"God will dwell with man forever in a world of peace, free of greed and anger and malice and war and poverty and hunger."
I don't mean to start anything, but... really?
Maybe I'm a little cynical, but don't our negative characteristics and our difficulties define what it is to be human too? If we had none of the flaws, none of the struggles, in what sense would we even be the same individuals?
Honestly, it's always made my head hurt trying to imagine a world that was all rewards and no pain --especially for eternity. Without bad times, how do you even define good times? Meaningful existence is about challenges, triumphs, and occasionally defeats.
We cannot imagine what life would be like without pain or evil or struggle because all of life is affected by pain and evil and struggle. We cannot conceive of, say, a good movie without a bad guy or some evil to overcome. We lack a frame of reference for such a thing. It's probably akin to explaining color to someone who was born blind. It's like asking someone what it means to be healthy: "It means to not be sick." Does it? Or does being sick mean not being healthy? If one is sick all the time, "healthy" is the absence of sickness, but for the majority of us who are generally healthy, sickness is the absence of health.
I would add that the new earth won't be free of struggle. I don't think that everyone who will be there will be sudden geniuses and be able to correct, say, Einstein's theory or compose like Mozart.
Sounds like hell to me - an eternity of boredom. The only way heaven would sound good to me is if there was still some kind of progression or something. After a week at a resort I'm ready to leave - can't imagine spending an eternity on one planet.
No kids? No exploring space and discovering new things (assumedly God knows everything anyways..)? No other metaphysical drama beyond "now God lives with us forever"? Pfft. Rather stay dead.
The cultural mandate in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1) was for man to rule over the earth and subdue it. When Gregory Mallory climbed Everest "because it was there," he did so because he was created in the image of God. There is no reason to think that people will regress in technology simply because they are on a perfect planet that has been recreated by God. A good book on this is Randy Alcorn's book "Heaven." His main thesis is heaven (the new earth) will be a lot like this one, but without any of the problems. If you write poetry now, why wouldn't you write [better] poetry then? If you make rockets now, why wouldn't you make [better] rockets then? Heaven won't be boring. Technological advance will accelerate rapidly, as will all of culture.
I can't tell if you're really "funny" or not, as your mod implies:)
Yeah. The moderators were way off on that one.
Anyways, being somewhat a scholar of the Bible myself, I wanted to mention two things. According to the Bible, then: first, man wasn't created for the world; the world was created "for" man. Second, man was not simply meant to "live in the world," man was mean to worship God.
IMO, the reason actual Christians "fight death" (to some extent, it varies a lot...) isn't that they are afraid. That's silly; if you truly love your Maker, why would you be afraid to finally be truly with Him? Rather, it's that they realize life is a thing given by God and taken by God, and cutting it needlessly short seems to be the easiest way to presume upon God's timing. It's easy to die early/"prematurely"/"needlessly"; it's hard to live wisely and thus longer.
That said, there are lot of pseudo-Christians. Christians that are "Christians" because they go to a "Christian" church. They don't actually love Jesus Christ, and they know so, so why should they be happy when they die? They are afraid of meeting Him, not overjoyed at meeting Him.
It makes sense, if you understand what a real Biblical Christian is. I'd venture to say that most of slashdot doesn't. Most of any people group doesn't. Even the Bible comments that it seems like "foolishness" to the "wise."
I'm with you on these points. I was being more general in my comments about man being created for this world. I intended to communicate that this planet was the environment into which man was created. You are absolutely correct that man was created to worship God. Like Adam, many find alternatives to God, thus the problems in this world.
Actually, if you study the bible, Jesus was literally talking about a kingdom on earth rules by God. Not a heaven but a literal kingdom. He also said that some of his apostles would still be alive to see this happen.
Ooopps.
"Ooopps?" Actually, if *you* study the Bible, you would read that Jesus told Pontius Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world, but was a heavenly kingdom (John 18:33-38). You would also read that Jesus is now reigning over His kingdom in heaven (2 Timothy 4:18, Colossians 1:13).
I get that you think I'm stupid and foolish and ignorant for believing in Jesus Christ, but if you really want to refute me regarding what the Bible teaches, you really should know what the Bible teaches.
"Non-existence can often seem more desirable than a bad existence in this fractured, fallen world. "
Stupidest. Post. Ever.
The world is not fractured or fallen. In fact it's better then ever.
Better than ever? Really? Have you read a newspaper? How many women are being trafficked in the sex trade? How many children are starving or malnourished in impoverished areas of the world? How many people are being slaughtered in wars and conflicts? How many people are murdered or raped every single day in this "better than ever" world?
Sorry to ask this, as it's so eay to offend. IF God created man, to always live on earth i.e. everyone coming back to earth after Jesus Christ returns it bewgs a simple question. Where and how will everone live on a totally over populated single planet with no personal space and no room to grow food? Or is the "easy" answer that there are really so few "decent" people that in reality the returning few will have more space than today?
The Bible does not address this, so the following is my speculation (which is another way to say "I don't know"). The earth is large enough to sustain many, many more people than it currently does. One can certainly find many alarmists who are screaming about overcrowding and lack of food but the WORLD is not any where near overcrowding. The problem is too many people in one place. (China is slightly smaller than the United States yet it has several times the population.) I live in one of the 100 largest cities in America and when I'm downtown I can point in any direction and drive for 30-40 minutes and be in either farmland or forest. Also consider how much food goes UNproduced in the US. We (rather, the US Congress) actually pay farmers to NOT grow produce. With our current uncontrollable and unpredictable weather patterns we still can produce far more food than we need. Imagine a world in which perfect weather exists and crops (and people!) are utterly free of disease or drought or other weather-induced crop failure. In a perfect world I suspect that people could live on far less than what they currently eat since digestive systems would be also be more efficient, and the world would be capable of producing far more food than it does currently.
You called it the "easy" answer but it isn't easy at all. There are many who will not be "heaven" (ie, the new earth, when Christ returns). That does not give me any joy nor is it easy to say. In my original post I was careful to say that the "people of God" would live on earth forever. I don't know how many that is. I know it is less than the total number of people who have ever lived since there are many who reject the existence of God, let alone trust in Him alone for salvation.
I cannot speak for all the pious, nor do I know how the study defines the pious so I will speak for myself. [cue the anti-whatever snarks...]
I believe we---mankind---were created for this world, not some ethereal place in the clouds. The Bible teaches that the people of God will live on earth forever, with a brief (relatively speaking) intermission elsewhere (between death and the return of Jesus Christ). It's quite interesting that the Bible begins with the Tree of Life in a garden (Eden) and ends with the Tree of Life in a city (see Genesis 2-3 and Revelation 21-22). Actually, the Tree of Life is still in a garden-like area that we would call a park. When Jesus returns He will create a sort of heavenly Central Park in the midst of a great city.
God intended from the beginning that man should live on the earth and the great promise is that one day man will live on a newly recreated earth and God will dwell with man forever in a world of peace, free of greed and anger and malice and war and poverty and hunger. In other words, people were created for this world and it should come as no surprise that they want to stay in it as long as possible. If, however, one does not believe this or one believes that this world is all there is, why delay the inevitable? Non-existence can often seem more desirable than a bad existence in this fractured, fallen world. For those who have hope for a future, existence in this broken world is desirable because they believe they were meant for it all along.
Are you usually this thick? McCain has had socialized medicine his entire life, and now he's complaining about how higher taxes on the rich (a sentiment he shared until he completely sold out to run for the presidency again) are "socialism".
Part of my benefits package from my employer is health insurance. Is this socialized? Of course not; I earn it. Senator McCain's employers have included health insurance benefits as part of his benefits packages. His first employer was the United States Navy. He earned his pay and benefits. His current employer is the United States Senate. He is earning his pay and benefits. That his employers have been (ultimately) the United States government does not make his pay and benefits socialized. Can you not see a difference between a person earning his pay and benefits and a person being given money and benefits?
Mmmm. Animal flesh. (drool). I wonder what Vegan tastes like?
Rather like cat. Not as gamey as dog, and lighter in texture than squirrel. Similar to kobe beef, but not quite as much marbling, due to the lack of fat in their diet. Oh, and utterly *unlike* rabbit.
(I didn't vote for Senator Obama.) I told my three children this morning (11, 7, & 5) about this historic occasion. When I pointed out that when Senator Obama was a young boy, black folk had to use different drinking fountains than white folk and had to use different bathrooms and go to different schools, they were stunned (especially the 11-year-old) that segregation was so recent. In a couple months we will have an African-American as president of the United States. How far we've come.
If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.
That is what he implies! When Senator Obama tells a private citizen that he wants to take money away from those who earned it and give it to others who did not earn it, he is clearly implying that it was wrongfully gained. It's like he's saying the rich have no right to keep the money they earned. That's not laughable.
Since you asked so very politely I will be happy to respond.
I responded to you specifically because you are a Christian, or at least you felt the need to defend an imaginary difference between a democracy voting for what they want and a community participating in the way they see fit. (I do not support a powerful centralized federal government, but I don't believe that there is functional difference between a participatory county government and a commune - they both require compromise).
Oh, my. You do not see a difference between a government that has really, really big weapons telling people they must give, nay, a government that takes people's money and gives it to other people and those same people who have freely and voluntarily entered into a community wherein they lovingly and willingly give of their possessions/wealth to help one another? Really? You don't see a difference? It ain't charity if I go to jail for not participating (by paying taxes). This sort of help is vastly different from welfare.
So let me ask you directly, why don't the same people who spend millions trying to defeat gay marriage spend the same amount on stopping people from eating shellfish, since both are abominations?
Those who are seeking an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage are misguided. This is a state issue. The federal government has no business getting involved in marriage.
God has specifically abrogated the Old Testament laws regarding food prohibitions (among other things). Read Acts 10:9-16 (read the rest of the chapter if you want to know the much greater application of this change).
And how can you possibly justify spending more money on war than on education, welfare, and social services combined?
From where do you get this information? Are you adding in all the money that states and cities/townships spend on education? Are you aware that the vast majority of spending on public education is local and not from the federal government? If you are just looking at the federal government's budget, you would have a point. That is an inaccurate picture, though.
I'm seriously asking your opinion. I can't seem to get my head around it, except for this scripture: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
There are many who want pastors who will tell them for whom to vote and never dig into the Scriptures to find out what God wants. I don't do this and get angry when I hear of other pastors who do.
I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.
Yeah, I agree. Senator Obama's campaign against [George W. Bush|John McCain] was centered on who Obama wasn't.
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
Early Christians (and many today) practiced this concept but it differed on a very significant points: it was voluntary. No one forced them to do so.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical.
I received a tax cut from President Bush. I make nowhere near $250,000 a year. I make a very, very small fraction of that amount. Senator Obama claims he will give a tax cut to me and will roll back the current President's tax cuts. The two appear to be mutually exclusive, especially since I currently do not pay federal income tax. I am among the 38% of Americans (or is it households?) that do not pay federal income taxes. How is it possible to reduce zero? I currently pay zero (though I did pay federal income taxes prior to President Bush's tax cuts) and yet Senator Obama promises me a tax cut (while taking away the tax cut I have already received). A reduction of *zero* would be negative. That means I would get back money in the form of a tax rebate of taxes I did not pay. This money necessarily comes from someone else. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Argue that this is acceptable, but don't argue that it isn't Marxist or Socialist. It is at the core of Marx' philosophy.
He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.
Er...I think he called Senator Obama a Marxist for his statements to "Joe the Plumber" regarding taking money from the wealthy and "spreading it around." I don't think it has anything to do with the Bush tax cuts. The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from Karl Marx. He wrote that in his critique of the ``Gotha program.'' (Search for that exact phrase on wikipedia.) I am not sure how anyone could argue that Senator Obama's statement was anything but Marxist. He did everything but quote Marx.
But, seriously. "Suckled at the government teat"? Really?
Uh, yeah? To borrow Clinton's line about the economy: it's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Hypocrisy? How so? The post to which I was responding claimed Senator McCain (and, while he was a child, his father) did not earn his health insurance benefits. To claim he "suckled at the government teat" is to imply that he did not earn it. That is false. How is this hypocrisy? If Senator McCain had not earned his pay and benefits I could see the claim of hypocrisy, but there is no hypocrisy. Senator McCain has never claimed that one should not be able to earn his health coverage. This isn't hypocrisy.
3. Private schools get to choose who they admit and keep, which allows them to only teach smart, well-behaved, native English speakers with parents who care about education.
Perhaps they get to, but do they? I attended both public and private schools. My oldest child attended a public school and now all three of my children attend a private school, which, quite simply, provides the best education in my city, period. There is no screening based on intelligence. In fact, in the school's secondary school (er...roughly junior high/high school), there is a student who has a mild form of autism. He is a terrible student (I think he's sixteen in ninth grade) but the school lets him attend (at a greatly reduced tuition). Why? Because the administration of the school cares for him. While some private schools may screen for intelligence, in my rather limited experience such screening is not prevalent.
The teaching of creationism is the least of America's education issues. We have a significant portion of high school graduates who are well behind their foreign counterparts in literacy and mathematics. The problem is so widespread that many universities have remedial courses to prep students for basic foundation classes in English and algebra.
Unfortunately, in many districts the parents are more interested in spending funding on new athletic facilities then on education.
My children are able to attend a classical school. (Google "classical education".) The education is truly superior to anything a public school can offer. All students are required to learn Latin from third grade through ninth grade (they then learn Greek). Why is this important? Studies have shown that students who learn Latin do better in all other subjects.
My wife and I have friends who are teachers in public schools and in private schools. When they speak to my children they are amazed at what my children know and are studying in school. My second grader can tell you, nay, articulate to you the difference between an adjective and an adverb. My fifth-grade son can read and write in Latin. He also read an unabridged version Beowulf--in third grade. We have friends who are not teachers who are equally amazed at the education my children receive. When I point out to them that they, too, can send their children to a classical school, their first question is usually about sports. It's a small school with limited resources for things like sports. Sports and extra-curricular activities almost always trump a superior education.
The students at this school are not high-IQ students. They are ordinary students who have a lot expected of them. Students tend to rise to the level of expectation. One of the school's secondary school teachers interviewed at a local inner-city public school to teach English/Literature. She asked the interviewers which classics the students have read in previous grades. The response given to her was that the school was not quite as interested in the students being able to read a classic as it is that the students can read a job application. If it weren't for McCain's other policies, I'd vote for him for his statement that education is the civil rights issue of our day.
It seems to me, and I might be wrong (I'm not)....
That John Mcain, a Navy brat, turned lifetime public servant who has had "socialist" government provided healthcare for his entire 72 years on this planet. Probably doesn't know sweet FA about an the average persons health care, outside of what he reads and the health insurance lobbyists tell him.
It's kind of ironic that the guy who's suckled at the government teat for his entire life, calls other people socialists.
Has he even ever been to a job interview? Or even had to ring an insurance company to get cover?
After a career in the Navy and a career in the Senate, it is doubtful that Senator McCain has interviewed for a job, unless you consider reapplying for his job in the Senate every six years is an interview of sorts.
But, seriously. "Suckled at the government teat"? Really? I'm not voting for McCain, but this is just unfair. Senator McCain's father served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). Senator McCain served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). After serving in the Navy for decades, Senator McCain has served in the Congress, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). C'mon. Suckling at the government teat? That's just not a fair assessment of what Senator McCain has been doing for 72 years. Complain about his inability to offer an coherent, consistent message. Complain about his plan to freeze government spending levels. Complain about his plan to tax health care benefits. I'll even grant you that he doesn't know much about the health care insurance of average folk. Just don't deny that the man has earned his health care for 72 years.
The point is not moot. You said Senator Obama's tax policy is not Marxist. I said it is and demonstrated it by pointing out that his tax policy is a tenet of Marx' "Communist Manifesto." I also said this: "*Anyone* who advocates a progressive income tax is advocating Marxist ideology." So your point is redundant. We agree, so stop disagreeing with me.;) They're all (well, most of them) a bunch of Marxists when it comes to tax policy, which is why I advocate replacing about 530 of them. (Surely Ron Paul is not the only Congressman with some sense, right?)
I checked out my "tax cut" via the link you provided. Wow. I will get a reduction in my taxes of over $2000...except I have not paid any federal income taxes this year. My income, combined with the number of dependents I have and thanks to President Bush's tax cuts for the "über-rich" (of which I am clearly *not*), results in ZERO withholding year-to-date. Senator Obama cannot *cut taxes* for those who do not pay federal income taxes. Period.
I am going to have to agree with Warren Buffet on this. When your waitress at Denny's pays more on a percentage basis than Warren Buffet does because one is labeled "Capitol Gains" and the other is mere "Income" the fairness has gone out of the system.
Let's talk about fairness. A single man with one personal exemption and no dependents, who earns $40,000USD will pay $4,256 in federal income tax. If that man excels in his job (say, in sales) and increases his income ten-fold to $400,000, he should pay ten times as much in income tax, no? If $40,000 equals $4,256 in tax, then $400,000 should equal $42,560 in tax. In reality, that man's tax burden will jump to $115,464. How is that fair? I agree with you that those earning less should not pay a higher percentage than those earning more. Increasing rates is not the way to solve this. Remove the loopholes. I also would argue that those earning more should not pay a higher rate than those earning less. If Mr. Jones earns ten times as much as Mr. Smith, then Mr. Jones should be ten times as much in taxes as Mr. Smith, not twenty-five times as much.
Er, I am not "pretending" that a progressive income tax is Marxist. *It is.* Marx advocated a progressive income tax in his "Communist Manifesto." Call it "pretending" all you want, but anyone not blinded by Obama's "stunning presence" can see that he advocates Marxist ideology. *Anyone* who advocates a progressive income tax is advocating Marxist ideology. Few, however, have been so close to the presidency and advocated the extent of Marxism that Senator Obama has.
I have never earned $100,000 (USD) in a single year. Most of my life I have earned *far* less than $100,000. *I* got a tax cut under President Bush. 2-5%? What does that even mean? Only 2-5% received a tax cut? False. A tax cut of 2-5%? Perhaps, but if that is what you mean, the good senator from Illinois has not indicated the size of the tax "cut" those who don't actually pay taxes are going to get, so it makes little sense for you to point it out. I can only assume that you mean just 2-5% of folk got a tax cut in "years past." This is simply not true.
Obama has already added a stipulation that you cannot simply get a rebate if you do not have a paycheck. This will be for payroll taxes only. So don't worry, despite republican talking points to the contrary, this isn't welfare for the non-working. It's a tax cut targeted to working middle class, for a change.
And you cannot get a rebate if you do not pay taxes! You cannot give tax cut to 95% of workers when only 62% pay taxes (federal income). Thirty-eight percent of American workers do not pay federal income taxes. This is not a Republican talking point; this is math. When Senator Obama talks about giving a tax cut to those who do not pay taxes, he is talking about taxing those who already pay the bulk of taxes still more and then giving that money to those who don't pay taxes. This is income redistribution. This is Marxism. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to start anything, but... really?
Maybe I'm a little cynical, but don't our negative characteristics and our difficulties define what it is to be human too? If we had none of the flaws, none of the struggles, in what sense would we even be the same individuals?
Honestly, it's always made my head hurt trying to imagine a world that was all rewards and no pain --especially for eternity. Without bad times, how do you even define good times? Meaningful existence is about challenges, triumphs, and occasionally defeats.
We cannot imagine what life would be like without pain or evil or struggle because all of life is affected by pain and evil and struggle. We cannot conceive of, say, a good movie without a bad guy or some evil to overcome. We lack a frame of reference for such a thing. It's probably akin to explaining color to someone who was born blind. It's like asking someone what it means to be healthy: "It means to not be sick." Does it? Or does being sick mean not being healthy? If one is sick all the time, "healthy" is the absence of sickness, but for the majority of us who are generally healthy, sickness is the absence of health.
I would add that the new earth won't be free of struggle. I don't think that everyone who will be there will be sudden geniuses and be able to correct, say, Einstein's theory or compose like Mozart.
Sounds like hell to me - an eternity of boredom. The only way heaven would sound good to me is if there was still some kind of progression or something. After a week at a resort I'm ready to leave - can't imagine spending an eternity on one planet.
No kids? No exploring space and discovering new things (assumedly God knows everything anyways..)? No other metaphysical drama beyond "now God lives with us forever"? Pfft. Rather stay dead.
The cultural mandate in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1) was for man to rule over the earth and subdue it. When Gregory Mallory climbed Everest "because it was there," he did so because he was created in the image of God. There is no reason to think that people will regress in technology simply because they are on a perfect planet that has been recreated by God. A good book on this is Randy Alcorn's book "Heaven." His main thesis is heaven (the new earth) will be a lot like this one, but without any of the problems. If you write poetry now, why wouldn't you write [better] poetry then? If you make rockets now, why wouldn't you make [better] rockets then? Heaven won't be boring. Technological advance will accelerate rapidly, as will all of culture.
I can't tell if you're really "funny" or not, as your mod implies :)
Yeah. The moderators were way off on that one.
Anyways, being somewhat a scholar of the Bible myself, I wanted to mention two things. According to the Bible, then: first, man wasn't created for the world; the world was created "for" man. Second, man was not simply meant to "live in the world," man was mean to worship God.
IMO, the reason actual Christians "fight death" (to some extent, it varies a lot...) isn't that they are afraid. That's silly; if you truly love your Maker, why would you be afraid to finally be truly with Him? Rather, it's that they realize life is a thing given by God and taken by God, and cutting it needlessly short seems to be the easiest way to presume upon God's timing. It's easy to die early/"prematurely"/"needlessly"; it's hard to live wisely and thus longer.
That said, there are lot of pseudo-Christians. Christians that are "Christians" because they go to a "Christian" church. They don't actually love Jesus Christ, and they know so, so why should they be happy when they die? They are afraid of meeting Him, not overjoyed at meeting Him.
It makes sense, if you understand what a real Biblical Christian is. I'd venture to say that most of slashdot doesn't. Most of any people group doesn't. Even the Bible comments that it seems like "foolishness" to the "wise."
I'm with you on these points. I was being more general in my comments about man being created for this world. I intended to communicate that this planet was the environment into which man was created. You are absolutely correct that man was created to worship God. Like Adam, many find alternatives to God, thus the problems in this world.
Actually, if you study the bible, Jesus was literally talking about a kingdom on earth rules by God. Not a heaven but a literal kingdom. He also said that some of his apostles would still be alive to see this happen.
Ooopps.
"Ooopps?" Actually, if *you* study the Bible, you would read that Jesus told Pontius Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world, but was a heavenly kingdom (John 18:33-38). You would also read that Jesus is now reigning over His kingdom in heaven (2 Timothy 4:18, Colossians 1:13).
I get that you think I'm stupid and foolish and ignorant for believing in Jesus Christ, but if you really want to refute me regarding what the Bible teaches, you really should know what the Bible teaches.
"Non-existence can often seem more desirable than a bad existence in this fractured, fallen world. "
Stupidest. Post. Ever.
The world is not fractured or fallen. In fact it's better then ever.
Better than ever? Really? Have you read a newspaper? How many women are being trafficked in the sex trade? How many children are starving or malnourished in impoverished areas of the world? How many people are being slaughtered in wars and conflicts? How many people are murdered or raped every single day in this "better than ever" world?
Really?
Sorry to ask this, as it's so eay to offend. IF God created man, to always live on earth i.e. everyone coming back to earth after Jesus Christ returns it bewgs a simple question. Where and how will everone live on a totally over populated single planet with no personal space and no room to grow food? Or is the "easy" answer that there are really so few "decent" people that in reality the returning few will have more space than today?
The Bible does not address this, so the following is my speculation (which is another way to say "I don't know"). The earth is large enough to sustain many, many more people than it currently does. One can certainly find many alarmists who are screaming about overcrowding and lack of food but the WORLD is not any where near overcrowding. The problem is too many people in one place. (China is slightly smaller than the United States yet it has several times the population.) I live in one of the 100 largest cities in America and when I'm downtown I can point in any direction and drive for 30-40 minutes and be in either farmland or forest. Also consider how much food goes UNproduced in the US. We (rather, the US Congress) actually pay farmers to NOT grow produce. With our current uncontrollable and unpredictable weather patterns we still can produce far more food than we need. Imagine a world in which perfect weather exists and crops (and people!) are utterly free of disease or drought or other weather-induced crop failure. In a perfect world I suspect that people could live on far less than what they currently eat since digestive systems would be also be more efficient, and the world would be capable of producing far more food than it does currently.
You called it the "easy" answer but it isn't easy at all. There are many who will not be "heaven" (ie, the new earth, when Christ returns). That does not give me any joy nor is it easy to say. In my original post I was careful to say that the "people of God" would live on earth forever. I don't know how many that is. I know it is less than the total number of people who have ever lived since there are many who reject the existence of God, let alone trust in Him alone for salvation.
I cannot speak for all the pious, nor do I know how the study defines the pious so I will speak for myself. [cue the anti-whatever snarks...]
I believe we---mankind---were created for this world, not some ethereal place in the clouds. The Bible teaches that the people of God will live on earth forever, with a brief (relatively speaking) intermission elsewhere (between death and the return of Jesus Christ). It's quite interesting that the Bible begins with the Tree of Life in a garden (Eden) and ends with the Tree of Life in a city (see Genesis 2-3 and Revelation 21-22). Actually, the Tree of Life is still in a garden-like area that we would call a park. When Jesus returns He will create a sort of heavenly Central Park in the midst of a great city.
God intended from the beginning that man should live on the earth and the great promise is that one day man will live on a newly recreated earth and God will dwell with man forever in a world of peace, free of greed and anger and malice and war and poverty and hunger. In other words, people were created for this world and it should come as no surprise that they want to stay in it as long as possible. If, however, one does not believe this or one believes that this world is all there is, why delay the inevitable? Non-existence can often seem more desirable than a bad existence in this fractured, fallen world. For those who have hope for a future, existence in this broken world is desirable because they believe they were meant for it all along.
That we're all living on a small anti-counterfeiting patch on God's MasterCard?
You know He's omnipresent, right? God doesn't use MasterCard. He uses Visa since it's everywhere He wants to be.
Oh, my. Sorry. That was really bad.
Hypocrisy? How so?
Are you usually this thick? McCain has had socialized medicine his entire life, and now he's complaining about how higher taxes on the rich (a sentiment he shared until he completely sold out to run for the presidency again) are "socialism".
Part of my benefits package from my employer is health insurance. Is this socialized? Of course not; I earn it. Senator McCain's employers have included health insurance benefits as part of his benefits packages. His first employer was the United States Navy. He earned his pay and benefits. His current employer is the United States Senate. He is earning his pay and benefits. That his employers have been (ultimately) the United States government does not make his pay and benefits socialized. Can you not see a difference between a person earning his pay and benefits and a person being given money and benefits?
Mmmm. Animal flesh. (drool). I wonder what Vegan tastes like?
Rather like cat. Not as gamey as dog, and lighter in texture than squirrel. Similar to kobe beef, but not quite as much marbling, due to the lack of fat in their diet. Oh, and utterly *unlike* rabbit.
Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".
(I didn't vote for Senator Obama.) I told my three children this morning (11, 7, & 5) about this historic occasion. When I pointed out that when Senator Obama was a young boy, black folk had to use different drinking fountains than white folk and had to use different bathrooms and go to different schools, they were stunned (especially the 11-year-old) that segregation was so recent. In a couple months we will have an African-American as president of the United States. How far we've come.
God bless America.
If Obama were a Marxist (which is a laughable concept when you take the world view) then you wouldn't be paying tax, you would be returning that which you had stolen from the working classes.
That is what he implies! When Senator Obama tells a private citizen that he wants to take money away from those who earned it and give it to others who did not earn it, he is clearly implying that it was wrongfully gained. It's like he's saying the rich have no right to keep the money they earned. That's not laughable.
Since you asked so very politely I will be happy to respond.
I responded to you specifically because you are a Christian, or at least you felt the need to defend an imaginary difference between a democracy voting for what they want and a community participating in the way they see fit. (I do not support a powerful centralized federal government, but I don't believe that there is functional difference between a participatory county government and a commune - they both require compromise).
Oh, my. You do not see a difference between a government that has really, really big weapons telling people they must give, nay, a government that takes people's money and gives it to other people and those same people who have freely and voluntarily entered into a community wherein they lovingly and willingly give of their possessions/wealth to help one another? Really? You don't see a difference? It ain't charity if I go to jail for not participating (by paying taxes). This sort of help is vastly different from welfare.
So let me ask you directly, why don't the same people who spend millions trying to defeat gay marriage spend the same amount on stopping people from eating shellfish, since both are abominations?
Those who are seeking an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage are misguided. This is a state issue. The federal government has no business getting involved in marriage.
God has specifically abrogated the Old Testament laws regarding food prohibitions (among other things). Read Acts 10:9-16 (read the rest of the chapter if you want to know the much greater application of this change).
And how can you possibly justify spending more money on war than on education, welfare, and social services combined?
From where do you get this information? Are you adding in all the money that states and cities/townships spend on education? Are you aware that the vast majority of spending on public education is local and not from the federal government? If you are just looking at the federal government's budget, you would have a point. That is an inaccurate picture, though.
I'm seriously asking your opinion. I can't seem to get my head around it, except for this scripture: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
There are many who want pastors who will tell them for whom to vote and never dig into the Scriptures to find out what God wants. I don't do this and get angry when I hear of other pastors who do.
I just refuse to vote for someone who ran a filthy campaign whose only issue was "the other guy sucks." That's my favorite logical fallacy, the "argument from ignorance": the other guy is bad, so we must be better.
Yeah, I agree. Senator Obama's campaign against [George W. Bush|John McCain] was centered on who Obama wasn't.
Well, one, the concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't from Marx. The popularization of that formulation might have come from Marx, but you'll find the same spirit occurring far earlier in history - in early Christian communitarianism, for example.
Early Christians (and many today) practiced this concept but it differed on a very significant points: it was voluntary. No one forced them to do so.
If you look at Obama's tax proposals, he calls for rolling back the Bush tax cuts and providing some (modest) tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. That's not Marxist or especially radical.
I received a tax cut from President Bush. I make nowhere near $250,000 a year. I make a very, very small fraction of that amount. Senator Obama claims he will give a tax cut to me and will roll back the current President's tax cuts. The two appear to be mutually exclusive, especially since I currently do not pay federal income tax. I am among the 38% of Americans (or is it households?) that do not pay federal income taxes. How is it possible to reduce zero? I currently pay zero (though I did pay federal income taxes prior to President Bush's tax cuts) and yet Senator Obama promises me a tax cut (while taking away the tax cut I have already received). A reduction of *zero* would be negative. That means I would get back money in the form of a tax rebate of taxes I did not pay. This money necessarily comes from someone else. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Argue that this is acceptable, but don't argue that it isn't Marxist or Socialist. It is at the core of Marx' philosophy.
He called Obama a Marxist for wanting to roll back the bush tax cuts.. dunno about you, but that's an outright lie.
Er...I think he called Senator Obama a Marxist for his statements to "Joe the Plumber" regarding taking money from the wealthy and "spreading it around." I don't think it has anything to do with the Bush tax cuts. The concept of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from Karl Marx. He wrote that in his critique of the ``Gotha program.'' (Search for that exact phrase on wikipedia.) I am not sure how anyone could argue that Senator Obama's statement was anything but Marxist. He did everything but quote Marx.
... that I'm happy that it will be over at goddamn last.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but..."midterms" and "2012." It will never be over...
But, seriously. "Suckled at the government teat"? Really?
Uh, yeah? To borrow Clinton's line about the economy: it's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Hypocrisy? How so? The post to which I was responding claimed Senator McCain (and, while he was a child, his father) did not earn his health insurance benefits. To claim he "suckled at the government teat" is to imply that he did not earn it. That is false. How is this hypocrisy? If Senator McCain had not earned his pay and benefits I could see the claim of hypocrisy, but there is no hypocrisy. Senator McCain has never claimed that one should not be able to earn his health coverage. This isn't hypocrisy.
You forgot:
3. Private schools get to choose who they admit and keep, which allows them to only teach smart, well-behaved, native English speakers with parents who care about education.
Perhaps they get to, but do they? I attended both public and private schools. My oldest child attended a public school and now all three of my children attend a private school, which, quite simply, provides the best education in my city, period. There is no screening based on intelligence. In fact, in the school's secondary school (er...roughly junior high/high school), there is a student who has a mild form of autism. He is a terrible student (I think he's sixteen in ninth grade) but the school lets him attend (at a greatly reduced tuition). Why? Because the administration of the school cares for him. While some private schools may screen for intelligence, in my rather limited experience such screening is not prevalent.
The teaching of creationism is the least of America's education issues. We have a significant portion of high school graduates who are well behind their foreign counterparts in literacy and mathematics. The problem is so widespread that many universities have remedial courses to prep students for basic foundation classes in English and algebra.
Unfortunately, in many districts the parents are more interested in spending funding on new athletic facilities then on education.
My children are able to attend a classical school. (Google "classical education".) The education is truly superior to anything a public school can offer. All students are required to learn Latin from third grade through ninth grade (they then learn Greek). Why is this important? Studies have shown that students who learn Latin do better in all other subjects.
My wife and I have friends who are teachers in public schools and in private schools. When they speak to my children they are amazed at what my children know and are studying in school. My second grader can tell you, nay, articulate to you the difference between an adjective and an adverb. My fifth-grade son can read and write in Latin. He also read an unabridged version Beowulf--in third grade. We have friends who are not teachers who are equally amazed at the education my children receive. When I point out to them that they, too, can send their children to a classical school, their first question is usually about sports. It's a small school with limited resources for things like sports. Sports and extra-curricular activities almost always trump a superior education.
The students at this school are not high-IQ students. They are ordinary students who have a lot expected of them. Students tend to rise to the level of expectation. One of the school's secondary school teachers interviewed at a local inner-city public school to teach English/Literature. She asked the interviewers which classics the students have read in previous grades. The response given to her was that the school was not quite as interested in the students being able to read a classic as it is that the students can read a job application. If it weren't for McCain's other policies, I'd vote for him for his statement that education is the civil rights issue of our day.
So... you're saying that Obama is a muslim?
Y'all know what 'is middle name is, don'tcha?
It seems to me, and I might be wrong (I'm not)....
That John Mcain, a Navy brat, turned lifetime public servant who has had "socialist" government provided healthcare for his entire 72 years on this planet. Probably doesn't know sweet FA about an the average persons health care, outside of what he reads and the health insurance lobbyists tell him.
It's kind of ironic that the guy who's suckled at the government teat for his entire life, calls other people socialists.
Has he even ever been to a job interview? Or even had to ring an insurance company to get cover?
After a career in the Navy and a career in the Senate, it is doubtful that Senator McCain has interviewed for a job, unless you consider reapplying for his job in the Senate every six years is an interview of sorts.
But, seriously. "Suckled at the government teat"? Really? I'm not voting for McCain, but this is just unfair. Senator McCain's father served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). Senator McCain served in the Navy, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). After serving in the Navy for decades, Senator McCain has served in the Congress, thus earning his pay and his benefits (including health care). C'mon. Suckling at the government teat? That's just not a fair assessment of what Senator McCain has been doing for 72 years. Complain about his inability to offer an coherent, consistent message. Complain about his plan to freeze government spending levels. Complain about his plan to tax health care benefits. I'll even grant you that he doesn't know much about the health care insurance of average folk. Just don't deny that the man has earned his health care for 72 years.
The point is not moot. You said Senator Obama's tax policy is not Marxist. I said it is and demonstrated it by pointing out that his tax policy is a tenet of Marx' "Communist Manifesto." I also said this: "*Anyone* who advocates a progressive income tax is advocating Marxist ideology." So your point is redundant. We agree, so stop disagreeing with me. ;) They're all (well, most of them) a bunch of Marxists when it comes to tax policy, which is why I advocate replacing about 530 of them. (Surely Ron Paul is not the only Congressman with some sense, right?)
I checked out my "tax cut" via the link you provided. Wow. I will get a reduction in my taxes of over $2000...except I have not paid any federal income taxes this year. My income, combined with the number of dependents I have and thanks to President Bush's tax cuts for the "über-rich" (of which I am clearly *not*), results in ZERO withholding year-to-date. Senator Obama cannot *cut taxes* for those who do not pay federal income taxes. Period.
I am going to have to agree with Warren Buffet on this. When your waitress at Denny's pays more on a percentage basis than Warren Buffet does because one is labeled "Capitol Gains" and the other is mere "Income" the fairness has gone out of the system.
Let's talk about fairness. A single man with one personal exemption and no dependents, who earns $40,000USD will pay $4,256 in federal income tax. If that man excels in his job (say, in sales) and increases his income ten-fold to $400,000, he should pay ten times as much in income tax, no? If $40,000 equals $4,256 in tax, then $400,000 should equal $42,560 in tax. In reality, that man's tax burden will jump to $115,464. How is that fair? I agree with you that those earning less should not pay a higher percentage than those earning more. Increasing rates is not the way to solve this. Remove the loopholes. I also would argue that those earning more should not pay a higher rate than those earning less. If Mr. Jones earns ten times as much as Mr. Smith, then Mr. Jones should be ten times as much in taxes as Mr. Smith, not twenty-five times as much.
Er, I am not "pretending" that a progressive income tax is Marxist. *It is.* Marx advocated a progressive income tax in his "Communist Manifesto." Call it "pretending" all you want, but anyone not blinded by Obama's "stunning presence" can see that he advocates Marxist ideology. *Anyone* who advocates a progressive income tax is advocating Marxist ideology. Few, however, have been so close to the presidency and advocated the extent of Marxism that Senator Obama has.
I have never earned $100,000 (USD) in a single year. Most of my life I have earned *far* less than $100,000. *I* got a tax cut under President Bush. 2-5%? What does that even mean? Only 2-5% received a tax cut? False. A tax cut of 2-5%? Perhaps, but if that is what you mean, the good senator from Illinois has not indicated the size of the tax "cut" those who don't actually pay taxes are going to get, so it makes little sense for you to point it out. I can only assume that you mean just 2-5% of folk got a tax cut in "years past." This is simply not true.
Obama has already added a stipulation that you cannot simply get a rebate if you do not have a paycheck. This will be for payroll taxes only. So don't worry, despite republican talking points to the contrary, this isn't welfare for the non-working. It's a tax cut targeted to working middle class, for a change.
And you cannot get a rebate if you do not pay taxes! You cannot give tax cut to 95% of workers when only 62% pay taxes (federal income). Thirty-eight percent of American workers do not pay federal income taxes. This is not a Republican talking point; this is math. When Senator Obama talks about giving a tax cut to those who do not pay taxes, he is talking about taxing those who already pay the bulk of taxes still more and then giving that money to those who don't pay taxes. This is income redistribution. This is Marxism. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."