position of responsiblity.I really don't get how you have been convinced she doesn't know what she's saying. She makes good sense, so how can one believe she's just memorizing what she says, or any other possibility that might make you think she doesn't understand market economics and concepts of limited govt.?

I do agree she's prolly been marginalized enough by her detractors to make her an unlikey pres. candidate.

WAIT: I think I now know what bugs those on the right who dislike her...Her voice is too high!

[The Profit]

Socialists believe it's the right of the state to control and own the economic system. I know of nowhere that Jesus espoused such behavior. IOW, you are a confusenick, Bubba.




I am not a communist as your term "confusenick" suggests, and I am definitely not a bubba.

If Christ's Sermon on the Mount was not about peaceful socialism, it wasn't about anything. Please show me the verses where Jesus urged people to forget about those less fortunate than themselves, and make as much money and accumulate as much bounty as they can.

By the way, when Jesus multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish, did he have the disciples set up a store front to sell the new food to the hungry? I don't think so.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am not a communist as your term "confusenick" suggests, and I am definitely not a bubba.

If Christ's Sermon on the Mount was not about peaceful socialism, it wasn't about anything. Please show me the verses where Jesus urged people to forget about those less fortunate than themselves, and make as much money and accumulate as much bounty as they can.

By the way, when Jesus multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish, did he have the disciples set up a store front to sell the new food to the hungry? I don't think so.Socialism is state control of everything. Capiche, bubba? Charity is good . Giving to those you want to help is good. The effing govt. owning your life is not....HELLO!!!!

[The Profit]

Socialism is state control of everything. Capiche, bubba? Charity is good . Giving to those you want to help is good. The effing govt. owning your life is not....HELLO!!!!




You are confused. You mean totalitarianism, and please lay off of the Italian and bubba stuff. I have told you, already, that I am no bubba. By the way, Newt Gingrich is a bubba.

[GKeeper316]

She's an outspoken proponent of Capitalism. It's about Capitalism, and the Left fears and despises her because she's so loved by Capitalists and Constitutionalists. Why shouldn't she be there?

no.

the left fears and despises her because she a blathering idiot who spouts antagonistic rhetoric for the sake of shameless self-promotion.

the only people that like sarah palin are those equally as dumb as she is.

[AlboSooner]

I'd be careful with painting Jesus in political terms. He wouldn't agree with it. I think the Bible shows Jesus as doing what is right. If doing what is right happened to be socialist or capitalist, then so be it, but Jesus didn't do the right thing for the sake of the label.

Rush, I think you're misunderstanding Profit's view. He's not advocating or defending the socialism you think, but mild socialism has been a part of this country for a long time. If the local government makes you pay taxes, then it builds a road upon which everybody walks on, then it is a form of socialism.


Hitler, along with all Germans, looked down on the Russians as sub-human. They only got a treaty with them so they wouldn't have to fight them when they invaded Poland. They were going to invade and fight Russia but they wanted to do it on their terms.


Stalin was equally as racist. They were PERFECT for each other.

[GKeeper316]

I'd be careful with painting Jesus in political term. He wouldn't agree with it. I think the Bible shows Jesus as doing what is right. If doing what is right happen to be socialist or capitalist, then so be it, but Jesus didn't do the right thing for the sake of the label.

Rush, I think you're misunderstanding Profit's view. He's not advocating or defending the socialism you think, but mild socialism has been a part of this country for a long time. If the local government makes you pay taxes, then it builds a road upon which everybody walks on, then it is a form of socialism/

jesus was in no way shape or form, a capitalist.

christ could not have been more clear about wealth and faith.

but ya... all government services are inherently socialist in nature. i dont get the socialism hate that goes on in america.

[The Profit]

no.

the left fears and despises her because she a blathering idiot who spouts antagonistic rhetoric for the sake of shameless self-promotion.

the only people that like sarah palin are those equally as dumb as she is.




My only argument with that would be that the left fears her. I don't fear her. I laugh at her. I do agree that the only people, who like her, are the ones that are equally as dumb as she is.

[JohnnyMack]

but ya... all government services are inherently socialist in nature. i dont get the socialism hate that goes on in america.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iYrhopY-rI4/TI57uDqedUI/AAAAAAAAGjc/dydqGSjiwWc/s1600/sheeple.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'd be careful with painting Jesus in political terms. He wouldn't agree with it. I think the Bible shows Jesus as doing what is right. If doing what is right happened to be socialist or capitalist, then so be it, but Jesus didn't do the right thing for the sake of the label.

Rush, I think you're misunderstanding Profit's view. He's not advocating or defending the socialism you think, but mild socialism has been a part of this country for a long time. If the local government makes you pay taxes, then it builds a road upon which everybody walks on, then it is a form of socialism/The govt. has valid prescribed functions. Nobody I know says they don't. Profit is apparently convinced that Jesus thought it proper for the govt. to take control of everything, and make all economic decisions. It's a fave theme of Michael Moore.

I think jesus spoke to the individual, how to run a good life and do the right things. I know of nowhere he preached that govt. have the kind of power the democrats want, and have pretty much wanted since I've been alive. Although, they have gotten much worse in recent yrs., and have abused their power in a progressively bigger way since they got control of congress in the '06 election.

[KantoSooner]

I really don't get how you have been convinced she doesn't know what she's saying. She makes good sense, so how can one believe she's just memorizing what she says, or any other possibility that might make you think she doesn't understand market economics and concepts of limited govt.?



I listened to her speeches and interviews. I am sorry, but she did not make sense. At her best, she babbles like a college freshman just introduced to basic concepts of political philosophy, economics and elementary geography. And not the most promising student in the class. I like her whole Alaska deal (if you've never been, go.), I find her attractive as a person and probably fun to hang out with. As a political thinker, she was way over her head as mayor of Wasilla.

The Republican Party has a disheartening tradition of kicking up dunderheads from time to time. Think Taft on the national stage, for example. Palin strides in their midst, a proud 'Know Nothing'.

[The Profit]

The govt. has valid prescribed functions. Nobody I know says they don't. Profit is apparently convinced that Jesus thought it proper for the govt. to take control of everything, and make all economic decisions. It's a fave theme of Michael Moore.

I think jesus spoke to the individual, how to run a good life and do the right things. I know of nowhere he preached that govt. have the kind of power the democrats want, and have pretty much wanted since I've been alive. Although, they have gotten much worse in recent yrs., and have abused their power in a progressively bigger way since they got control of congress in the '06 election.




I never said anything of the sort. You can't just make stuff up.

[JohnnyMack]

The govt. has valid prescribed functions. Nobody I know says they don't. Profit is apparently convinced that Jesus thought it proper for the govt. to take control of everything, and make all economic decisions. It's a fave theme of Michael Moore.

I think jesus spoke to the individual, how to run a good life and do the right things. I know of nowhere he preached that govt. have the kind of power the democrats want, and have pretty much wanted since I've been alive. Although, they have gotten much worse in recent yrs., and have abused their power in a progressively bigger way since they got control of congress in the '06 election.

Jesus wants you to drive a Mercedes Benz. S Class.

http://www.recommendedchristianbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/joel-osteen-252x300.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I listened to her speeches and interviews. I am sorry, but she did not make sense. At her best, she babbles like a college freshman just introduced to basic concepts of political philosophy, economics and elementary geography. And not the most promising student in the class. I like her whole Alaska deal (if you've never been, go.), I find her attractive as a person and probably fun to hang out with. As a political thinker, she was way over her head as mayor of Wasilla.

The Republican Party has a disheartening tradition of kicking up dunderheads from time to time. Think Taft on the national stage, for example. Palin strides in their midst, a proud 'Know Nothing'.Gimme an example of her saying something you found nonsensical, if you can. In any event, I agree that at least for now, she's politically unviable.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Jesus wants you to drive a Mercedes Benz. S Class.

http://www.recommendedchristianbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/joel-osteen-252x300.jpgSo disengenuous! hasta la vista, Mackster.

[okie52]

Jesus wanted us to be poor and socialists...a natural combination.

[Fraggle145]

By the way, when Jesus multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish, did he have the disciples set up a store front to sell the new food to the hungry? I don't think so.

You do know there is a legit explanation for where all the fish came from right? Its a naturally occurring phenomenon that still goes on in Lake Kinneret (sea of Gallilee) to this day. The shallow side of the lake can easily go anoxic when a strong seiche (internal wave) is created in the lake pushing anoxic water up from the deep. The fish get trapped and asphyxiate.

Random fact for the day folks.

[soonercruiser]

no.

the left fears and despises her because she a blathering idiot who spouts antagonistic rhetoric for the sake of shameless self-promotion.

the only people that like sarah palin are those equally as dumb as she is.

So, do you expect rhetoric like this to scare away conservative and Tea Partiers??
Duh! Like you have any right to tells other how to think...or in this case not think!
To even say that show that you are a mindless minon of the Left.
So, I supposed you like the lying, evil LW blathering idiot politicians like Peeloski and Harry the Body (mindless) Reid?
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

Palin is not a pure capitalist. I would agree that Dracula and Satan were/are capitalists, and would probably be considered conservative Republicans. Jesus, on the other hand, was definitely a socialist.

Another really deep intellectual post by "The Profit" of Doom.
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 17:14, 25:31-46
Mark 7:31, 8:22
John 9:51
James 2:1-7

Render to Caesar what is Caesar's; and to GOD, what is GOD's.

[soonercruiser]

I am not a communist as your term "confusenick" suggests, and I am definitely not a bubba.

If Christ's Sermon on the Mount was not about peaceful socialism, it wasn't about anything. Please show me the verses where Jesus urged people to forget about those less fortunate than themselves, and make as much money and accumulate as much bounty as they can.

By the way, when Jesus multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish, did he have the disciples set up a store front to sell the new food to the hungry? I don't think so.

Anybody notice how Profit likes to quote, or think for Jesus when it suits his purpose.
Otherwise, 1 out of every 4 posts attack religion, and specifically the Catholic Church?
Alinskyian tactic!

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How will the Catholic Church with billions upon billions of dollars of wealth ever recover from being attacked in 1 out of every 4 post? I know Jesus would never approve of them melting down their golden crosses with diamonds and selling them so that children in Africa can have a little water. It's hard to take any religious entity seriously when their net worth is more than a million dollars. I remember Jesus on the Mount saying "Build me a building that will cost around 16.4 million dollars so that I, My Disciples, and congregation shall be most excellently comfortable" Show me one semi-original thought out of Sarah Palin's brain that makes sense and I WOULD be shocked. Same goes for Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Newt, Palin, and anyone else. Everyone on the hill is a retard.

[KantoSooner]

Gimme an example of her saying something you found nonsensical, if you can. In any event, I agree that at least for now, she's politically unviable.

1. Avoiding any comment regarding relations with Russia by pointing out that Alaska is next door to that country.

2. Confusing North and South Korea. (Hint: one was our ally in a war, the other was the country we were fighting against. It happened in the early 1950's. Go Sarah!)

3. Asserting that 'Alaska can solve' America's demand for foreign oil, during her 'drill baby, drill' phase. Now, I come from an oil company family and am just as much in favor of domestic production as the next guy, but this assertion shows either a pitiful lack of comprehension of energy demand....or of reserves in the state of which she was governor....or an inability to do arithmetic.


If you are as conservative as your screen name suggests, look for someone else to carry the cause's flag. Sarah isn't fit for the job. She's an embarrassment.

[47straight]

Jesus, on the other hand, was definitely a socialist.

No.

[47straight]

If Christ's Sermon on the Mount was not about peaceful socialism, it wasn't about anything.

So it wasn't about trying to do something yourself and it was all about letting the government do it for you?


No.

[Fugue]

Well, he may have been a socialist but he also taught responsibility which means he definitely wasn't a democrat. :D

[StoopTroup]

Newt is a Roman Catholic now. He's turned from his sinful Baptist ways....

I've changed my mind....I'll vote for him.

[AlboSooner]

Render to Caesar what is Caesar's; and to GOD, what is GOD's.

what is God's?

[StoopTroup]

what is God's?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/759309122_0bb2671c95.jpg

[Turd_Ferguson]

God is a woman???? Oh hell no!!!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

1. Avoiding any comment regarding relations with Russia by pointing out that Alaska is next door to that country.

2. Confusing North and South Korea. (Hint: one was our ally in a war, the other was the country we were fighting against. It happened in the early 1950's. Go Sarah!)

3. Asserting that 'Alaska can solve' America's demand for foreign oil, during her 'drill baby, drill' phase. Now, I come from an oil company family and am just as much in favor of domestic production as the next guy, but this assertion shows either a pitiful lack of comprehension of energy demand....or of reserves in the state of which she was governor....or an inability to do arithmetic.


If you are as conservative as your screen name suggests, look for someone else to carry the cause's flag. Sarah isn't fit for the job. She's an embarrassment.My clone isn't embarrassed by her at all, as you suggest. I think you've been had on the Palin issue, as have lots of well-meaning, conservative folks. Sad that the MSM has the power they do.

[StoopTroup]

God is a woman???? Oh hell no!!!!!

It's Mother Nature presenting us turds to God....:D

[StoopTroup]

My clone isn't embarrassed by her at all, as you suggest. I think you've been had on the Palin issue, as have lots of well-meaning, conservative folks. Sad that the MSM has the power they do.

My Clone? You are the real Rush Limbaugh?

OMG...He's here everybody!

LOL.

[GrapevineSooner]

My clone isn't embarrassed by her at all, as you suggest. I think you've been had on the Palin issue, as have lots of well-meaning, conservative folks. Sad that the MSM has the power they do.

Seeing as how I don't watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other major news networks and I think she's a PR trainwreck...

[Ike]

My clone isn't embarrassed by her at all, as you suggest. I think you've been had on the Palin issue, as have lots of well-meaning, conservative folks. Sad that the MSM has the power they do.

You're right. It is sad that the MSM continues to print and air the words that come from her mouth as though she has anything useful to offer.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

You do know there is a legit explanation for where all the fish came from right? Its a naturally occurring phenomenon that still goes on in Lake Kinneret (sea of Gallilee) to this day. The shallow side of the lake can easily go anoxic when a strong seiche (internal wave) is created in the lake pushing anoxic water up from the deep. The fish get trapped and asphyxiate.

Random fact for the day folks.


The Bible's explanation is much better.

[Ike]

You do know there is a legit explanation for where all the fish came from right? Its a naturally occurring phenomenon that still goes on in Lake Kinneret (sea of Gallilee) to this day. The shallow side of the lake can easily go anoxic when a strong seiche (internal wave) is created in the lake pushing anoxic water up from the deep. The fish get trapped and asphyxiate.

Random fact for the day folks.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fraggle145 again

Do you take spek IOU's?

[StoopTroup]

God allowed Fraggle to be able to believe that so I'm good with it. :D

[The Maestro]

Stories written no sooner than 30 years after he was gone 2,000 years ago when no one knew how to read.

Surely, 100% spot-on information about what Jesus said, what he did and his political view.

[Sooner98]

Just to shift gears a bit, I've got $1000 that says Aldebaran and The Profit are the same person. Any takers?

[3rdgensooner]

Just to shift gears a bit, I've got $1000 that says Aldebaran and The Profit are the same person. Any takers?You're on.

[okie52]

I know Profit. Can't say he doesn't have an alias but I doubt it.

[champions77]

Seeing as how I don't watch Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other major news networks and I think she's a PR trainwreck...


Her message is a conservative one, limited government, low taxes, strong military, recognizing Jihad for what it is, a holy war that has intentions to invoke Sharia Law all over the world, and anyone opposes them will be labled as infidels and be in their cross hairs. Her foreign policy would not include apologizing, kissing up and bowing to other leaders. I can also safely assume her domestic policy would not include demonizing everyone that makes $250,000 or more a year, involking class warfare, and then wondering why business owners are not hiring as many people as he would like. What a radical message she delivers.

No, I would not want her to run for President, because I don't think she would beat Obama. Too many folks have bought into the left's attacks on her, and despite the fact that many believe as she does on the issues, have a negative opinion of her, probably rendering her unelectable.

I damn sure have more in common with her than this lying phony we have in the White House today.

[Aldebaran]

You're on.

I'll help you win if you promise to get it in $1's and make it rain for me.

[3rdgensooner]

I'll help you win if you promise to get it in $1's and make it rain for me.Wouldn't have it any other way.

[Aldebaran]

Wouldn't have it any other way.

http://www.bytelove.com/images/uploads/Bytelove/Generic/excellent%20-%20zoom.jpg

[OU68]

You do know there is a legit explanation for where all the fish came from right? Its a naturally occurring phenomenon that still goes on in Lake Kinneret (sea of Gallilee) to this day. The shallow side of the lake can easily go anoxic when a strong seiche (internal wave) is created in the lake pushing anoxic water up from the deep. The fish get trapped and asphyxiate.

Random fact for the day folks.

And of course, Jesus kept his sermon going till one of those waves appeared so he could feed those folks.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Yup it was atheist in this video forcing the school board to change our children's education.

-tRxMMSOQ08

It's atheist who pick and choose what to believe and not to believe.

Y_sb2fSRByI&feature

[Aldebaran]

They are comedians.

[MR2-Sooner86]

They are comedians.

Your point? Doesn't matter if they're comedians, politicians, reporters, bankers, lawyers, or doctors it doesn't change the fact that school board forced non-scientific religious views into the school.

[AlboSooner]

There isn't anything scientific about the view that natural elements self-assembled by some unknown mechanism, into complex beings. Any statement which does not ascribe to the scientific method, is not scientific.

Science only answers the "how" if it can, so knowing "who" does not explain away the "how"?

I hope we don't have the allusion that everything taught in schools is scientific, and intoducing the possibility that maybe God created the universe, would spoil the grand science done in schools.

[Ike]

There isn't anything scientific about the view that natural elements self-assembled by some unknown mechanism, into complex beings. Any statement which does not ascribe to the scientific method, is not scientific.

Science only answers the "how" if it can, so knowing "who" does not explain away the "how"?

I hope we don't have the allusion that everything taught in schools is scientific, and intoducing the possibility that maybe God created the universe, would spoil the grand science done in schools.

We should however, have at least some certainty that everything taught in science classes are scientific. They are science classes after all. And you know what....saying "we don't yet know the mechanism for how this happened" is perfectly scientific.

[AlboSooner]

We should however, have at least some certainty that everything taught in science classes are scientific. They are science classes after all. And you know what....saying "we don't yet know the mechanism for how this happened" is perfectly scientific.

Not everything taught in science classes is scientific. The origin of life is such an important issue, that it seems unreal to me that the claim that "the never observed, never duplicated unknown process of chemical elements self-assembling, and forming complex beings" is a scientific statement.

If I would have presented a paper with such a premise to my OU professors, I would have been ridiculed.

[Ike]

Not everything taught in science classes is scientific. The origin of life is such an important issue, that it seems unreal to me that the claim that "the never observed, never duplicated unknown process of chemical elements self-assembling, and forming complex beings" is a scientific statement.

If I would have presented a paper with such a premise to my OU professors, I would have been ridiculed.

There are a whole host of things that have never been observed that are accepted science. We call those theories. They may be theories with only loose supporting evidence (i.e., astronomical evidence points to the likelihood that there was a singular beginning to the universe, or a big bang, which implies that life had a beginning, however we have not observed how that came about yet). The whole of string theory is also one of those theories. These theories are important in that they form the basis of the questions that we must ask in order to find answers. They are absolutely scientific as they narrow the scope of interesting things to look for to either support or falsify such a theory. Just because some of the things a theory would have us look for are outside of our current capabilities (string theory) doesn't mean that they won't someday be within our grasp.

[starclassic tama]

There isn't anything scientific about the view that natural elements self-assembled by some unknown mechanism, into complex beings. Any statement which does not ascribe to the scientific method, is not scientific.

since when is natural selection an unknown mechanism?

[AlboSooner]

There are a whole host of things that have never been observed that are accepted science. We call those theories. They may be theories with only loose supporting evidence (i.e., astronomical evidence points to the likelihood that there was a singular beginning to the universe, or a big bang, which implies that life had a beginning, however we have not observed how that came about yet). The whole of string theory is also one of those theories. These theories are important in that they form the basis of the questions that we must ask in order to find answers. They are absolutely scientific as they narrow the scope of interesting things to look for to either support or falsify such a theory. Just because some of the things a theory would have us look for are outside of our current capabilities (string theory) doesn't mean that they won't someday be within our grasp.
Once again, saying that God might have had a role in it, doesn't stop you from hypothesizing all day long. To categorically exclude the possibility of a Creator is simply wrong, and for what? Because those who push the agenda don't believe in God. It has nothing to do with science. Science can ask ALL the questions it wants. I think I have proved my point, to those who want to hear.
BTW, everything that has a beginning (which the theory of Big Bang supports), must have a creator. ;)


since when is natural selection an unknown mechanism?

Natural selection is much later and much different from what I was talking about.

[okie52]

Once again, saying that God might have had a role in it, doesn't stop you from hypothesizing all day long. To categorically exclude the possibility of a Creator is simply wrong, and for what? Because those who push the agenda don't believe in God. It has nothing to do with science. Science can ask ALL the questions it wants. I think I have proved my point, to those who want to hear.
BTW, everything that has a beginning (which the theory of Big Bang supports), must have a creator. ;)



Natural selection is much later and much different from what I was talking about.

Albo-you radical.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

BTW, everything that has a beginning (which the theory of Big Bang supports), must have a creator. ;)




So....who created the creator?

[Turd_Ferguson]

So....who created the creator?


It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So....who created the creator?Got it figured out, do ya? haha

[MR2-Sooner86]

So....who created the creator?

God created man and man created God.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Got it figured out, do ya? haha
The creator created the creator who created 99999 more creators in succession

[starclassic tama]

Once again, saying that God might have had a role in it, doesn't stop you from hypothesizing all day long. To categorically exclude the possibility of a Creator is simply wrong, and for what? Because those who push the agenda don't believe in God. It has nothing to do with science. Science can ask ALL the questions it wants. I think I have proved my point, to those who want to hear.
BTW, everything that has a beginning (which the theory of Big Bang supports), must have a creator. ;)



Natural selection is much later and much different from what I was talking about.

i don't really think scientists are pushing an agenda to exclude the possibility of a creator because they don't believe in god. the issue is, what is the point in exploring the possiblity if there isn't any evidence for it, or means to test it? they would rather spend their time testing and hypothesizing about things that actually have leads.

[OhU1]

I think the Great Pumpkin had a role in creating the universe. To categorically exclude the possibility that He did is simply wrong. Science can ask all the questions it wants. I think I have proved my point.

[AlboSooner]

So....who created the creator?
The Creator doesn't have a beginning. I said everything that has a beginning, must have a Creator or a cause. Something can't create itself. Out of nothing, nothing comes. The Creator doesn't have a beginning. Whether you're a theist or non-theist, you CAN'T escape from something being eternal/un-caused, either God or matter.



i don't really think scientists are pushing an agenda to exclude the possibility of a creator because they don't believe in god. the issue is, what is the point in exploring the possiblity if there isn't any evidence for it, or means to test it? they would rather spend their time testing and hypothesizing about things that actually have leads.
I believe they are. I don't get how the idea of a Creator would diminish out quest of "how" was it created. I am not for teaching religion in schools, but it's not anti-scientific to say that God created the universe. The "how" it's up to us to discover.


I think the Great Pumpkin had a role in creating the universe. To categorically exclude the possibility that He did is simply wrong. Science can ask all the questions it wants. I think I have proved my point.
Dawkins was a little more creative (original) and used the spaghetti monster. The great pumpkin is a creation of our imagination, while God is something of which greater can't be imagined, says Anslem, or called the Ontological argument. You lack originality in this post, as shown by imitating Dawkins, then me.

[okie52]

The Creator doesn't have a beginning. I said everything that has a beginning, must have a Creator or a cause. Something can't create itself. Out of nothing, nothing comes. The Creator doesn't have a beginning. Whether you're a theist or non-theist, you CAN'T escape from something being eternal/un-caused, either God or matter.



I believe they are. I don't get how the idea of a Creator would diminish out quest of "how" was it created. I am not for teaching religion in schools, but it's not anti-scientific to say that God created the universe. The "how" it's up to us to discover.


Dawkins was a little more creative (original) and used the spaghetti monster. The great pumpkin is a creation of our imagination, while God is something of which greater can't be imagined, says Anslem, or called the Ontological argument. You lack originality in this post, as shown by imitating Dawkins, then me.

Albo, I am a fringe Christian known as an Episcopalean. When I took a Geology course at OU in 1970 the manaul was prefaced (paraphrasing) something to the effect that the discussion within the manual would only pertain to scientific evidence and/or theory regarding geology. I am much better today with that preface than I was then. It didn't even have to mention religion but only define the parameters of the discussion.

[StoopTroup]

We are an ant farm.

http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/ants/FarSide-RobbyAntFarm.jpg

[Ike]

Once again, saying that God might have had a role in it, doesn't stop you from hypothesizing all day long. To categorically exclude the possibility of a Creator is simply wrong, and for what? Because those who push the agenda don't believe in God. It has nothing to do with science. Science can ask ALL the questions it wants. I think I have proved my point, to those who want to hear.
BTW, everything that has a beginning (which the theory of Big Bang supports), must have a creator. ;)



Natural selection is much later and much different from what I was talking about.

But until you can come up with a way that allows one to show definitively that there either is or is not a creator (even if shuch a method is beyond our current capacity to carry out) then you are not proposing anything to do with science. They tried to do that with intelligent design, but that just wound up being horribly bad math. When people go even farther to say it was a specific creator with supernatural powers that make him impossible to reliably detect, you've now gone a long long ways from anything resembling science.

If you want to say that because the universe had a beginning, it must have a creator, that's fine...but it ain't science. It could be that the universe expands up to a point and then starts contracting, ultimately imploding and creating another big bang. Since we can't at all tell what, if anything existed before the big bang, that's every bit as valid as the creator hypothesis...with one small caveat. If the human race happens to stick around long enough to see evidence of our own universe contracting rather than expanding, we can have some reasonable certainty that things probably work that way. IOW, the Yo-Yo universe hypothesis is a much more scientific theory that the creator hypothesis simply because there is a chance we may observe it someday.

[OhU1]

Dawkins was a little more creative (original) and used the spaghetti monster. The great pumpkin is a creation of our imagination, while God is something of which greater can't be imagined, says Anslem, or called the Ontological argument. You lack originality in this post, as shown by imitating Dawkins, then me.

Copying Dawkins? WTF? :confused: No, it's simple - your unsupported assertions are not worthy of respect simply because you say a magic man did it who you call God. Certainly you are within your right to believe it but this discussion belongs in philosophy class not a science class room.

You find Anslem's ontological argument compelling? Are we supposed to be impressed because you cited the weakest apologetic imaginable? "God is the greatest and he "exists" in my mind so he must be real outside my mind or he wouldn't be the greatest!"

You've fluffed up most of your posts on this thread with parroted warmed over William Lane Craig talking points, did you really think you were fooling anyone that these were your ideas? Nice try ;)

[Ike]

The Creator doesn't have a beginning. I said everything that has a beginning, must have a Creator or a cause. Something can't create itself. Out of nothing, nothing comes.


Unless that nothingness is surrounded by two quarks moving away from one another...


The Creator doesn't have a beginning. Whether you're a theist or non-theist, you CAN'T escape from something being eternal/un-caused, either God or matter. Except we don't really know that. Would a non-causal effect disprove the notion of eternity? I don't know, but if you think it might, may I invite you to have a gander at quantum mechanics. We've got loads of non-causal effects there.

...unfortunately, my phone won't let me scroll this box more to respond to the rest...so I'll leave that for later





I believe they are. I don't get how the idea of a Creator would diminish out quest of "how" was it created. I am not for teaching religion in schools, but it's not anti-scientific to say that God created the universe. The "how" it's up to us to discover.


Dawkins was a little more creative (original) and used the spaghetti monster. The great pumpkin is a creation of our imagination, while God is something of which greater can't be imagined, says Anslem, or called the Ontological argument. You lack originality in this post, as shown by imitating Dawkins, then me.

[Fraggle145]

And of course, Jesus kept his sermon going till one of those waves appeared so he could feed those folks.

They are actually quite frequent during the summer because the region is prone to high winds.

You can probably find more information on how everything in the lake works here: http://www.ocean.org.il/Eng/Kineret/LakeKineret.asp

It is one of the most highly studied lakes in the world because of the limited freshwater supplies in Israel.

My advisor worked there for 10 or so years.

[Fraggle145]

Whether you're a theist or non-theist, you CAN'T escape from something being eternal/un-caused, either God or matter.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying here. If you CAN'T escape from something being eternal/un-caused then why does the god or the concept of god get to escape it?

I'm not sure that we have proven anything to be "eternal" yet?

[Ike]

I believe they are. I don't get how the idea of a Creator would diminish out quest of "how" was it created. I am not for teaching religion in schools, but it's not anti-scientific to say that God created the universe. The "how" it's up to us to discover.

The idea of a creator doesn't necessarily diminish the quest for "how" so long as the idea of a creator is left as simply a possibility, and so long as we allow for the fact that we have no idea what properties such a creator possesses. Could it be that any creator of the universe was destroyed in the process of creating the universe? Absolutely. Once we go around assigning properties to a creator for which we have no ability to measure, nor will we ever have the ability to measure, we are just talking out of our asses.



Dawkins was a little more creative (original) and used the spaghetti monster. The great pumpkin is a creation of our imagination, while God is something of which greater can't be imagined, says Anslem, or called the Ontological argument. You lack originality in this post, as shown by imitating Dawkins, then me.

I'm pretty 'meh' on the ontological argument. If God must exist because we can't think of something greater (and how do we know we can't?), then what about going the other way? Must the smallest thing we can possibly imagine also exist? Have we just proven string theory to be correct since we can't think of anything smaller?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Actually the smallest thing we can imagine is OsU's chances of winning a championship in college football!!!

[AlboSooner]

But until you can come up with a way that allows one to show definitively that there either is or is not a creator (even if shuch a method is beyond our current capacity to carry out) then you are not proposing anything to do with science. They tried to do that with intelligent design, but that just wound up being horribly bad math. When people go even farther to say it was a specific creator with supernatural powers that make him impossible to reliably detect, you've now gone a long long ways from anything resembling science.

If you want to say that because the universe had a beginning, it must have a creator, that's fine...but it ain't science. It could be that the universe expands up to a point and then starts contracting, ultimately imploding and creating another big bang. Since we can't at all tell what, if anything existed before the big bang, that's every bit as valid as the creator hypothesis...with one small caveat. If the human race happens to stick around long enough to see evidence of our own universe contracting rather than expanding, we can have some reasonable certainty that things probably work that way. IOW, the Yo-Yo universe hypothesis is a much more scientific theory that the creator hypothesis simply because there is a chance we may observe it someday.

We are going in circles here. You can't say X theory is not scientific thus we can't discuss, but Y which is also non-scientific we can discuss it because the majority wants to. I'm sorry I don't buy this.


Copying Dawkins? WTF? :confused: No, it's simple - your unsupported assertions are not worthy of respect simply because you say a magic man did it who you call God. Certainly you are within your right to believe it but this discussion belongs in philosophy class not a science class room.

You find Anslem's ontological argument compelling? Are we supposed to be impressed because you cited the weakest apologetic imaginable? "God is the greatest and he "exists" in my mind so he must be real outside my mind or he wouldn't be the greatest!"

You've fluffed up most of your posts on this thread with parroted warmed over William Lane Craig talking points, did you really think you were fooling anyone that these were your ideas? Nice try ;)

I like Zacharias and Plantinga better than WLC. Everything we say comes from someone else, including your post. So you proved my point about imitation. Thanks. You are doing the old tactic of assuming an impossible argument. The ontological argument is GREAT for destroying the Spaghetti Monster argument. I didn't bring the ontological argument to prove the existence of God. The ontological argument is not a meaningless as you claim it to, but you have a bias against God. I don't have a bias against science.


Unless that nothingness is surrounded by two quarks moving away from one another...
Except we don't really know that. Would a non-causal effect disprove the notion of eternity? I don't know, but if you think it might, may I invite you to have a gander at quantum mechanics. We've got loads of non-causal effects there.

...unfortunately, my phone won't let me scroll this box more to respond to the rest...so I'll leave that for laterI remember doing a section of QM in Pchem II. The class average for that exam section was a 65. Basically, not even the professor was too fond of QM. I don't know much about QM, but a few basic things to get me through. Let's talk about things we do know...


I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying here. If you CAN'T escape from something being eternal/un-caused then why does the god or the concept of god get to escape it?

I'm not sure that we have proven anything to be "eternal" yet?Because God doesn't have a beginning. Of course it has been established that at least something is eternal, and that is energy. Laws of thermodynamics say energy can't be destroyed....


The idea of a creator doesn't necessarily diminish the quest for "how" so long as the idea of a creator is left as simply a possibility, and so long as we allow for the fact that we have no idea what properties such a creator possesses. Could it be that any creator of the universe was destroyed in the process of creating the universe? Absolutely. Once we go around assigning properties to a creator for which we have no ability to measure, nor will we ever have the ability to measure, we are just talking out of our asses.



I'm pretty 'meh' on the ontological argument. If God must exist because we can't think of something greater (and how do we know we can't?), then what about going the other way? Must the smallest thing we can possibly imagine also exist? Have we just proven string theory to be correct since we can't think of anything smaller?
Ike, the scientific revolution came out of the church. All the first scientists were Christians. Now, this tells me the idea of a Creator DOES not inhibit one to explore the natural world. Any statement of God's existence DOESN'T violate any scientific principles, as God is not in nature, and science deals with natural things.

My point was simply this: Non-science is being taught as science in schools, why is there such a bias against the argument that maybe a Creator made it all? A statement which is not scientific, it must be metaphysical regardless how much scientific jargon we use. The discussion of a Creator doesn't inhibit anyone from exploring nature and finding out 'how'. The opposition to even bringing up God, is simply a bias by those who push the agenda.

I posted all these posts knowing full well that the people who have responded would not change their mind, however I wanted to show the Christian who is scared sometimes to bring up science and God, that the two are NOT in opposition. The faith has a long and glorious alliance with science.

And with this, I must excuse myself from the conversation, as I feel the desire to respond for pride rather than for discovering truth. [hairGel]

[okie52]

You are a good poster, Albo.

But, to my unanswered question, does it cause you a problem with the discussion of science in schools if it is prefaced by the caveat of excluding
any discussion of the supernatural?

[AlboSooner]

You are a good poster, Albo.

But, to my unanswered question, does it cause you a problem with the discussion of science in schools if it is prefaced by the caveat of excluding
any discussion of the supernatural?

Listen, I'm not a fundamentalist who wants God preached in schools by the teachers. I don't think that's keeping anyone from God, or from science. It bothers me that we have misconceptions, because in this science-worshiping society, misconceptions can be obstacles to truth. For example many believe that science and faith are in opposition, thus if you admire one, then the other must be dead to you.

My point is this, the Big Bang is not a natural starting point. If I know the theory correct, the BB was something not ever observed in nature. Even if you are a non-theist, your starting point is supernatural.

My capstone was in biological nanotechnology, and one time I heard a French scientist saying that nenotech is great but it costs too much money and too much time, to build anything atom by atom, so since all life was self-assembled, we are trying to find ways to make these atoms self-assemble in something we want.

Now this bothers me. First, even if you got the atoms to self assemble, that proves that intelligence was involved since he was in a lab, with a large team, thinking day and night about this. Second, he talked about something which is not-scientific as fact, self-assembly, when in reality molecules want to find the least energy costly pathway, and stay there. You take a non-spontaneous reaction, which in nanotech that's what they are, and you put them in a test tube, you can wait an eternity and they will just sit there.

Does that answer your question, or am I rambling?

[okie52]

Listen, I'm not a fundamentalist who wants God preached in schools by the teachers. I don't think that's keeping anyone from God, or from science. It bothers me that we have misconceptions, because in this science-worshiping society, misconceptions can be obstacles to truth. For example many believe that science and faith are in opposition, thus if you admire one, then the other must be dead to you.

My point is this, the Big Bang is not a natural starting point. If I know the theory correct, the BB was something not ever observed in nature. Even if you are a non-theist, your starting point is supernatural.

My capstone was in biological nanotechnology, and one time I heard a French scientist saying that nenotech is great but it costs too much money and too much time, to build anything atom by atom, so since all life was self-assembled, we are trying to find ways to make these atoms self-assemble in something we want.

Now this bothers me. First, even if you got the atoms to self assemble, that proves that intelligence was involved since he was in a lab, with a large team, thinking day and night about this. Second, he talked about something which is not-scientific as fact, self-assembly, when in reality molecules want to find the least energy costly pathway, and stay there. You take a non-spontaneous reaction, which in nanotech that's what they are, and you put them in a test tube, you can wait an eternity and they will just sit there.

Does that answer your question, or am I rambling?

No, I don't think you are rambling at all. I don't think you are a fundamentalist either.

And certainly there are reaches by science that will be taught in the classroom although I hope they are explained as reaches to the students.

I just don't have a problem with religion/supernatural events being excluded from science classes even though some science topics may be just as big a reach...just as long as the discussion is prefaced in such a way that that is understood by the students.

I do believe in ID.

[JohnnyMack]

Let's all smoke some weed and talk about what's on the other side of the edge of the universe.

4pm

Fraggles place.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Let's all smoke some weed and talk about what's on the other side of the edge of the universe.

4pm

Fraggles place.

In.

[Fraggle145]

Let's all smoke some weed and talk about what's on the other side of the edge of the universe.

4pm

Fraggles place.

In.

[Fraggle145]

My point was simply this: Non-science is being taught as science in schools, why is there such a bias against the argument that maybe a Creator made it all? A statement which is not scientific, it must be metaphysical regardless how much scientific jargon we use. The discussion of a Creator doesn't inhibit anyone from exploring nature and finding out 'how'. The opposition to even bringing up God, is simply a bias by those who push the agenda.

You got the weed?

But seriously, I think the reason some scientists want to keep God out of the science classroom in particular is because it allows 2 things: 1) It allows students to say "Well God made it that way, and that's the way it is." without putting any thought into how it might work or how it might have originated without the presence of a deity. 2) God would get misused to disprove theories that he may or may not have anything to do with, i.e., evolution. Evolution talks about what happens after some starting point. Yet (the bible, so god by proxy) says that this is impossible because the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is clearly not the case.

These may be a poorly illustrated points, but basically If god is the be-all end all then what need is there for science? God as an eternal being with no beginning or end would then explain everything - including the how and why?

[Ike]

We are going in circles here. You can't say X theory is not scientific thus we can't discuss, but Y which is also non-scientific we can discuss it because the majority wants to. I'm sorry I don't buy this.
It has nothing to do with a majority, and everything to do with whether or not it informs us on places or phenomena to look towards for more information. While a natural origin of life has not been observed, there is a distinct possibility we could create life in the laboratory. Not discussing evolutionary theory would discourage a search for this process. A creator explanation does nothing to inform us about what we should be looking for to discover the next round of answers



I remember doing a section of QM in Pchem II. The class average for that exam section was a 65. Basically, not even the professor was too fond of QM. I don't know much about QM, but a few basic things to get me through. Let's talk about things we do know...
Thats sad...thats where all the fun stuff is.


Because God doesn't have a beginning. Of course it has been established that at least something is eternal, and that is energy. Laws of thermodynamics say energy can't be destroyed....
A couple of points on that:
1) That first law only applies to a closed system. As we have no knowledge of what if anything existed before the big bang, making assumptions about whatever it is that gave rise to the universe really doesn't get us anywhere. Given that the universe is expanding (literally, spacetime is getting bigger...so it is expanding into what?), can we really make the assumption that it is a closed system?
2) It's really a shame you don't want to talk about QM, because at the smallest scales, the first law breaks down over small distances and timescales. Considering that the first few nanoseconds after the big bang, everything in the universe is acting at length scales much much smaller than we have experimental knowledge of, and that we know that our current models will break down at those smaller length scales (thus the reason we continually want to make more and more energetic particle accelerators...we want to probe the smaller length scales to find out how our models break down), it is impossible for us to say anything about what the universe was like past a few milliseconds after the big bang...when all the energy in the universe had already been put in. How it got there and where it came from, we can't say. Simply saying "it must have been the creator" gets us nowhere.


Ike, the scientific revolution came out of the church. All the first scientists were Christians. Now, this tells me the idea of a Creator DOES not inhibit one to explore the natural world. Any statement of God's existence DOESN'T violate any scientific principles, as God is not in nature, and science deals with natural things.
All that works until someone shows that current interpretations of scripture is wrong. Then people start to lose their heads, figuratively speaking.


My point was simply this: Non-science is being taught as science in schools, why is there such a bias against the argument that maybe a Creator made it all?
If one defines science as merely the collection of facts we know to date, then you have an argument. But as science itself is so much more than that, your argument fails...We need theories that tell us what to look for, whether they are wrong or right. There is no bias about whether or not a creator made the universe. Science is simply silent on that regard, just as science is simply silent on what, if anything, came before the big bang. We don't know, and don't pretend to. It's true that there is a bias against a creator directly creating life...as we are relatively certain that our universe had a beginning, long long ago, and we are now here, life had to begin at some point. It would be wrong to NOT look for a chemical beginning to life. And to do so, we have to come up with theories of things that have not yet been observed. Teaching these theories in science classes equips our students to look further than we have yet been able to do. And this is where the belief in a creator becomes a hinderance to seeking the answer to the question of "how". If you believe strongly in a creator that had an active hand in creating life, how likely are you to look for a chemical beginning of life, and should you find one, accurately report your findings?


A statement which is not scientific, it must be metaphysical regardless how much scientific jargon we use. The discussion of a Creator doesn't inhibit anyone from exploring nature and finding out 'how'. The opposition to even bringing up God, is simply a bias by those who push the agenda.

Again...scientific means more than just "the collection of facts we know to date...It is also the collection of theories which may provide further answers if more supporting evidence is found, and the seeking of further evidence that may support or falsify those theories and the accurate reporting of such searches. It is in that sense that the big bang, string theory, evolution, and a whole host of other theories are exactly scientific while the theory of a creator is exactly not (until someone finds a way that may reliably detect the presence, or absence, of such a creator).


I posted all these posts knowing full well that the people who have responded would not change their mind, however I wanted to show the Christian who is scared sometimes to bring up science and God, that the two are NOT in opposition. The faith has a long and glorious alliance with science.
On that last point, Galileo surely agrees...:rolleyes:
As to the others, there does not have to be opposition between science and religion. However, religion does need to be able to adapt when new scientific information is available. For instance, if next week it is shown that life can be created from non-life in the laboratory, and over the next few years that finding is confirmed multiple times. A religion that rejects this finding simply because it contradicts it's scriptures will be doomed to die off, while another religion that can adapt its interpretation of its scriptures to the new information will be the thing that likely takes its place.


And with this, I must excuse myself from the conversation, as I feel the desire to respond for pride rather than for discovering truth. [hairGel]

[StoopTroup]

I knew a Doctor who told me he was really conflicted about a situation he was faced with back back in the 50's. His religious principles about Abortion of a Child had always been that it was wrong. That being said...as a Surgeon he was committed to helping Humans in need of medical assistance and many times he was faced with putting his own belief system aside for medical science. Not easy back in those days either.

You are a Doctor and you believe abortion is wrong and yet you are called to someones house in the middle of the night and their Daughter is bleeding to death due to a botched Abortion attempt. They lose their Daughter. She would have been fine if the shame of being pregnant hadn't been such a huge thing back then but she chose to have the baby aborted. It was illegal then. He could have reported it and maybe should have but the Family had just been through the loss of their child because she was afraid to come to them. Thus, many views on Abortion in this country were changed and what Religious Leaders thought was really an after thought. With the explosion of the 60's, Birth Control and many other things....Women in this Country suddenly felt free to experiment with sex and multiple partners and have a free and fun loving life prior to deciding to settling down and have a Family.

Politicians and Religious Leaders weren't prepared for what had happened and Rowe vs Wade (1973) has been on the books ever since. One side would like to see it altered or even reversed and the other would like to see it upheld.

What's right? I don't know. I've decided to leave it up to God and the privacy of the Women who decide it's easier for them to kill their child than bring the baby to term and put the baby up for adoption. I'd really rather we see that happen...even in the case of rape. I understand though that a Rape Victim might be scarred mentally for life after such an event and make a decision different than mine, so they have the right to make that choice and hopefully God will have mercy on their soul as well as the Doctor performing the abortion.

I'd never counsel a young person anymore to go through an Abortion unless it was medically necessary. The thing I think came out of it all is that Women have the right to make a choice....I think the amount of Women who would put themselves through more than one is very low in this Country and I'm saddened about everyone one of them....but it's legally their choice in this Country and there really isn't a good way to deal with it without going back to the situations of the past that the Doctor I knew had explained to me. It's was a rough position he was in back then and I believe he put all of that in the hands of God and accepted his fate hoping that as a "Healer" he would hopefully be given mercy for the choices he had to make as a Doctor.

Science and God? You can have both in a classroom. The excuse of keeping god out of a classroom because it allows 2 things: 1) It allows students to say "Well God made it that way, and that's the way it is." without putting any thought into how it might work or how it might have originated without the presence of a deity. 2) God would get misused to disprove theories that he may or may not have anything to do with, i.e., evolution. Evolution talks about what happens after some starting point. Yet (the bible, so god by proxy) says that this is impossible because the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is clearly not the case. I think that's a cop out and it's not allowing free discussion. Possibly those Profs need to be better able to handle those discussions than completely immersed in Science?

[Fraggle145]

Science and God? You can have both in a classroom. The excuse of keeping god out of a classroom because it allows 2 things: 1) It allows students to say "Well God made it that way, and that's the way it is." without putting any thought into how it might work or how it might have originated without the presence of a deity. 2) God would get misused to disprove theories that he may or may not have anything to do with, i.e., evolution. Evolution talks about what happens after some starting point. Yet (the bible, so god by proxy) says that this is impossible because the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is clearly not the case. I think that's a cop out and it's not allowing free discussion. Possibly those Profs need to be better able to handle those discussions than completely immersed in Science?

Read through Ike's previous post again. He said it a lot better than I did. Basically, using god as an explanation doesnt further the testing of ideas. It doesnt generate hypotheses that can be tested, because a deity is by definition untestable.

I am equipped to answer those questions when I teach. I say god is untestable as a hypothesis. God is a matter of faith not science. I know a few scientists that are religious. They tend to agree that god has no place in a science classroom, simply because of the fact that he/she/it/they are untestable. You can imagine an experiment to test string theory, you cant imagine an experiment to test god.

People have tried to test god by jumping into traffic etc... but their assumptions are flawed. They assume God will help them because he is suggested to be benevolent, but thats apparently not the full story. This is then explained as god does what god does and we cant understand it because we are not god, hence we cant even make assumptions.

[starclassic tama]

if there was anything of substance to discuss, it would be included in the discussion.

[StoopTroup]

Good Stuff Frag. I'd wish there were more like you.

Testing God? Probably not the best idea anyway....lol

Playing God? Haven't seen anyone pull it off to well except for of course George Burns. :D

[GKeeper316]

How will the Catholic Church with billions upon billions of dollars of wealth ever recover from being attacked in 1 out of every 4 post? I know Jesus would never approve of them melting down their golden crosses with diamonds and selling them so that children in Africa can have a little water. It's hard to take any religious entity seriously when their net worth is more than a million dollars. I remember Jesus on the Mount saying "Build me a building that will cost around 16.4 million dollars so that I, My Disciples, and congregation shall be most excellently comfortable" Show me one semi-original thought out of Sarah Palin's brain that makes sense and I WOULD be shocked. Same goes for Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Newt, Palin, and anyone else. Everyone on the hill is a retard.

pious XI wanted to sell off all the vaticans treasures (painting, sculptures, etc) and feed the hungry with it.

he only relented because of what it would do to the international art and antiquities market.

and keep in mind, most of that stuff was given to the church by the artists.

[C&CDean]

I say god is untestable as a hypothesis.

Careful there mister. Your refusal to accept His existence is a pretty stout test if you're asking me. When you kick the bucket you'll know how spot-on/spot-off your hypothesis is. Pascal's Wager?

[Ike]

My point is this, the Big Bang is not a natural starting point. If I know the theory correct, the BB was something not ever observed in nature. Even if you are a non-theist, your starting point is supernatural.


Thats not entirely accurate. The BB hypothesis explains a lot of what we actually observe in the universe that other hypotheses do not adequately explain. Expanding universe, CMB, the abundance of light elements, and other things. Just because we did not observe the big bang does not mean it did not happen, and does not mean that it was somehow supernatural. It does not preclude new physics from existing either. Undiscovered or unobserved physics is not "supernatural". A supernatural event can never have any explanation in nature, and thus, while the origin of the BB may be unexplained, it is not necessarily supernatural. Although, it could be.



My capstone was in biological nanotechnology, and one time I heard a French scientist saying that nenotech is great but it costs too much money and too much time, to build anything atom by atom, so since all life was self-assembled, we are trying to find ways to make these atoms self-assemble in something we want.

Now this bothers me. First, even if you got the atoms to self assemble, that proves that intelligence was involved since he was in a lab, with a large team, thinking day and night about this. Second, he talked about something which is not-scientific as fact, self-assembly, when in reality molecules want to find the least energy costly pathway, and stay there. You take a non-spontaneous reaction, which in nanotech that's what they are, and you put them in a test tube, you can wait an eternity and they will just sit there.


I think you are mixing up self-assembly with the chemical origins of life. Living things self-assemble every day. It has absolutely been observed and is absolutely a scientific fact, and not even a controversial one. Self-assembly happens. It's how a seed becomes a tree, how a fertilized egg becomes an animal, etc... Secondly, this does not prove or disprove that intelligence is needed for self assembly to happen. Intelligence may be needed to get something to self assemble into a desired result, but there is nothing inherent in the idea of a chemical origin to life that says that any particular result is desired.

[Fraggle145]

Careful there mister. Your refusal to accept His existence is a pretty stout test if you're asking me. When you kick the bucket you'll know how spot-on/spot-off your hypothesis is. Pascal's Wager?

True, but I wont be able to come back and publish the result... :D

So assuming I have a soul and that I will be able to perceive things with that soul after the life leaves my body then yes I suppose I would be testing that hypothesis. But testing the hypothesis in that way doesnt necessarily help anyone else. Part of the scientific method is reporting your results!

[The Profit]

Gingrich used to be relatively intelligent. I think he might have Alzheimers, or some other type of dementia.

[Midtowner]

Gingrich used to be relatively intelligent. I think he might have Alzheimers, or some other type of dementia.

That worked well for Ronald Reagan.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I think the conservatives and liberals on this board can both agree that no one and I mean no one insults the greatest American of this century...RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!