So the UN says these kinds of things when they're not trading blood-for-oil (in their case, literally) or taking the opportunity to move around men with blue helmets with no bullets, raping the countryside?
I'm sorry, I just can't abide the good-idea-gone-wrong known as the UN. Just too many times it's shown itself to be a worse-than-useless organization.
I'm sure most-if-not-all want to. Russia's still ticked at us for sending them semis that failed and blew up a pipeline of theirs, so I hear. And with the money that flows around Washington, churned by self-important Congressmen, why doesn't *everyone* get in there and get there fill?
We're always hearing Hollywood types telling us who to vote for. Like they have *anything* in common with the rest of us? What a crock.
The sad thing (to be appended to very many sad aspects of this election) that the guy who was supposed to be Conservative, the guy who was supposed to limit government and lower taxes, the guy who was supposed to be the problem SOLVER is against us on the net. Another sad thing is that the alternative will surely tax us into another Jimmy Carter economy of taxing the job-makers and wondering why everyone's out of work.
Obama wants change. Obama has a dark past, and has all the media backing him. He could kill a woman in a car wreck and hide it (like it's done before) and the man would still get elected.
The chief sad thing is, Hitler was the same way; "Don't ask for details, just for for change!"
Spoken like a person who doesn't remember the Carter 'Misery Index' or the Regan years. Yeah, I vote *every* time. But since Regan, all the Republican offerings have gone towards Liberalism. It's the vote-buying as well as the "blue blood" Republicans in our party; they forgot that Conservatism wins, but it has to be _embraced_. Everyone loves Conservatism: less government, less taxes, less intrusion.
There's a group of people that want to dictate the food we eat (see: Transfat Ban) the light bulbs we choose (the deadly CFC bulbs) the cars we drive (they DESPISE SUV's) and want to own all our homes. In fact, in California the power company tells YOU what temperature your thermostat says. This is the Liberal Democrats, not the Conservative Republicans.
The current offering is a desperate mistake. Ya know what they call Democrats that are "Mavericks"? Ask Leiberman. In the Democratic party no dissent is permitted; in the Republican party everyone's trying to be politically correct and trying to make the media love them. It doesn't work.
In order since Regan, each and EVERY offering from the RNC has been a bigger and bigger disappointment. I didn't know it could get worse than Bush Jr. I came very near not voting for McCain.(!) But look at this: on both, not the first time Regan won, he won by a landslide (45+ to 0-1 states). There's a reason for this.
But instead we keep getting people who want to enlarge government every time it blunders. Check the text of that last bailout law. It declares the Treasury Secretary to be "charged to ensure the prosperity of our entire country" or somesuch. A non-elected person now has many times more the power of the president AND the congress.
Ya know, if this were Friday, this would make the second Czar appointed this week.
The Bailout Bill (AKA Death of Capitalism, Comrad) created a man, the Treasury Secretary with more power than the president: the power to, and I quote "Ensure the prosperity" of the American people.
I don't know what to tell ya; voting Republican doesn't stop this anymore, and voting democrat only makes it 100 times worse. MAN, I wish the media hadn't picked our candidate.
As predictable as "soup lines" touted on broadcast TV news when Democrats aren't in the White House, so are stories around this time, presenting to the side who doesn't own the media, showing how it's all over. No need to vote- we'll just walk away with it, thank you.
They did this with Kerry, Gore, now this latest empty suit.
I don't know who's going to win, but it won't be the American people.
George Bush wasn't at fault. In fact, refer to Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Franklin Raynes (sp?). All these Liberals were pushing "affordable housing" like it was a Constitutional right. It's not. And there's nothing wrong with RENTING when you can't afford a 5% downpayment.
But this is where political correctness gets ya: failed policy.
Two things:
1. Term limits, now. No elected official of any stripe should spend more than 10 years in public (elected) service, ever.
2. Kill Fannie and kill Freddie. It isn't right that America (the government) owns 70% of all mortgages. (Us)
3. I defy *anyone* to show me Republican fingerprints on this, the Democrat Banking Scandal.
Al Gore stood between two enormous charts, walking amongst them like flower patches. He got them NEAR each other, but didn't overlap them. And he did this for a reason: C02 is the Earth's natural response to a period of prolonged _heating_. If the two plots happened on the same chart, you'd see that 800 years (typical) after a hot spell, the oceans warm enough to start absorbing, not spewing, C02.
Now; I don't know how much can be made by this new process. But I stand metaphorically before you today to insist it's probably not as effective as that which covers 3/4 of this planet's surface.
Further, while "Green" robots run around comparing greenhouse gasses and which kind of toilet paper is 'easier on the environment' I also ask you to consider one thing that might have a little more effect on Global Warming(TM) movement: the sun.
Pulling up a 'million' core samples and comparing them to solar cycles shows that, bar none, when the sun takes a notion it'll get hot...and no amount of present-or-missing greenhouse gasses can change it's mind. Much like a supernova, if one starts it'll end itself (and us) and there's no changing it.
We're a tiny, tiny, miniscule effect on this planet. It'd be like worrying that amoebas could steal this continent while we're asleep. And in just a few years, the rest of you will see this to be another Liberal Hoax, concocted for the purpose of controlling more people and money.
Most of the recent choices from the Democrats have been empty suits with Stalinist heros...and the Republicans haven't been much better.
I vote Republican, but that doesn't mean (either) Bush was a 'hero'. And I'm not thrilled about McCain, in fact I considered throwing the election. All these people have lost the Conservative ideal: limited government. Is there anyone on this planet that thinks having more chairs in Washington is a way to solve problems? No. So why do so many people vote for them?
*Everyone* loves Conservatism: less intervention, less taxes, and permitting the Capitalist System to be a benefit to the most people. No class-envy, no racism. No "let's be fair" and screw some people with the law.
When Sara Palin was picked, the Left/Socialists ran in FEAR of her. It's how I knew I'd like her. She shows independence, strength, and accomplishment all without having to cow-tow to federal programs or the like. She believes in better government, so yeah: they hate her. She's what we all need.
*Instead*, we seem to want Democrats to decide our meals (trans-fat ban) our cars (incandescent light ban) and our vehicles (maniacal hatred of SUVs). They've also been busy (Dodd, Frank, Friends-of-Angelo) looting the mortgage industry. Didn't Russia work that way? They spent 70 years in a 'great depression': I don't think that's better than what we have now.
As long as the Democrats want Socialism, and Republicans want to be corrupt/inept, they're going to stay close elections. It's just gonna be that way. Regan had not one, but TWO landslides. There was a reason.
Ya see, there's an 'unholy alliance' between government and academia; the administrators put up a price for admission, the government makes money freely available and guarantees it, and the next year the administrators can do it all over again and swim in the money each year while the students hope they live long enough to pay off the loans.
Did you notice the part where schools work hard to ensure the training has quality? You didn't miss it: it doesn't exist anymore. It's all about raising money from the government. But if *some* colleges will keep you out because you're a rabble-rouser...well, there just might be hope for sanity, yet!
[This is another reason government needs OUT of our lives. Vote Conservative, if you can find one.]
The radical left is all about freedom and peace and beauty...how on Earth could someone from them invade personal privacy and post it broadly on the net?
The same way they 'ban' books by moving them around in book stores, putting them inside cabinets, throwing them behind closed doors, etc.
The same way they swamp radio stations with DMCA (and other, various) complaints en-masse so as to shut down Conservative Talk Radio because nobody wanted Air America.
Give us some good examples of your enlightenment, folks. Show us how it's done.
And while you're at it, show us how you're 'color blind' while rounding up your victim-groups under various skin colors. (Let's not forget the ex-KKK member in Congress is Democrat, not Republican.) (Let's not forget that George Wallace was Democrat, not Republican.) (Let's not forget that 'Bull' Shannon that used firehoses on negros back in the 60's was a Democrat, not a Republican.)
Man, ya own the schools, the TV channels (other than Fox), the magazines, most of the newspapers and 80% of the blogs and you think you own the world...:>
I'm going to assume you're in America; what you're talking about seems part-n-parcel of what I've found here all my life; the two roles of consumer versus producer.
America needs both; once upon a time most people could be either: farmers who buy goods- that kinda thing. But in the last 30-40 years the whole games has become slanted against the producers. The top of this spectrum are the 'Celebutards' who couldn't make up their minds, much less anything to sell, or even the concept of running a business.
Millions of kids in the new slavery of Liberalism grow up into short little lives around 'projects'. No one there seems to have any IDEA that some people work for a living, and others both work and develop their own money being part of the process. No, instead they stand around wondering what to do...until the drugs come around and get pulled down. It's all very sad. FDR was wrong in warehousing these people. They need the same 'pay or walk' lifestyle the rest of us have. And it's our own embarassment that we don't teach them as we should.
These people aren't idiots, they're just unaware. The process worked against them, and they're MISERABLE. We need to stop warehousing folks this way...it's not 'merciful' to give them money and think they're done.
But understand that, despite the Left's ability to pretend to be charming and/or wonderful, they cut through people's lives and bring a misery that makes The Adversary smile. And yet, the producers produce...and sales teams advertise for the rest of us, consumers.
I'm nearly your age; I suspect we've both been working with computers since 1978; I did, with wirewrap and lots of hex, but eventually I transitioned to software, and then again to both: systems administration. There's a reason "you sucked" at consulting: as much as it's true, as much as the twit at the client's site needs it more than any man living, a consultant isn't gonna last long with his hands around the client personnel.:)
You need to find some guys you trust, and make an ensemble.
Yeah, ok, kinda like the "A" team...a 'face', a programmer, a businessman, a marketting guy and someone to store/retrieve receipts for the tax-guy. You don't need a person-to-person match, since you'll sometimes find folks who're two roles simultaneously, but you get the idea. When you're a 'board member' instead of an 'employee', there's more room for you to stretch out. And maybe dealing with the actual public isn't your thing- it's not really mine. But the ensemble allows you, as a group, to survive where singly you might not.
This all, of course requires a TOWN that will support the effort; the town I'm in is pretty shy on computer work [that isn't mere virus-chasing]. Chicago was a great place for this kinda thing...
Anyway, try for something with a group. You won't have to listen to stupid clients and still be able to get things done, aye?
"You're forgetting that there's another creation story in Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, which has the following sequence of events:
1. The Earth already exists in the form of a misty, rainless desert."
Nope, I'm not. It doesn't say it was a rainless desert. It just says it didn't rain. That happens even today, with the rain comes down, but dries out before it hits the ground. "Desert" wasn't in there.
2. God makes a man out of dust, and constructs a garden to put him in.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't help to recount to primative people the entire story of RNA and DNA. Same reason there's not a lot of talk about dinosaurs that they'd never run into. The 'garden' is just one particular place on Earth, yeah. I don't see a problem here.
3. Animals are created in an attempt to provide a helper fit for his new man.
Actually no. The "helpmate" comes after Adam, the animals were created before mankind.
4. The animals prove to be unsatisfactory (i.e. God was in error!), so He makes a woman out of the man's rib."
OK, this doesn't come from the canon. The animals were never claimed to be unsatisfactory in any way.
"Which of the two is the true account, because they can't both be true unless God created everything including the Earth and everything on it, then wiped the slate clean only on Earth leaving a misty desert, after which he created exactly the same things (including the two people with the same names) that had displeased him previously, but in a different order."
Again, no desert. No wiping-clean of the planet. If this is what you want to take away from the Bible, feel free: I have a friend who thinks by leaving just one light on, the 'surge' of power when he turns on the morning lights will be smaller, and he took electronics class. But that doesn't make it so, now, does it?
Choose to look, or not to look- but by not looking, especially because of a misunderstanding is sad. I hope you find Him. I hope you find the peace that I have, with your logic and thinking as intact as it ever was. Christianity is historical and evidential- He wants it to be that way. That's why he's left so many clues, but it's up to you to choose.
"The precambrian lasted 4 billion years. Life starts around 1.2 billion years ago. Multi-cellular organisms start to appear about 500 million years ago.
yeah, life just ~sprung~ out of nowhere."
Ah, I love a good debate. Notice I said "Cosmologically speaking"? Before that time there was no life; I'm no expert, but I've been told there's not even moss/algae before that period. But the counter-argument has a problem in it: it says "little life mutated and became bigger life, through invertabrates then vertabrates, and eventually man." But that's not so: in this pre-cambrian era ALL phylum of life was created. Which is why the trillobite, the oldest- or one-of-the-oldest creatures has a spine.
Yeah, in long, long terms according to man, it sprung into life. The "tree of life" to which Darwin pointed isn't a tree- it's more like a lawn. Lots of little, 'short' journeys from what the animals were to what they are today, according to the fossil record.
Now, I know your teachers don't want you to believe this, you see Christians as brainless fools, but if you find this many, no-way-they-could-have-guessed-it truths in the Bible and you don't make an honest attempt to follow the data there, aren't you being foolish?
You might find that some of the 'nonsense' is actually on your side. Just how do you explain them 'accidentally' getting right:
- The lost civilization of the Hittites - The non-suspended view of Earth - That our reality started with light - That our continents have been split - That it recounts the development of plants, matching the fossil records?
There are those who can see, and there are those who _won't_ see. Either is your choice. I'm not going to labor the points. I'm just trying to defeat some of the "Bible is nonsense" that I keep seeing. Like how Hollywood only knows two kinds of believers: Non-repentant Roman Catholics and Witch-killing Amish. If you don't take the time to see that the Bible has truth, maybe you should look around at the world-wide fight against it.
When was the last time you saw/heard of anyone debating any other text? The last time anyone but Christians were being outlawed, killed for their faith in China or suffering a smear from the entire media? Why else would a religion that's based on acceptance, hating-the-sin-but-loving-the-sinner be something so reviled?
I think if you look a little deeper, you'll find some surprises.
Well there also came a time where people needed to hide from the truth. They use hearsay and superstition to hide from the Bible. They generated all manner of means to ignore, obfuscate or outright condemn the work, almost always without careful study. These times are part of those times. You're doing it right now.
You ignore the fact that, THOUSANDS of years before John Glenn orbited the Earth, the Bible said the Earth was "Suspended from Nothing". You're frittering away the fact that this reality was made by a singularity...a singularity that the Bible describes as "let there be light", and yet if any observer could see the singularity, he'd call it light, too. (See also e=mc2)
The Bible has been 'wrong' for centuries, as people have dug up remains, for exmaple of the Hittite capital city while 'everyone knew' there was no Hittites, ever. People's eyes glazed over the idea that "the land was divided" (paraphrasing) but today we have continents that were at one time all part of the same land mass, as a matter of scientific fact.
Tell me then, with this long list of things that turned out to be true...isn't it possible that there are more truths in there? Maybe those who taught us Sunday School just bored us and we didn't want to be a part of it, but that doesn't stop the truth from existing in there. I know I did: I tried several times to 'get with it', but didn't until I was 42. He was waiting for me all the time. And now I'm changed- I don't do things like I used to. My perspective has dropped right into place.
Ghosts, Sasquatch, Aliens (from other planets) are no longer a mystery to me, and they just don't matter. Life _with_ God is much better than _without_. Whatever you decide, I hope you, too, can find the peace and constant fellowship that I did. But that doesn't mean we turn off our heads, and stop being logical. Check and cross-check, sure. Christianity is historical and evidential. He wants it that way.
That's it? That's all you've got? This is the basis on which you discard the Bible? Did I not just point out a great deal of 'no possible way they could have known' issues that the Bible gets right, and you counter it with this pseudo-misunderstanding?
Genesis 2:4 is a summary statement recounting that, before there was nothing. And this whole thing happened by only His hand. It doesn't say "He created all this, including man" and then turns around and contradicts it. Look again; it's there.
You really need to think about this a bit; you're throwing away an entire tome for one misunderstanding. Does the physics book get the same treatment? Optics textbook? Programming manuals? I'm sure _something_ in one of those books holds something you don' understand the first time through, or have mis-read. But those books you keep reading.
But point served: it can be hard to get through the Bible, It's a colossal book, bigger and more complex (at times) than the works of Shakespeare. Just reading it is one thing, noticing the interconnections is quite another. Things might not make sense with a book that's several thousand years removed from today's culture.
So do yourself a favor; there's a great guy called Hank Hannegraaff who loves to answer these things. ANY question about the Bible that you have, he's happy to answer. Nice guy, too- never raises his voice, never gets outta line, even with people you want him to.:) He's at (888) ASK-HANK or (888) 275-4265.
The guy has memorized the Bible, forwards and backwards. It's kinda scary when you listen to his radio show and he references things without a delay or without keystrokes. He's Dutch, but he learned English so as to understand the KJV. He also learned Greek, Latin and others for the same reason. Talk about a 'walking Bible', that's him.
And like I said- nice guy. Ask away. Heck it's even fun.
"When some unrelated statements are true, it doesn't follow that other unrelated statements are necessarily true."
No, but in a time before John Glenn orbiting the Earth, this book got that right? Before man knew the size/shape of a sucessful sea-going vessel it was written right there? The split of the continents? Come on- no other ancient book gets this right. None.
The Greeks say the world was on Atlas' back. Buddists say it was on the back of a fish. Babylonians say the stars wrap around on something like Plexiglas while we ride down a river of black water. It's as obvious as a turd in a punchbowl that these foundational important issues were right, not dreamed up.
You can look there for truth, or keep wandering without it, seems to me.
I have no problem with evolution- not micro-evolution. I mean, things change. Tests with mayflies and other animals clearly prove that. It's just the "everything fell into place at random' idea that gets me. Those are some really, really, really long odds.
As to superstition, isn't it a part of trying to figure things out, getting some bad data mixed in there and taking time to disprove it? Back, closer to the caveman-days it doesn't seem like they'd be picking apart their mental machinations like this- Plato and the guys seem to have started that conversation in Greece and such.
Part of my view is that yeah, one day there were mere humanoids, just like the fossil records show. But one day God took the design idea and made one similar to it, but with enhanced 'software'. Unlike the animals that have hard-coded processes for mating, navigation and such, 'man' (as opposed to caveman) was permitted to make his own choices. (so no, not a 'young earther').:>
"First, what does the original translation say? What translation are you going by? NIV? King James? Also, might I remind you, in observance of #2 that the Greeks were able to determine the circumference of the Earth. A few sayings from the bible aren't willing to convince me... or shall we dredge up Exodus on how we should treat our neighbors after they wrong somebody?"
Translation doesn't come into play, unless you're actually *trying* to discredit the Bible. By now the texts of various kinds are so well known we should be able to quote them easily. (In the 50's they actually were, but the culture drifted.)
And yeah....let's dive right into the instance of genocide to which you allude. Apparently you don't remember why that command went out. Apparently the practice of taking newborns and putting them into the glowing-hot metal idols of their local gods until dead completely slipped your mind. Don't feel bad; a large number of people skim right over parts of the Bible.
For example. The one thing that annoys me about Firefly is that River, the girl-genius on board, gets the Bible and starts recounting problems with it. Her key problem is that "it's the only way to explain 5,000 species of animal on one small boat". Problem is...going by the description, the number of animals Noah was told to gather could fit in a rowboat. People just pick and choose things to remember.
Back to the tree: the story that science uses goes, 'tiny non-plants bumped into each other enough times to mutate into slightly bigger things. This process continued through invertebrates to vertebrates and eventually man." But the trillobite, one of the oldest if not the oldest creature ever found (looks like a saw-bug or armadillo) has a spine. Checking the fossil record, all these animals, every phylum, sprug to life in the pre-cambrian era. That's the fossil record. It's also the Bible, but you'd rather follow the data into a rathole than pursue it to a book that has so many things correct? That doesn't sound scientific- it sounds political.
And no...it's not re-re-re-re-translation. Each and every translation has to pass exhaustive checks. They're very finiky there, devoting their lives to the word. Just like geologists and ever other scientist.
Well, heck if I know- I usually get modded down because this secular IT crowd doesn't agree with me.
But back to the tree: notice the trilobite: the ancient little creature that looks like a saw-bug or armadillo. It's been spotted as one of the oldest non-plant ever found. Notice it has a spine? That's a problem for the tree of life, no? Isn't the template that micro-orgs ran the plant for millenia then grew up into something more?
I understand the intent of the tree...but it's wrong. Fossils don't lie, right?
Well, keep in mind, there's room for interpretation. Lines like "blood to the bridles of horses" are ancient wordplay that aren't literally meant. Kinda like "raining cats and dogs", but hermeneutics shows the truth. Like when "coming on clouds" is used, it's always meant as an oncoming correction for sin (variation from man's intended life) and it's always used that way.
Ya see, part of the problem is that some people...especially people who don't wish to see anything in the Bible...look at a single line or piece of information and condemn the entire work. But like *any* text, there's context and all the other human-textured parts. "Back to 'rainging cats-n-dogs', for example.
But it's incontrovertible that some of these major concepts were right: "let there be light", "suspended from nothing", "divided contenents" and so on. Even with the story of the Great Flood, God hands Noah the size/aspect-ratio of a sucessful, sea-going vessel. At the time this was unknown to man.
But beware timing and the Bible.
We're a petri dish, here on Earth. Both sides are attempting to sway us. Did you notice that in all of mankind's time, neither side has ever 'won' and solidified into one or the other? Part of this balance is the importance of not "proving" God's existence. If you can point scientifically to the singularity causing this reality, and tie it to a date/time in the Bible, it's all over. You won't find dates in the Bible, but you'll find the order of things.
It's one of the reasons that, people like my brother see "seven days" to creation and assume the whole thing took 6,000 years (despite natural evidence to the contrary.) "Young Earthers" really drive me nuts. Yeah, the flood's a great big story, but read Genesis, Job and such.
It's a big book, with millions of researchers having spent a lot of time on it. If it were mere BS, I think that would have been clear several thousand years ago.
To study a concept, follow it no matter where it goes. That's the job of a scientist. Keep our eyes open and prove every concept.
Well, unless it goes into the Bible; then we pretend there's no proven validity to it, call it quaint and decide our line of thinking no longer has value. The Bible is such a show-stopper.
Yeah, this is why I have such bad 'karma' on this site. Almost no one reads me, my input is disturbing.
Equally disturbing:
1. "Let there be light" identified the start of this reality. 2. "The Earth is suspended from nothing" tells us that unlike the other ancients, the Earth sits on nothing. 3, It talks about the "land being split" in the continental divides. (Is that Plate tectonics? I'm not a specialist.) 4. It was right about the lost Hittite capital. 5. It was right about the last Babylonian administration. 6. While it doesn't list all 5,000,000+ species of animal, it does call out the stages of plant development, and that matches the fossil record.
So why is it so absurd to believe that the rest of it's true? More than 100 civilizations have a 'great flood' mentioned in their history. Think that was just a really, really good rumor? YouTube viral video?
Meanwhile, the "Tree of Life" talks about all animals slowly evolving over time, starting at, let's say, amoebas and ending with man. Except the fossil record shows all life 'sprung' into existance (cosmologically speaking) in the Pre-Cambrian era: all the phylum, vertebrates and invertebrates.
The "Tree of Life" was simply a sketch in "Origin of Species". Flawed though it is, is it better to cling to that, and ignore the proven truths of the Bible? That's no longer ignorant, it's hiding from the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
So the UN says these kinds of things when they're not trading blood-for-oil (in their case, literally) or taking the opportunity to move around men with blue helmets with no bullets, raping the countryside?
I'm sorry, I just can't abide the good-idea-gone-wrong known as the UN. Just too many times it's shown itself to be a worse-than-useless organization.
I'm sure most-if-not-all want to. Russia's still ticked at us for sending them semis that failed and blew up a pipeline of theirs, so I hear. And with the money that flows around Washington, churned by self-important Congressmen, why doesn't *everyone* get in there and get there fill?
One more time: Why is this news?
We're always hearing Hollywood types telling us who to vote for. Like they have *anything* in common with the rest of us? What a crock.
The sad thing (to be appended to very many sad aspects of this election) that the guy who was supposed to be Conservative, the guy who was supposed to limit government and lower taxes, the guy who was supposed to be the problem SOLVER is against us on the net. Another sad thing is that the alternative will surely tax us into another Jimmy Carter economy of taxing the job-makers and wondering why everyone's out of work.
Obama wants change. Obama has a dark past, and has all the media backing him. He could kill a woman in a car wreck and hide it (like it's done before) and the man would still get elected.
The chief sad thing is, Hitler was the same way; "Don't ask for details, just for for change!"
Sorry guys; it's gonna get hard, soon.
Spoken like a person who doesn't remember the Carter 'Misery Index' or the Regan years. Yeah, I vote *every* time. But since Regan, all the Republican offerings have gone towards Liberalism. It's the vote-buying as well as the "blue blood" Republicans in our party; they forgot that Conservatism wins, but it has to be _embraced_. Everyone loves Conservatism: less government, less taxes, less intrusion.
There's a group of people that want to dictate the food we eat (see: Transfat Ban) the light bulbs we choose (the deadly CFC bulbs) the cars we drive (they DESPISE SUV's) and want to own all our homes. In fact, in California the power company tells YOU what temperature your thermostat says. This is the Liberal Democrats, not the Conservative Republicans.
The current offering is a desperate mistake. Ya know what they call Democrats that are "Mavericks"? Ask Leiberman. In the Democratic party no dissent is permitted; in the Republican party everyone's trying to be politically correct and trying to make the media love them. It doesn't work.
In order since Regan, each and EVERY offering from the RNC has been a bigger and bigger disappointment. I didn't know it could get worse than Bush Jr. I came very near not voting for McCain.(!) But look at this: on both, not the first time Regan won, he won by a landslide (45+ to 0-1 states). There's a reason for this.
But instead we keep getting people who want to enlarge government every time it blunders. Check the text of that last bailout law. It declares the Treasury Secretary to be "charged to ensure the prosperity of our entire country" or somesuch. A non-elected person now has many times more the power of the president AND the congress.
It just sucks.
Ya know, if this were Friday, this would make the second Czar appointed this week.
The Bailout Bill (AKA Death of Capitalism, Comrad) created a man, the Treasury Secretary with more power than the president: the power to, and I quote "Ensure the prosperity" of the American people.
I don't know what to tell ya; voting Republican doesn't stop this anymore, and voting democrat only makes it 100 times worse. MAN, I wish the media hadn't picked our candidate.
As predictable as "soup lines" touted on broadcast TV news when Democrats aren't in the White House, so are stories around this time, presenting to the side who doesn't own the media, showing how it's all over. No need to vote- we'll just walk away with it, thank you.
They did this with Kerry, Gore, now this latest empty suit.
I don't know who's going to win, but it won't be the American people.
George Bush wasn't at fault. In fact, refer to Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Franklin Raynes (sp?). All these Liberals were pushing "affordable housing" like it was a Constitutional right. It's not. And there's nothing wrong with RENTING when you can't afford a 5% downpayment.
But this is where political correctness gets ya: failed policy.
Two things:
1. Term limits, now. No elected official of any stripe should spend more than 10 years in public (elected) service, ever.
2. Kill Fannie and kill Freddie. It isn't right that America (the government) owns 70% of all mortgages. (Us)
3. I defy *anyone* to show me Republican fingerprints on this, the Democrat Banking Scandal.
Al Gore stood between two enormous charts, walking amongst them like flower patches. He got them NEAR each other, but didn't overlap them. And he did this for a reason: C02 is the Earth's natural response to a period of prolonged _heating_. If the two plots happened on the same chart, you'd see that 800 years (typical) after a hot spell, the oceans warm enough to start absorbing, not spewing, C02.
Now; I don't know how much can be made by this new process. But I stand metaphorically before you today to insist it's probably not as effective as that which covers 3/4 of this planet's surface.
Further, while "Green" robots run around comparing greenhouse gasses and which kind of toilet paper is 'easier on the environment' I also ask you to consider one thing that might have a little more effect on Global Warming(TM) movement: the sun.
Pulling up a 'million' core samples and comparing them to solar cycles shows that, bar none, when the sun takes a notion it'll get hot...and no amount of present-or-missing greenhouse gasses can change it's mind. Much like a supernova, if one starts it'll end itself (and us) and there's no changing it.
We're a tiny, tiny, miniscule effect on this planet. It'd be like worrying that amoebas could steal this continent while we're asleep. And in just a few years, the rest of you will see this to be another Liberal Hoax, concocted for the purpose of controlling more people and money.
Most of the recent choices from the Democrats have been empty suits with Stalinist heros...and the Republicans haven't been much better.
I vote Republican, but that doesn't mean (either) Bush was a 'hero'. And I'm not thrilled about McCain, in fact I considered throwing the election. All these people have lost the Conservative ideal: limited government. Is there anyone on this planet that thinks having more chairs in Washington is a way to solve problems? No. So why do so many people vote for them?
*Everyone* loves Conservatism: less intervention, less taxes, and permitting the Capitalist System to be a benefit to the most people. No class-envy, no racism. No "let's be fair" and screw some people with the law.
When Sara Palin was picked, the Left/Socialists ran in FEAR of her. It's how I knew I'd like her. She shows independence, strength, and accomplishment all without having to cow-tow to federal programs or the like. She believes in better government, so yeah: they hate her. She's what we all need.
*Instead*, we seem to want Democrats to decide our meals (trans-fat ban) our cars (incandescent light ban) and our vehicles (maniacal hatred of SUVs). They've also been busy (Dodd, Frank, Friends-of-Angelo) looting the mortgage industry. Didn't Russia work that way? They spent 70 years in a 'great depression': I don't think that's better than what we have now.
As long as the Democrats want Socialism, and Republicans want to be corrupt/inept, they're going to stay close elections. It's just gonna be that way. Regan had not one, but TWO landslides. There was a reason.
Ya see, there's an 'unholy alliance' between government and academia; the administrators put up a price for admission, the government makes money freely available and guarantees it, and the next year the administrators can do it all over again and swim in the money each year while the students hope they live long enough to pay off the loans.
Did you notice the part where schools work hard to ensure the training has quality? You didn't miss it: it doesn't exist anymore. It's all about raising money from the government. But if *some* colleges will keep you out because you're a rabble-rouser...well, there just might be hope for sanity, yet!
[This is another reason government needs OUT of our lives. Vote Conservative, if you can find one.]
The radical left is all about freedom and peace and beauty...how on Earth could someone from them invade personal privacy and post it broadly on the net?
The same way they 'ban' books by moving them around in book stores, putting them inside cabinets, throwing them behind closed doors, etc.
The same way they swamp radio stations with DMCA (and other, various) complaints en-masse so as to shut down Conservative Talk Radio because nobody wanted Air America.
Give us some good examples of your enlightenment, folks. Show us how it's done.
And while you're at it, show us how you're 'color blind' while rounding up your victim-groups under various skin colors. (Let's not forget the ex-KKK member in Congress is Democrat, not Republican.) (Let's not forget that George Wallace was Democrat, not Republican.) (Let's not forget that 'Bull' Shannon that used firehoses on negros back in the 60's was a Democrat, not a Republican.)
Man, ya own the schools, the TV channels (other than Fox), the magazines, most of the newspapers and 80% of the blogs and you think you own the world... :>
OK, now YOU, YOU've been paying attention. GoodOnYa!
But whoever modded this up, he gets a shiny star, too!
If it's 11 times Jupiter's mass, and we're a fraction of Jupiter's mass, how is that planet "Like us"? Gravity's gonna matter, ya know...
I'm going to assume you're in America; what you're talking about seems part-n-parcel of what I've found here all my life; the two roles of consumer versus producer.
America needs both; once upon a time most people could be either: farmers who buy goods- that kinda thing. But in the last 30-40 years the whole games has become slanted against the producers. The top of this spectrum are the 'Celebutards' who couldn't make up their minds, much less anything to sell, or even the concept of running a business.
Millions of kids in the new slavery of Liberalism grow up into short little lives around 'projects'. No one there seems to have any IDEA that some people work for a living, and others both work and develop their own money being part of the process. No, instead they stand around wondering what to do...until the drugs come around and get pulled down. It's all very sad. FDR was wrong in warehousing these people. They need the same 'pay or walk' lifestyle the rest of us have. And it's our own embarassment that we don't teach them as we should.
These people aren't idiots, they're just unaware. The process worked against them, and they're MISERABLE. We need to stop warehousing folks this way...it's not 'merciful' to give them money and think they're done.
But understand that, despite the Left's ability to pretend to be charming and/or wonderful, they cut through people's lives and bring a misery that makes The Adversary smile. And yet, the producers produce...and sales teams advertise for the rest of us, consumers.
Even so, it's the best system in the world.
I'm nearly your age; I suspect we've both been working with computers since 1978; I did, with wirewrap and lots of hex, but eventually I transitioned to software, and then again to both: systems administration. There's a reason "you sucked" at consulting: as much as it's true, as much as the twit at the client's site needs it more than any man living, a consultant isn't gonna last long with his hands around the client personnel. :)
You need to find some guys you trust, and make an ensemble.
Yeah, ok, kinda like the "A" team...a 'face', a programmer, a businessman, a marketting guy and someone to store/retrieve receipts for the tax-guy. You don't need a person-to-person match, since you'll sometimes find folks who're two roles simultaneously, but you get the idea. When you're a 'board member' instead of an 'employee', there's more room for you to stretch out. And maybe dealing with the actual public isn't your thing- it's not really mine. But the ensemble allows you, as a group, to survive where singly you might not.
This all, of course requires a TOWN that will support the effort; the town I'm in is pretty shy on computer work [that isn't mere virus-chasing]. Chicago was a great place for this kinda thing...
Anyway, try for something with a group. You won't have to listen to stupid clients and still be able to get things done, aye?
"You're forgetting that there's another creation story in Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, which has the following sequence of events:
1. The Earth already exists in the form of a misty, rainless desert."
Nope, I'm not. It doesn't say it was a rainless desert. It just says it didn't rain. That happens even today, with the rain comes down, but dries out before it hits the ground. "Desert" wasn't in there.
2. God makes a man out of dust, and constructs a garden to put him in.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't help to recount to primative people the entire story of RNA and DNA. Same reason there's not a lot of talk about dinosaurs that they'd never run into. The 'garden' is just one particular place on Earth, yeah. I don't see a problem here.
3. Animals are created in an attempt to provide a helper fit for his new man.
Actually no. The "helpmate" comes after Adam, the animals were created before mankind.
4. The animals prove to be unsatisfactory (i.e. God was in error!), so He makes a woman out of the man's rib."
OK, this doesn't come from the canon. The animals were never claimed to be unsatisfactory in any way.
"Which of the two is the true account, because they can't both be true unless God created everything including the Earth and everything on it, then wiped the slate clean only on Earth leaving a misty desert, after which he created exactly the same things (including the two people with the same names) that had displeased him previously, but in a different order."
Again, no desert. No wiping-clean of the planet. If this is what you want to take away from the Bible, feel free: I have a friend who thinks by leaving just one light on, the 'surge' of power when he turns on the morning lights will be smaller, and he took electronics class. But that doesn't make it so, now, does it?
Choose to look, or not to look- but by not looking, especially because of a misunderstanding is sad. I hope you find Him. I hope you find the peace that I have, with your logic and thinking as intact as it ever was. Christianity is historical and evidential- He wants it to be that way. That's why he's left so many clues, but it's up to you to choose.
"The precambrian lasted 4 billion years. Life starts around 1.2 billion years ago. Multi-cellular organisms start to appear about 500 million years ago.
yeah, life just ~sprung~ out of nowhere."
Ah, I love a good debate. Notice I said "Cosmologically speaking"? Before that time there was no life; I'm no expert, but I've been told there's not even moss/algae before that period. But the counter-argument has a problem in it: it says "little life mutated and became bigger life, through invertabrates then vertabrates, and eventually man." But that's not so: in this pre-cambrian era ALL phylum of life was created. Which is why the trillobite, the oldest- or one-of-the-oldest creatures has a spine.
Yeah, in long, long terms according to man, it sprung into life. The "tree of life" to which Darwin pointed isn't a tree- it's more like a lawn. Lots of little, 'short' journeys from what the animals were to what they are today, according to the fossil record.
Now, I know your teachers don't want you to believe this, you see Christians as brainless fools, but if you find this many, no-way-they-could-have-guessed-it truths in the Bible and you don't make an honest attempt to follow the data there, aren't you being foolish?
You might find that some of the 'nonsense' is actually on your side. Just how do you explain them 'accidentally' getting right:
- The lost civilization of the Hittites
- The non-suspended view of Earth
- That our reality started with light
- That our continents have been split
- That it recounts the development of plants, matching the fossil records?
There are those who can see, and there are those who _won't_ see. Either is your choice. I'm not going to labor the points. I'm just trying to defeat some of the "Bible is nonsense" that I keep seeing. Like how Hollywood only knows two kinds of believers: Non-repentant Roman Catholics and Witch-killing Amish. If you don't take the time to see that the Bible has truth, maybe you should look around at the world-wide fight against it.
When was the last time you saw/heard of anyone debating any other text? The last time anyone but Christians were being outlawed, killed for their faith in China or suffering a smear from the entire media? Why else would a religion that's based on acceptance, hating-the-sin-but-loving-the-sinner be something so reviled?
I think if you look a little deeper, you'll find some surprises.
Well there also came a time where people needed to hide from the truth. They use hearsay and superstition to hide from the Bible. They generated all manner of means to ignore, obfuscate or outright condemn the work, almost always without careful study. These times are part of those times. You're doing it right now.
You ignore the fact that, THOUSANDS of years before John Glenn orbited the Earth, the Bible said the Earth was "Suspended from Nothing". You're frittering away the fact that this reality was made by a singularity...a singularity that the Bible describes as "let there be light", and yet if any observer could see the singularity, he'd call it light, too. (See also e=mc2)
The Bible has been 'wrong' for centuries, as people have dug up remains, for exmaple of the Hittite capital city while 'everyone knew' there was no Hittites, ever. People's eyes glazed over the idea that "the land was divided" (paraphrasing) but today we have continents that were at one time all part of the same land mass, as a matter of scientific fact.
Tell me then, with this long list of things that turned out to be true...isn't it possible that there are more truths in there? Maybe those who taught us Sunday School just bored us and we didn't want to be a part of it, but that doesn't stop the truth from existing in there. I know I did: I tried several times to 'get with it', but didn't until I was 42. He was waiting for me all the time. And now I'm changed- I don't do things like I used to. My perspective has dropped right into place.
Ghosts, Sasquatch, Aliens (from other planets) are no longer a mystery to me, and they just don't matter. Life _with_ God is much better than _without_. Whatever you decide, I hope you, too, can find the peace and constant fellowship that I did. But that doesn't mean we turn off our heads, and stop being logical. Check and cross-check, sure. Christianity is historical and evidential. He wants it that way.
That's it? That's all you've got? This is the basis on which you discard the Bible? Did I not just point out a great deal of 'no possible way they could have known' issues that the Bible gets right, and you counter it with this pseudo-misunderstanding?
Genesis 2:4 is a summary statement recounting that, before there was nothing. And this whole thing happened by only His hand. It doesn't say "He created all this, including man" and then turns around and contradicts it. Look again; it's there.
You really need to think about this a bit; you're throwing away an entire tome for one misunderstanding. Does the physics book get the same treatment? Optics textbook? Programming manuals? I'm sure _something_ in one of those books holds something you don' understand the first time through, or have mis-read. But those books you keep reading.
But point served: it can be hard to get through the Bible, It's a colossal book, bigger and more complex (at times) than the works of Shakespeare. Just reading it is one thing, noticing the interconnections is quite another. Things might not make sense with a book that's several thousand years removed from today's culture.
So do yourself a favor; there's a great guy called Hank Hannegraaff who loves to answer these things. ANY question about the Bible that you have, he's happy to answer. Nice guy, too- never raises his voice, never gets outta line, even with people you want him to. :) He's at (888) ASK-HANK or (888) 275-4265.
The guy has memorized the Bible, forwards and backwards. It's kinda scary when you listen to his radio show and he references things without a delay or without keystrokes. He's Dutch, but he learned English so as to understand the KJV. He also learned Greek, Latin and others for the same reason. Talk about a 'walking Bible', that's him.
And like I said- nice guy. Ask away. Heck it's even fun.
"When some unrelated statements are true, it doesn't follow that other unrelated statements are necessarily true."
No, but in a time before John Glenn orbiting the Earth, this book got that right? Before man knew the size/shape of a sucessful sea-going vessel it was written right there? The split of the continents? Come on- no other ancient book gets this right. None.
The Greeks say the world was on Atlas' back. Buddists say it was on the back of a fish. Babylonians say the stars wrap around on something like Plexiglas while we ride down a river of black water. It's as obvious as a turd in a punchbowl that these foundational important issues were right, not dreamed up.
You can look there for truth, or keep wandering without it, seems to me.
I have no problem with evolution- not micro-evolution. I mean, things change. Tests with mayflies and other animals clearly prove that. It's just the "everything fell into place at random' idea that gets me. Those are some really, really, really long odds.
As to superstition, isn't it a part of trying to figure things out, getting some bad data mixed in there and taking time to disprove it? Back, closer to the caveman-days it doesn't seem like they'd be picking apart their mental machinations like this- Plato and the guys seem to have started that conversation in Greece and such.
Part of my view is that yeah, one day there were mere humanoids, just like the fossil records show. But one day God took the design idea and made one similar to it, but with enhanced 'software'. Unlike the animals that have hard-coded processes for mating, navigation and such, 'man' (as opposed to caveman) was permitted to make his own choices. (so no, not a 'young earther'). :>
"First, what does the original translation say? What translation are you going by? NIV? King James? Also, might I remind you, in observance of #2 that the Greeks were able to determine the circumference of the Earth. A few sayings from the bible aren't willing to convince me... or shall we dredge up Exodus on how we should treat our neighbors after they wrong somebody?"
Translation doesn't come into play, unless you're actually *trying* to discredit the Bible. By now the texts of various kinds are so well known we should be able to quote them easily. (In the 50's they actually were, but the culture drifted.)
And yeah....let's dive right into the instance of genocide to which you allude. Apparently you don't remember why that command went out. Apparently the practice of taking newborns and putting them into the glowing-hot metal idols of their local gods until dead completely slipped your mind. Don't feel bad; a large number of people skim right over parts of the Bible.
For example. The one thing that annoys me about Firefly is that River, the girl-genius on board, gets the Bible and starts recounting problems with it. Her key problem is that "it's the only way to explain 5,000 species of animal on one small boat". Problem is...going by the description, the number of animals Noah was told to gather could fit in a rowboat. People just pick and choose things to remember.
Back to the tree: the story that science uses goes, 'tiny non-plants bumped into each other enough times to mutate into slightly bigger things. This process continued through invertebrates to vertebrates and eventually man." But the trillobite, one of the oldest if not the oldest creature ever found (looks like a saw-bug or armadillo) has a spine. Checking the fossil record, all these animals, every phylum, sprug to life in the pre-cambrian era. That's the fossil record. It's also the Bible, but you'd rather follow the data into a rathole than pursue it to a book that has so many things correct? That doesn't sound scientific- it sounds political.
And no...it's not re-re-re-re-translation. Each and every translation has to pass exhaustive checks. They're very finiky there, devoting their lives to the word. Just like geologists and ever other scientist.
Well, heck if I know- I usually get modded down because this secular IT crowd doesn't agree with me.
But back to the tree: notice the trilobite: the ancient little creature that looks like a saw-bug or armadillo. It's been spotted as one of the oldest non-plant ever found. Notice it has a spine? That's a problem for the tree of life, no? Isn't the template that micro-orgs ran the plant for millenia then grew up into something more?
I understand the intent of the tree...but it's wrong. Fossils don't lie, right?
Well, keep in mind, there's room for interpretation. Lines like "blood to the bridles of horses" are ancient wordplay that aren't literally meant. Kinda like "raining cats and dogs", but hermeneutics shows the truth. Like when "coming on clouds" is used, it's always meant as an oncoming correction for sin (variation from man's intended life) and it's always used that way.
Ya see, part of the problem is that some people...especially people who don't wish to see anything in the Bible...look at a single line or piece of information and condemn the entire work. But like *any* text, there's context and all the other human-textured parts. "Back to 'rainging cats-n-dogs', for example.
But it's incontrovertible that some of these major concepts were right: "let there be light", "suspended from nothing", "divided contenents" and so on. Even with the story of the Great Flood, God hands Noah the size/aspect-ratio of a sucessful, sea-going vessel. At the time this was unknown to man.
But beware timing and the Bible.
We're a petri dish, here on Earth. Both sides are attempting to sway us. Did you notice that in all of mankind's time, neither side has ever 'won' and solidified into one or the other? Part of this balance is the importance of not "proving" God's existence. If you can point scientifically to the singularity causing this reality, and tie it to a date/time in the Bible, it's all over. You won't find dates in the Bible, but you'll find the order of things.
It's one of the reasons that, people like my brother see "seven days" to creation and assume the whole thing took 6,000 years (despite natural evidence to the contrary.) "Young Earthers" really drive me nuts.
Yeah, the flood's a great big story, but read Genesis, Job and such.
It's a big book, with millions of researchers having spent a lot of time on it. If it were mere BS, I think that would have been clear several thousand years ago.
To study a concept, follow it no matter where it goes. That's the job of a scientist. Keep our eyes open and prove every concept.
Well, unless it goes into the Bible; then we pretend there's no proven validity to it, call it quaint and decide our line of thinking no longer has value. The Bible is such a show-stopper.
Yeah, this is why I have such bad 'karma' on this site. Almost no one reads me, my input is disturbing.
Equally disturbing:
1. "Let there be light" identified the start of this reality.
2. "The Earth is suspended from nothing" tells us that unlike the other ancients, the Earth sits on nothing.
3, It talks about the "land being split" in the continental divides. (Is that Plate tectonics? I'm not a specialist.)
4. It was right about the lost Hittite capital.
5. It was right about the last Babylonian administration.
6. While it doesn't list all 5,000,000+ species of animal, it does call out the stages of plant development, and that matches the fossil record.
So why is it so absurd to believe that the rest of it's true? More than 100 civilizations have a 'great flood' mentioned in their history. Think that was just a really, really good rumor? YouTube viral video?
Meanwhile, the "Tree of Life" talks about all animals slowly evolving over time, starting at, let's say, amoebas and ending with man. Except the fossil record shows all life 'sprung' into existance (cosmologically speaking) in the Pre-Cambrian era: all the phylum, vertebrates and invertebrates.
The "Tree of Life" was simply a sketch in "Origin of Species". Flawed though it is, is it better to cling to that, and ignore the proven truths of the Bible? That's no longer ignorant, it's hiding from the truth.