I may well come from your area and I didn't vote for President Obama, but the point needs to be made that the United States Armed Forces protect this country and not the President. Having President Obama in office as opposed to Sen. McCain has made their job easier. That comment isn't based on their intimate knowledge with things military as Sen. McCain clearly has the edge there, but on my perception of their ability to deal with other leaders in ways that calm rather than inflame situations and reduce the threat level we face. There is enough lingering animosity over our past actions that the threat level will never completely disappear.
The military's job would be easier still if a third party that actually tried to limit the federal government to its constitutionally mandated powers was in control in the Legislative and Executive branches. That isn't a call to strict isolationism - we do live in an interconnected world. It seems to me that the pendulum has swung about as far to the side of meddling as the swing to strict isolationism was prior to WWI. Some balance between the two would be better for all but the armament industries.
The chance of a third party getting electoral votes or winning a Congressional election in my state is extremely small. That is true in most places and leaves us with the RepDem Party in control of things. Both parties expand the Federal government in different ways, but both do continuously expand it. Neither is perfect as the campaign invective of each makes clear. Until people decide they are both broken and vote them all out, no real progress will be made on any issue that really matters to the American people. Sadly, if a third party does come to power, it is likely to be corrupted at some rapid rate as well. The only hope is that something good can be done in that brief time period before that happens.
The number of jobs where an education in U.S. History is a prerequisite are few. History teachers, state department or government in general... missing any? The number of those that would depend on the curriculum in question versus a college course in the same are even fewer.
We should be adding a year of our nation's history each year to what is taught. To manage that and obtain a balanced amount of history from each decade requires that some earlier history be pushed to the rubbish bin. That isn't to say it wasn't important or that our views on it are irrelevant. There are only so many teaching hours available. Thanks to the increased load of test taking to satisify adequate yearly progress mandates from the federal and state governments these hours are becoming fewer each year. You may not like the selections that were cut out. You may not like the old points that were emphasized again. It really doesn't matter.
If you have a good history teacher they won't teach to the textbook anyway. They will attempt to bring the portions of history they are particularly enchanted with alive and slog through the parts they don't care as much about. That will continue to be true regardless of the contents of the textbook or the state you live in. If your teachers don't do this, then get some new teachers.
To proclaim the proximate end of education in America because Texas chose to get a touch more conservative in the history textbooks it buys as some have is ridiculous. To not hire anyone from Texas because during their public school education their textbooks were more conservative is even worse.
The scripture noted was written in the first century. At that point, most people would have said such a thing could never happen, including the Christians if you had pinned them down on it. Barter was common. You bought and sold (if you did at all) with people you knew in most places. They would have never asked you to show some mark to do that activity. If it was enforced, a black market would have been easily and readily in operation.
Today, it is just the opposite. USA Today reported a couple years ago that a resort in Europe allowed people to have RFID chips implanted which were tied to their credit card numbers. To pay for things, all they had to do was wave their hand over a scanner. Useful at the nude beach.
How close are we to this scripture being fulfilled? Currency is being reworked yearly to try to stop counterfeiting. Pretty easy step to just give up and do away with currency altogether. Merchants would prefer to not deal with checks outside of the town the bank is located in, and sometimes not even there. They don't like the float and worry about forgeries. Credit card issuers are working continually to tie their cards to people to prevent losses when cards are stolen. Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't leap at pushing the RFID chip scanning technology tied to their databases worldwide.
Throw in a huge natural disaster (to say nothing of the mess the world is likely to be in after the rapture - or at least the part that was daylight and had large Christian populations) and this prophecy makes perfect sense and would be pushed by government and accepted by the people easily.
There's room in the Bible's time line for evolution to have occurred. Gen. 1:1 really sounds like the big bang to me. The Bible's point isn't to lay out all science. Its point is to lead people to salvation through Christ. Read the Bible for the purpose it was written for and your science books for the purpose they were written for.
While I agree that there are a host of other perfectly valid reasons that this is a really bad idea, don't discount the Bible scripture referenced as another valid reason. The last major prophecy the Bible mentioned that had to occur prior to the rapture was fulfilled when Israel was formed as a nation and the Jewish people began their return. Who would have thought that would happen when the scriptures were written or even in the WWII generation of my parents. Yet it did happen. Here's another scripture that even when I was born had no real way of ever coming true, yet now could be easily fulfilled. It wouldn't be fulfilled in the way that people thought it would 100 or 200 years ago - they were thinking literal tattoos. But now there is a reality that fits the scripture. You may not like that reality, but it doesn't make it false just because you reject it.
And just to set the record straight. True Christians aren't out to kill anyone.
When I first started, information was hard to produce... punched cards and all that.
Information storage was expensive.
At some point we started word processing on the desktop.
Information storage was still expensive.
Files were still small and the majority of the bytes in each file was information.
As time progressed and Microsoft Office has permeated the work area, the information content of each file hasn't changed much.
Each release seemed to take more space to store the same information.
Today, the portion of the file consumed in making it pretty though has gone through the roof.
We could always go back to just plain text files that were easy to search and cheap to store. Project Gutenberg has taken that approach for saving books. Keep it simple. Of course if we did that the productivity might go through the roof and layoffs might be high.
Guess pretty isn't so bad, even if it is part of the zettabyte problem.
It isn't the prayer that does it. That's why praying for random people who may or may not be Christian is a pointless test.
Yes, the body is a remarkable machine and there is a placebo affect that can influence how the body works. I don't dispute that at all. But the placebo effect of the body doesn't work instantaneously either.
One of the older ladies at our church wasn't feeling well. She had a chest X-Ray and the doctor said from the images that she had cancer and was going to schedule surgery. She was prayed for and felt better. She went back to the doctor the next day and they took another X-Ray and it was clear. You can maintain that there was something wrong with the X-Ray they took, but the only reason she went to the doctor in the first place was that she knew something was wrong with her. The reason she went back was she felt like God had healed her. The X-Ray confirmed what she felt.
My wife was afflicted with tremor in her hands. It had gotten bad enough that people at work were concerned and she couldn't ride her bike anymore. The doctors said that she was likely either suffering from essential tremors or the early stages of Parkinson's IIRC. She was scheduled to see a specialist to rule out the latter, but there wasn't anything the doctor's could do in either case. She went up for prayer and came back able to hold her hands out without shaking.
Another person at another time was wheelchair bound and walked out of the service under his own power. He didn't need a wheelchair again.
For you, these are random anecdotal meaningless events, but they happened to people who I personally know and know the history of. Other Christians could tell of similar events that happened in their bodies. You can discount them because they are just words written by someone you don't know and whose way of life is foreign to you. Although contemporary, they are no different to you than the Biblical accounts of miracles and healing. I don't discount them because I know the people and the circumstances and in at least the one case paid for the medical bills.
God isn't someone who performs on demand. He doesn't conform to the scientific method. You can't just say - God heal this person now and expect Him to do it any more than you can tell the Queen of England to give you $1,000,000,000 and expect her to do it just because you told her to. So you can't prove God exists by a scientific experiment. George Burns did a cute God on the movie, but God is Soverign. He doesn't come into a court room and show off with parlor tricks. He's done His work that proves He is. It is up to the individual to believe in faith in what their own eyes have seen (or read) or not. It is your personal decision with eternal consequences. I can't make it for you. As someone who enjoyed science all through school and college, I can say that throwing out observed data because they don't fit your idea of how the whole experiment should work is wrong.
And by the way, God doesn't do things so people can get famous. I'm pretty sure He's had quite enough of the televangelists and their ilk perverting the gospel for their own gain. I firmly believe that is why we don't see more miracles and acts of healing today. He's interested in getting the glory - not giving someone a Nobel Prize.
As a Christian, I see evidence of God working today, just as the Bible says He will work. I see people who I know well who have had illnesses who are prayed for and are healed of what ails them without any medical intervention (but after medical tests confirming their condition). I see lives freed from addiction after prayer. I see people's hearts and lifestyles dramatically changed when they accept Christ as savior.
Not a single one of these is a proof of creation. But each of these is evidence that God exists and is still going about business just as the Bible declares He will. Perhaps we are at fault for not splashing what He does for us around the world as you think we should.
Anyway, when I am exposed to scientific ideas that seem at odds to what some in my religion teach, I study the Biblical source material more thoroughly. None of the scientific ideas being debated at length in this article are at odds with my understanding of what the complete Bible actually declares. Always keep in mind that the Bible is about humanity and its relationship to God. Perhaps more verses should have been dedicated to the beginning of the Earth and its history back when Lucifer was in charge of it to forestall this whole science versus religion debate that rages from time to time in the world today, but it wasn't central to the purpose of describing the means of reconciling man and God so it wasn't included.
The fact is, if there is a God with the power to do anything, then he could have created the universe, the Earth, and everything that exists, with the appearance of age, and we would never be the wiser. In fact, we could have all come into existence a mere hour ago, and we could not prove otherwise, because an all powerful God could have created us with these perfectly seamless memories. You can't have evidence one way or the other, because this idea would be completely outside the realm of proof.
While true, I think that would be a bit deceptive on his part and that doesn't fit in with His character as described in the Bible. I don't think He wants anyone to be able to say that He deceived them when they stand at the White Throne judgment.
And yet, after 1951 years (or so) the Bible is just as relevant today as it was then.
1 Cor 1:18-29
for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God, for it hath been written, `I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will bring to nought;' where is the wise? where the scribe? where a disputer of this age? did not God make foolish the wisdom of this world? for, seeing in the wisdom of God the world through the wisdom knew not God, it did please God through the foolishness of the preaching to save those believing. Since also Jews ask a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom, also we -- we preach Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness, and to those called -- both Jews and Greeks -- Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men; for see your calling, brethren, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but the foolish things of the world did God choose, that the wise He may put to shame; and the weak things of the world did God choose that He may put to shame the strong; and the base things of the world, and the things despised did God choose, and the things that are not, that the things that are He may make useless -- that no flesh may glory before Him;
The first part of that hearkens back to Isa. 29:14 written around 750 B.C., so really, the more things change....
If you actually study what the Bible says from cover to cover, you'll find that from Gen. 1:1 where creation is mentioned "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --" YLT to 2 Pet 3:10 (for example) "and it will come -- the day of the Lord -- as a thief in the night, in which the heavens with a rushing noise will pass away, and the elements with burning heat be dissolved, and earth and the works in it shall be burnt up." YLT where the Earth's eventual destruction is foretold there is little disharmony between science and the text. Gen. 1:1 could easily be a one verse description of the "Big Bang" and 2 Pet 3:10 could be a description of our sun eventually dying and wiping out the nearby planets.
There is a vast amount of the Earth's history that gets little mention in the Bible other than oblique references to Lucifer (the original ruler) leading an insurrection against God sometime before Adam was around and God wiping that rebellion out, along with the Earth's inhabitants and starting over again at Adam's time. The duration of the Garden of Eden time is likewise undefined in the Bible. The interesting thing about all of our supposedly common ancestors is that all of those lines come to a common end at some point around 25-35,000 years ago and the current line of humans starts. There is enough leeway in Scripture for my faith to accept that the Bible gives a good, if brief, discussion of these times (if you look in lots of places other than Gen. 1:2 and following) that does fit in with what anthropology and paleontology observes.
I do, however, also know that the purpose of the Bible isn't to be an anthropology textbook. It is to help people know how to reconcile themselves to God, and to know what pleases and displeases Him. Much of the verbiage from Christians about science surely falls in category two.
Facts don't really go against Christianity. That isn't to say we will always agree on the interpretation of 100% of the science facts or that all Christians will agree 100% on Bible facts, but we would agree on enough to probably not have a real argument.
We would debate evolution vs. natural selection, but the Bible is silent on the billions of years pre Lucifer's rebellion, so I would be comfortable letting you believe that evolution shaped the development of the world's species and your arguments wouldn't alter my continued belief that God made many of the little bits from time to time to start with to amuse Himself (the marine critter era - I particularly liked the trilobites, the dinosaur era, the mammal era), natural selection led to minor changes over the course of time, and when He started over again at the point where human history starts getting eventually recorded (orally and then in written form), He reused some existing bits or simply preserved what He liked when He judged the world for Lucifer's rebellion and let it continue on. (Gen. 1:2 is a picture of the Earth or part of it post judgment, and you should note that there is a difference in the Hebrew words used for the original creation in Gen. 1:1 and the made used in the rest of Gen. 1, for example leading to a valid interpretation that different things were being recorded in each instance.)
Neither one of us can really prove which is right. We may both be partially right. But I would say it is just as insane to risk your eternal future because what you've been told the Bible says doesn't line up with the science facts you believe. If I'm wrong and there is no God and science was right all along, I've lost nothing of importance. I've spent time enjoying the fellowship of like minded friends when I might have been sleeping instead; I've donated money to charity that I might have kept, but haven't yet missed; I've missed out on the morning after experiences; haven't had a lot of worries the drug and alcohol abusers suffer; all no loss. If you're wrong and God does exist - just like the Bible says - with all of the consequences for rejecting Him and Christ, what a price to pay!
You have it backwards. Religions became organized because enough similarly minded individuals wanted to associate together. You can monitor the ebb and flow of religious and denominational numbers through the generations to see the number of similarly minded individuals who are still joining together for fellowship.
Most current branches of Christianity, for example, started because a large enough number in a previously existing body of believers felt slightly differently than the main body about their interpretation of part of the Bible. The core beliefs are essentially unchanged in any Christian body, but there is variation in non-core beliefs or dissatisfaction with the direction or actions of leadership in the previous body that caused the split to occur.
There are a few groups that perhaps started organized but they rarely make it to even denominational numbers of adherents, let alone religions. They would be more accurately termed cults in today's nomenclature.
Everyone must decide for themselves where truth is established.
It isn't surprising to me that on Easter, Slashdot would select an article casting doubt on the existence of Heaven. But let's use Easter as an example. Christ was crucified on the day of preparation of the Passover. The next day was a mid week Sabbath associated with the start of the long Passover celebration. Then there was a normal day when some work could be done. Then there was the normal weekly Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. On the Jewish first day of the week (Sunday), the women took items to anoint the body of Christ and were told He was risen (at some point from Saturday sunset to the point they arrived). This fulfills the Scripture correctly, giving three day between crucifixion and burial, and resurrection.
Unfortunately, the Catholic church decided that they wanted to celebrate Easter Sunday rather than the actual day that Christ was resurrected, and above that, didn't want to acknowledge the Jewish religion in any way so kind of ignored that whole Passover thing. Thus we have Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday which don't line up with Scripture. Is this foundational to the Christian belief system? No. But on those Jewish leap years when Passover doesn't line up with Easter, it is way off, just the same. If I were going to commemorate someone's death, I'd do it on the proper day on their calendar system regardless of when it fell on mine. Celebrating Christ's birth on December 25th is even worse, as it is unlikely the month is even right there, regardless of the fact that the day would vary on our calendar as the Jewish date is superimposed to ours.
Incidentally, the Passover celebration is held at a fixed time on the Jewish calendar. If you read the initial Passover circumstances, you'll see that all the way back when the Jews were slaves in Egypt, God was looking ahead to when Christ would die on the cross. The perfect lamb was sacrificed. The blood was put on the doorposts and lintel. He chose to start their calendar year with the time when Christ would reach His peak of power the first time on Earth. Kind of ironic, when you think about it.
I give that as an example of how "organized" religion can propagate aspects of religion that are carried down from generation to generation that aren't quite right. The Jews honor a time in their history completing missing what it was a symbol of. If you actually study the Passover ritual, you'll see just how symbolic of Christ the whole celebration is. The Christian church made a decision to honor the historical day of the week rather than the calendar day.
These aspects (the date of Christ's birth and death not being normally correct) in no way affect my faith, nor do they affect the faith of the rest of the Christians. Faith is separate from all the little details that may or may not be handled correctly by organized religion. It is the fact that Christ became our sacrifice for our sin and was resurrected that is important. The "organization" is merely a convenience for facilitating fellowship.
There were, among the alternatives, good candidates that you could have voted for. As long as you continue to vote for the repdem party, you will have similar results in legislation.
Just to be clear, most of the problem is not with the Executive branch of government. The president is largely constrained to approve or veto legislation that the Congress passes. Treaties can cause occasional troubles, but even these need approval by 2/3 of the Senate to have effect. Rid Congress of the repdem party or at least the majority of its incumbents and put in place candidates who will actually do what the members of Congress swear to do...
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Of course it might help if they actually read it as well and had several junior high civics teachers explain what it means if the pretty basic language escapes them.
Then those people would be mistaken. The mark of the beast from Revelation (see other quotes nearby) is a measure controlling buying and selling and is placed physically in the hand or forehead. An ID card as described here would not fit that bill.
Bible prophecy has this annoying habit of coming true exactly as said rather than something close to what was said when it is specific rather than general in its nature. This particular prophecy is very specific.
Of note, there is a company that produces RFID chips which can be injected into your hand and have the chip's ID tag tied to your credit card so you just have to wave your hand over a scanner to make a purchase. It has had a production test in a couple of resorts in Europe. This technology wasn't even dreamed of when Revelation was written, but it is now here and in use today. Nothing new has to be invented to implement the mark of the beast. It only needs to be legally required for commerce.
The concern about things like this ID card (and even the RFID chips mentioned) isn't that they are the mark of the beast themselves as the rapture hasn't happened and the period of prophecy from Revelation hasn't begun. The actual mark may be something completely different and beyond what we can even dream of today. Yet this is the first generation in history when the technology to administer such a mark has existed.
With identity theft, fraud, and a move away from cash and checks in the society and banking system in general all these things create a slippery slope where it will be easy to implement a new technological mark or mandate the existing technology be used in the period of widespread disorder following the aftermath of the rapture. The more common such things are made, the easier the world will accept the laws without hesitation when implemented.
We can rail against technology all we want as Christians, but the Bible says something like it will be implemented so it is largely pointless. The point is to accept Christ as Savior and leave beforehand so we don't have to worry about it (and all the rest of the prophecy, for that matter).
Fedora is a bleeding edge Linux distribution and has more updates than most. I've got a test F12 box at work that I turn on periodically and it patched around 800M of updates today.
If you want fewer updates, go with RHEL or CentOS. Both have few updates since the only changes that are made are security patches or serious bug fixes.
Bleeding edge with lots of updates or safe and secure with stale apps (a year or two after the initial release anyway) is the Fedora to RHEL spectrum. Most other distros fall somewhere in between.
If you don't want to be bothered with updates but really want to live on the ragged dangerous edge, just add a cron program to run "yum -y update" in the middle of the night. You won't have to worry about doing updates, but you also might have an unstable system when you come in. The cron script will e-mail the root user (or some other specified user) of what was updated overnight. I do this on my main system at work, but it runs an n-1 version of Fedora. I also watch what is out in updates from their package announce page, and if I see something that I suspect might cause issues (new kernel, new desktop environment, et cetera) I go ahead and do those package updates early so I can be around if there is any fallout.
If you have enough servers/desktops, run your own repository mirror. That way all your systems can update or install against it and only pay the bandwidth once (although there is a cross over point for a full mirror vs. multiple updates - use excludes to carefully trim the total number of packages you mirror to stuff you're likely to use.) You could also set up/var/cache/yum as a NFS mount for everyone and tell all your Fedora boxes to retain packages. If you have mixed architectures, be creative on your naming of directories. That way each could benefit from the other boxes downloads.
We can. We don't expect you to reach a particular potential in order to be loved. But keep in mind that all Christians are trying to reach their potential as well and none of us have reached it yet either, so sometimes we say things that are unfortunate and none of us exhibit the kind of perfect love that Christ had for people.
The problem is that the guidebook we follow (the Bible) says that God won't tolerate some things. He's black and white when it comes to what people do, and nobody lives a completely white life on their own. That's true for you and for me. The things that I'm not living up to my potential at may be different than yours, but they are there nonetheless. We can never be good enough, on our own, to meet His standards.
He offers a bridge between our lives and Himself. That bridge is Jesus Christ. It's the only way to get from point A (our lives) to point B (the eternal destination of heaven). You can choose not to make that choice. But if you don't make that choice you pay the consequences. If you do, the standards that sinners will be judged against at the great white throne judgment don't go away. When you make that choice to accept Christ as Savior, He expects you to work hard to conform your life to Christ's. He doesn't expect you to fix everything at once, but He does expect you to fix those things He points out. Some of the actions that are specified higher up in the posting list are actions or life styles that He expressly forbids. Neither you nor I may understand why He has chosen to be against those things, but it isn't up to us. They're His standards.
When it comes down to Christians commenting on these things, we typically get flamed. Do you train up your child in a vacuum of the knowledge of what is right and wrong and hope for the best? Many parents take that approach today. They take the "there are no absolutes - everything is relative approach". That isn't working out so well for society as a whole today. There is nothing relative when it comes to sin. If you are guilty of one, it is just as bad as if you were guilty of all.
God does call on Christians to exhibit love to everyone, even when it is hard. Part of that love is trying to let people know when they are breaking God's law. Beating them over the head about any particular issue isn't the right approach, but remaining silent when the subject comes up is not the right approach either. Earthly actions have earthly consequences. Sometimes they also have eternal consequences. The point is not to beat down the actions of those who have not accepted Christ as their Savior. The point is to lead them to accept Christ. Many problems we struggle with cannot be changed without His work in our lives. Unfortunately, too many Christians address issues rather than hearts.
You may not agree with the Bible's position on many subjects. I will freely admit that there are a tiny number of restrictions that I don't understand as well. But ultimately it isn't going to be about what you or I think. It is solely about what He thinks and whether or not you have chosen to cross the bridge of Christ to Him. If you have, He has high expectations for your behavior. If you haven't crossed that bridge, then you have no hope. You can disregard the Bible as a source of God's word. I've seen too many things in my life that are outside the natural but which do line up with the Bible to do that. Perhaps you haven't yet. If you do accept the Bible as God's word, then you have to try to live up to its expectations for you and rely on God's grace and mercy through faith to cover our sins when you fail. That may require you to make some changes in your life that you don't look on favorably. But the eternal consequences are far more important than any change you might have to make to conform to His positions on right and wrong.
Don't bother reading a Catholic priest's blog or a Protestant pastor's blog to decide where you should go. If you do that, you will only be attending a place that sounds like it would be good in your opinion based on hopefully carefully chosen words they choose to post.
Pray. Ask God Himself where he wants you to go and then go. He has a place for you and a plan for your life. You might not be comfortable where He directs you at first, but He has a purpose for you there. Perhaps you'll find your dormant faith awakened and refreshed by the changes that have gone on in the Catholic church since you last attended. Maybe you'll meet a great Christian friend that you would never have considered before if you select a Protestant denomination - and that's just offered as a counterpoint and not to say you might not find a great friend at a Catholic church as well. Perhaps you will help to build a bridge between belief systems that strengthens His church in your local community of churches.
Find your place of ministry and start participating. There is more that is in common between Christian churches (both Catholic and Protestant) than there is that is different. Both sides have emphasized that which sets us apart for far too long. The lack of identity of His church in today's culture is huge. Instead there are tens or hundreds of churches and denominations in many cities of any size. It is one of Satan's greatest triumphs and greatest weapons against those who would seek to find Christianity. The old worry of "Which is the right one?" and "What if I make a wrong choice?" It is time to emphasize what binds us together in these last days. Step up and get involved.
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
I think the federal tax code should be thrown out and replaced:
Set a completely flat equal tax on everybody.
No business (for profit, non profit, whatever) should be taxed since businesses don't effectively pay taxes anyway. Any business that doesn't sell its product at an after tax profit is doomed to go bankrupt and as they mark up their sell cost to cover their taxes it ends up making all final products more expensive.
No business should receive any subsidy.
I'm OK with excise taxes and tariffs if handled properly.
Do the same thing at the state level, county level, city level, etcetera. Figure out a budget for your expected costs of operating each for the year. Divide it by the last census count. Send out the bill.
Prorate all location specific taxes based on where you reside during the year if you have houses/apartments in multiple places so each tax jurisdiction gets a fair shot at you based on how long you are there.
You could set a higher federal bite if you reside out of the U.S. since a larger portion of our military expense is to serve and protect you but still eliminate portions of the other taxes if you didn't live in the U.S. all year.
That's the short version of my thoughts, anyway. In 2007, the top 50% of tax payers reported they received 87.74% of the total AGI, but paid 97.11% of the total federal taxes. That's insane. Until the federal tax burden on each U.S. citizen is equalized in dollar terms with some possible proration from birth to voting age or in extreme old age and the deductions are eliminated (and I'd prefer totally equal even though under the current tax structure that would increase my taxes substantially - not due primarily to charitable donations BTW), there will be no incentive to get rid of the bums in government and elect some people who will get focused on getting the finances of the United States and the states put back into shape. When half the voters just pay 2.89% of the burden, they'll keep voting in whoever promises them the most and the politicians will keep spending money as fast as they can to keep getting reelected. But, as you say, the forces inherent in the system will keep it largely intact.
Till then, my arguments for the tax exempt status for all charities (religious institutions included) still stand. They aren't businesses in the traditional sense, much as you would like them to be and the tax breaks exist for a reason. The studies I've seen show that donations to churches - to name your pet peeve - has fallen to somewhere under 3 percent of disposable income for those people who actually attend churches. That number itself has been decreasing over the last century. Does that account to some fraction of a dollar or two in higher taxes for you. Yes it does.
I'm sorry that you have never experienced anything that causes you to believe that God exists. I suspect you just thought blah, blah, blah or something totally unprintable. Please read on. My wife was healed in the prayer portion of a normal church service of a debilitating condition. The prayer was done by a lay person who didn't receive any renumeration for her time and effort. It was after consulting a doctor and a specialist who both indicated there was nothing they could do for my wife other than give her medicine to help manage her condition till her body built up a resistance to the medicine and it stopped working. She had decided to forgo the medicine route till it got to the place she couldn't function in order to delay the time when the medicine stopped working till she was as old as possible. Before going up for prayer, she exhibited symptoms. After going up and being prayed for she was fine. She has been fine since.
I don't expect you to believe me, or to have your heart somehow change just because someone you have never heard of says his wife was healed. I'm not saying that all the religions out there are true. I'm not even saying that there are no problems anywhe
FWIW, I partially agree with you. My only disagreement is that the first amendment is neither the problem nor the solution to the perceived injustices you mention. The things you feel are wrong are a matter of tax law. You can't blame only religion, or only people who are religious, directly for that. The tax law applies equally to ANY charitable organization and ANY religion for that matter - not just the majority religion that most are concerned about. In that sense, the establishment clause is intact since no religion is singled out for preferential treatment.
Do religious people benefit. Yes, in a sense they do. Although local charitable organizations (not just faith based) do a lot of good things for the community (whether the people who need services are members or not) at a fairly low overhead compared to the government. Any federal money that they get does get effectively transmitted back to the community. Most charities are not getting rich. They're non-profit in the strictest sense. I couldn't afford to live on the salary most pastors in town are paid. With my family, I'd probably be below the poverty level. There will always be a few high profile exceptions which make the rest of the charitable organizations look bad because humans are involved and we make mistakes.
If the tax laws were changed, depending on the changes enacted, many charities would not be able to afford to keep their doors open. It isn't like they have a product to sell. It is also pretty clear that just giving money saved by taxing them to the government will not cause a greater level of local service. Politicians are great at spending money, but it's easier to justify a new submarine or a new golf course (in our area) or a new civic arena or a new sports stadium so their favorite sports team won't move (and then letting the old one stand vacant for years) than financing local soup kitchens in major cities - maybe I'm just jaded, but I trust most charities to help out the little guy more than I trust the government.
Most churches (with the possible exception of a couple of denominations that come to mind which might deny communion or the like if you aren't a member of the church) will give the same level of service to any person who comes in the door, without any knowledge of whether that person is supporting the church or not whenever possible. If they had more funds available, they would do more. When funds are tight (as they have been during this recession), they have to try to do some screening to make sure that the money isn't just being thrown away - they try to be good stewards of what they receive (and that is again true for all charitable organizations and not just churches). They serve everyone to the greatest extent possible regardless of whether they get any financial renumeration. This is a key difference between a business and a charitable organization. A business just serves paying customers. A church does not do this. And that, historically, has been the primary basis for the tax exemption.
These tax laws have been in place for a very long time, were written by people who were largely religious, for constituents who were largely religious. I'm personally in favor of a complete rewrite of the tax code to a much simpler form, but that isn't likely to happen because there are way too many entrenched special interest groups, only a tiny percentage of which are religious charitable organizations. The biggest problem is the business parts of the tax code. In the mean time, it would be just as foolish of me to ignore a tax benefit for charitable donations as it would be to skip mortgage interest or child tax credits. You work legally within the system you're given.
In your example, you are bitter because I donate money to a church type of charitable organization and get a tax benefit. You have that right. But a person who gives the same amount of money to breast cancer research would get the exact same tax write-off. Someday, that donation to fight breast cancer may lead to a cure. There are people w
Actually, there was the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 that gave some pretty good guidelines for when particular events had to occur.
The first 7 - 7 year periods or 49 years were allocated for rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. This is followed by a block of 62 sevens or 434 years from the completion of the city till the Messiah was to be cut off or crucified. The last week is interpreted to be the tribulation period of 7 years, broken into a 3 1/2 year lesser and a 3 1/2 year greater tribulation. The church age is between the 69th and the 70th week and is, as you say, of unknown length. I do believe that all the prophecy that the Bible says will come about has been completed though, so there is nothing standing in the way of Christ's return.
Counting from the starting events of the 69 weeks of years (483 years) to the crucifixion put a limit on when the Messiah would have had to be born and there was a general expectation of His birth in Israel at the time He was born. One study I've read puts the birth date on Tishri 15, 3757 (October 4, 4 B.C.). The numbers work out pretty well to when Christians estimate Yeshua was crucified. The 20th year of the reign of Artaxerses, he gave Nehemiah the decree "to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince" Dan. 9:24-25 and Neh. 2:1-6:19. Nehemiah records this as happening in the month of Nisan. This was, by the studies I've seen, around 452 B.C. If you add 483 years to that, you hit 31 A.D., which at least one study I've read coincides to the death of Yeshua on Nisan 15, 3790 (April 24, 31). Those Jews who are still waiting have chosen to disregard clear prophecy.
The verse breaks were put in by various translators. "And the Lord was with Judah", should be with verse 18. Some codices read in v. 19 "did not" instead of "could not" revealing the failure to be in Judah due to fear rather than a lack of power of God. This is also consistent with the rest of the verses where failure is referenced in the chapter.
Other translations make the verse clearer: Rotherham: "took possession of the hill country - but did not possess the inhabitants of the vale." The Septuagint: "he (Judah) took possession of the mountain, for they were not enabled to drive out the inhabitants of the vale, because Rechab dissuaded them." Jonathan ben Uzziel: "they extirpated the inhabitants of the mountains; but afterwards, when they sinned, they were not able to extirpate the inhabitants of the plain country, because they had chariots of iron.
When they sinned, they were left to their own strength.
I likewise do not defend all actions of self-described Christians. I probably wouldn't use your words, as I haven't lived a perfect life either. I would point out that the vast majority of Christians are people you'll never hear anything about. It's the exceptions that make the news and get recorded in the history books. Some in this last group have done some awful things through recorded history. They'll stand before God one day who will judge what they did. Whether they got right with God before they died and it will be just their works that are judged or whether they didn't get right with God and end up at the White Throne judgment only God knows.
But for every one that did things on the side of evil, there are Christians that did things for the side of good or did things that furthered mankind's cause. While Mother Teresa comes to mind in a general case, you could look up any list of 100 most influential Christian ____ and recognize names left and right - try looking up scientists first.
To answer your specific moral code question, though --- the simplest answer came from Christ.
From Matthew...
22:34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
IIRC, atheism has been declared equivalent to a religion by more than one U.S. court decision. So it's not just the religious persons of the world that think so.
The wording of the first amendment to the Constitution is clear and precise. It doesn't mention freedom at all when talking about religion. It mentions establishment and free exercise of religion. Let me quote it for you:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It says exactly what they wanted it to say. They had broken off from a country where there was a state church - the Church of England. They did not want any federal government in the future to be able to make a requirement that you must join a particular religion to hold office or to proclaim that only one particular religion could exist in the land. That's all the first clause says and that is all it implied.
All of the activities you feel are so horrible to have done in a government setting or with government funds or on government property (if done at a federal level) fall under that "make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof" second clause of the first amendment. When those activities are performed, the people doing them are freely exercising their religion. If you make a law to stop it, you're violating their first amendment rights. When they freely exercise their religion, it does nothing to force you to accept their religion nor join their religion to hold federal office. I would go so far as to say that in your case, it probably makes it less likely. They aren't violating the establishment clause by their actions. But it is in no way a violation of the first amendment. When all of the posters on slashdot.org talk about the flying spaghetti monster, it does nothing to establish the flying spaghetti monster as the U.S. state religion either, and I can ignore the babble in much the same way that you can ignore the Christian displays around you wherever and however they appear.
The first amendment sets a mandate at the federal level of government only, although many state constitutions may have similar wordings. Do all the federal courts agree? No. They have a problem with understanding simple English and a tendency to try to increase the power of the federal government over the state governments at every conceivable opportunity. But make no mistake that that was the intent. The thought that the people who had just won the Revolutionary war couldn't worship when, how, and where they wanted would have been unbelievable to the majority of them. I won't say it would have been 100%, but certainly to the majority.
And just for the record - getting away from the federal level where the first amendment applies, and to forestall some of the criticisms that are sure to be thought whether posted or not, I do feel that the use of taxpayer dollars should be religion-neutral. If people want to put up a plaque honoring the flying spaghetti monster in a courthouse, so be it. Just stop getting defensive when the majority religion does something. If a particular setting calls for prayer before it begins, then I think that the religious leanings of all those who normally attend should be taken into account (including atheist/agnostic) and an appropriate religious leader (or nobody in the last case) should be selected on a random basis taking into account the proportion of the body that is of each religious persuasion.
It's not a threat to my religious beliefs if a mullah occasionally prays before the legislature or Congress starts its session or prays at a high school graduation. It shouldn't be a threat to your religious beliefs if most of the time it is a Christian (if you live in large parts of the country where Christianity prevails), or if it is omitted most times in more non-religious parts of the country, or if it is led by another flavor religious leader most times in towns or suburbs where another religion is dominant. Let them pray a long time and maybe
I would hesitate to argue with someone who knows his Old Testament well. I've tried to be careful with the O.T. history I recount here, but I apologize in advance if I miss some fact that is important. I haven't felt any conviction for using God versus G-d or the like, so I hope you don't take offense at that.
First, I believe that it was the people who asked Aaron to make gods for them to worship. Should Aaron have said no? Yes. People make mistakes both individually and as groups and Aaron should have led the people back onto the right path. My understanding was that the image he made was one of the gods that were worshiped in Egypt, so the people recognized it. It wasn't some random idol. When the people declared that these idols were the gods that brought the people up out of Egypt and Aaron made a proclamation that tomorrow was a feast to the LORD (Jehovah) and offered burnt offerings in front of the idol - implying that the idol represented Jehovah, he was wrong to do so. The people clearly knew that the association of the idol with Jehovah was incorrect and chose to ignore it in order to party. The God that had brought them out of Egypt was up talking (for an admittedly long time) to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they could see in the distance the power of God working there. They knew the difference between that and the impotent idols of the Egyptians. Why did they leave Egypt? To worship Him! Who had been leading them night and day? The angel of God! From the time Pharoah's heart was first hardened till that day, God had done miracle after miracle, but all that was forgotten with the desire to do evil.
In the end, my last response still stands. The Holy Spirit was working in the hearts of Jews and Gentiles from the time that Adam and Eve first sinned convicting men and women of the evil they were doing. God doesn't judge without warning. As far as the 3,000 go, Moses gave a final ultimatum before that judgment was carried out. He commanded everyone who was on the side of Jehovah to come join him. Anyone who did so was safe from the judgment - even if they had made a mistake earlier by my reading of the Bible. The Levites picked the side of Jehovah. Those who would not commit to being on God's side were the ones that paid the price.
For the question of the Methodist's cross, I have attended Methodist churches for a period, although I don't now. I would be very surprised if there was a single person in the church who worshiped the cross or any other item in a similar fashion to the way the golden calf was worshiped. Their organ may come closer if they have one. Lest Methodists take offense, the praise bands in evangelical churches have a similar lofty must go on zeal about them. But to get back to the point, the cross is not a god to them like the golden calf was. They don't ascribe divine power to the cross on the wall like the Israelites did. Most Protestant denominations would be similar in a disavowal of any religious power in an object, although a couple of technically Protestant denominations aren't far from Catholicism in their worship format. This is the key difference. Having pretty things around isn't what got them in trouble. It was their worship and sacrifice to the pretty thing instead of God that He stomped on.
I'm not going to go so far as to say that such worship is not present anywhere in Christianity. There are some parts of the church that have big hang ups about religious relics, saints, Mary and the like, and I feel they ascribe to them reverence and devotion that should be God's. We are commanded to pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ for what we need. We aren't told to pray to our dead church leaders or the mother of Jesus, or some symbolic religious token, statue, or medallion regardless of what good things a saint may have done while they were alive. Prayers with vain repetitions also get a black mark if you read the Bible, but seem to be popular in some places - Catholic and Protestant alike. The Methodist services wouldn't be complete without reciting the Lord's
He doesn't, and I'm pretty sure you can't cite any scripture reference where He says you should.
Like I said - the church today bears little resemblance to the New Testament church. That isn't to say you won't find churches out there that operate pretty close to the N.T. model. There may even be a few of the mega churches that do. I think you'll find a closer match to the N.T. in small churches where the pastor may work an outside job to support his family and people meet in homes because they can't afford to buy or rent a building at all. It is safe to say that there are Christians at all churches (mega or small) who would fit the N.T. model closely and others who may have accepted Christ as Savior, but really haven't done anything more than that and don't wish to. That was probably true to some extent in the N.T. time period as well.
As far as pastor's lifestyles are concerned, the majority work long hours for little pay. Like any profession, the few make a bad name for the many. I think the median salary for a senior pastor (implying an individual who has at least one other pastor that he works with and supervises) is somewhere between 45,000 to 50,000 per year. A youth pastor's median salary is around 35,000 per year. To some, those might look like great numbers. But if you've been around churches for any length of time and know what all pastors have to do and gracefully put up with week after week, they are really low. Sick calls, calls to visit people in jail, calls to accident scenes, free counseling, funerals, weddings, Christmas and Easter programs with all the unfortunate feelings to keep smoothed so they go off well, and don't forget a sermon or two on Sunday that always has to be "On" and "Right" or someone will be talking all over lunch about the mistakes he or she made, planning budgets, interfacing with the board, frequently cleaning the church and doing its repairs, helping move people, and on and on, and still somehow try and manage to keep his own family from falling apart since he isn't there as often as he should be. The mega church pastors may have other people who take care of those things, but the rank and file do not.
So when a person that I know who attended our church services in a wheel chair went up during an evangelist's healing service and requested healing and left the building without needing a wheel chair or my wife who had been to a doctor and a specialist and gotten a temporarily manageable but ultimately can't do anything about it diagnosis went up for healing and came back also visibly improved and neither subsequently regressed to their previous state (at least so far) to give but two examples, I must analyze the situation as an engineer. I know that the individuals weren't faking it in the first place. I saw what their condition was before. I saw what their condition was immediately after. All that happened in between was prayer to God for healing.
The engineer in me says - well - what's written in the book must be true because there's no other explanation. There was no other input to the closed system during the event. I've sought out the answer, and found it. The people who believe without seeing any signs or wonders get more credit, but when you're presented with them in your direct viewing, the engineer kicks in and says this rational easy to read and understand document from a few thousand years ago was right all along. We pick the simplest explanation that fits the observed facts, and the Bible does that for me.
That doesn't mean that every Christian who needs healing is healed. Everyone in the general area of Israel wasn't healed by Christ either. One evangelist who has a healing ministry will tell you flat out that he doesn't have a 100% success rate. What he will also say is that when someone calls for healing, he will ask them not to tell him anything about what is wrong. He prays to God, and if he gets a clear vision of what is actually wrong with the person - which doesn't always happen - he feels that it is God's will to heal them and he has a great success rate in those cases. If he can't get an idea of what is wrong, then he doesn't pray. It doesn't help that the church today has fallen in oh so many long ways from what the Early Church was.
The liberal arts person would figure out how to reason his or her way around what their eyes just saw (or probably didn't come often enough in the first place to get to know the people and realize that it wasn't faked). They've been conditioned by reading slashdot and the like that the only real explanation for what they just witnessed couldn't possibly be true, so they either make up their own weird explanation or go away and try to forget everything about what they just saw. The scoffers reading the above testimonies will feel the same way, although they'll probably take the time to reply. It doesn't change the reality that the simplest, most rational and logical explanation is that God exists, the Bible is correct, and God is still carrying out the promises He made to Christians a couple thousand years ago.
That isn't to say that there may not be some natural predisposition to order that leads engineers to religion. It also isn't to say that there aren't cults out there that are good at deceiving people and that engineers may be more susceptible due to that predisposition. When we have such a large group of people in the U.S. who have not been exposed to the religion of our forefathers because the generation of the 60's and 70's checked out of religion altogether and didn't pass it on to their kids, they may turn to whatever they discover on their own, following in their parents path of rejecting anything that smacks of traditional boring church and seeking out something that looks cool. The recent history of scandal in some leaders in churches hasn't helped any either - but God isn't the one to blame for those things. I'm pretty sure He's just as unhappy as the rest of us at some things that are going on today and that have gone on in recent history.
For what it's worth, "It was God's will" when something goes wrong is rarely the correct answer in my experience. God's pretty good about warning people in advance if He's about to lower the boom (Daniel and Revelation come to mind for modern day examples) and it is always His will that people change so the judgment won't happen at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I may well come from your area and I didn't vote for President Obama, but the point needs to be made that the United States Armed Forces protect this country and not the President. Having President Obama in office as opposed to Sen. McCain has made their job easier. That comment isn't based on their intimate knowledge with things military as Sen. McCain clearly has the edge there, but on my perception of their ability to deal with other leaders in ways that calm rather than inflame situations and reduce the threat level we face. There is enough lingering animosity over our past actions that the threat level will never completely disappear.
The military's job would be easier still if a third party that actually tried to limit the federal government to its constitutionally mandated powers was in control in the Legislative and Executive branches. That isn't a call to strict isolationism - we do live in an interconnected world. It seems to me that the pendulum has swung about as far to the side of meddling as the swing to strict isolationism was prior to WWI. Some balance between the two would be better for all but the armament industries.
The chance of a third party getting electoral votes or winning a Congressional election in my state is extremely small. That is true in most places and leaves us with the RepDem Party in control of things. Both parties expand the Federal government in different ways, but both do continuously expand it. Neither is perfect as the campaign invective of each makes clear. Until people decide they are both broken and vote them all out, no real progress will be made on any issue that really matters to the American people. Sadly, if a third party does come to power, it is likely to be corrupted at some rapid rate as well. The only hope is that something good can be done in that brief time period before that happens.
The number of jobs where an education in U.S. History is a prerequisite are few. History teachers, state department or government in general... missing any? The number of those that would depend on the curriculum in question versus a college course in the same are even fewer.
We should be adding a year of our nation's history each year to what is taught. To manage that and obtain a balanced amount of history from each decade requires that some earlier history be pushed to the rubbish bin. That isn't to say it wasn't important or that our views on it are irrelevant. There are only so many teaching hours available. Thanks to the increased load of test taking to satisify adequate yearly progress mandates from the federal and state governments these hours are becoming fewer each year. You may not like the selections that were cut out. You may not like the old points that were emphasized again. It really doesn't matter.
If you have a good history teacher they won't teach to the textbook anyway. They will attempt to bring the portions of history they are particularly enchanted with alive and slog through the parts they don't care as much about. That will continue to be true regardless of the contents of the textbook or the state you live in. If your teachers don't do this, then get some new teachers.
To proclaim the proximate end of education in America because Texas chose to get a touch more conservative in the history textbooks it buys as some have is ridiculous. To not hire anyone from Texas because during their public school education their textbooks were more conservative is even worse.
The scripture noted was written in the first century. At that point, most people would have said such a thing could never happen, including the Christians if you had pinned them down on it. Barter was common. You bought and sold (if you did at all) with people you knew in most places. They would have never asked you to show some mark to do that activity. If it was enforced, a black market would have been easily and readily in operation.
Today, it is just the opposite. USA Today reported a couple years ago that a resort in Europe allowed people to have RFID chips implanted which were tied to their credit card numbers. To pay for things, all they had to do was wave their hand over a scanner. Useful at the nude beach.
How close are we to this scripture being fulfilled? Currency is being reworked yearly to try to stop counterfeiting. Pretty easy step to just give up and do away with currency altogether. Merchants would prefer to not deal with checks outside of the town the bank is located in, and sometimes not even there. They don't like the float and worry about forgeries. Credit card issuers are working continually to tie their cards to people to prevent losses when cards are stolen. Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't leap at pushing the RFID chip scanning technology tied to their databases worldwide.
Throw in a huge natural disaster (to say nothing of the mess the world is likely to be in after the rapture - or at least the part that was daylight and had large Christian populations) and this prophecy makes perfect sense and would be pushed by government and accepted by the people easily.
There's room in the Bible's time line for evolution to have occurred. Gen. 1:1 really sounds like the big bang to me. The Bible's point isn't to lay out all science. Its point is to lead people to salvation through Christ. Read the Bible for the purpose it was written for and your science books for the purpose they were written for.
While I agree that there are a host of other perfectly valid reasons that this is a really bad idea, don't discount the Bible scripture referenced as another valid reason. The last major prophecy the Bible mentioned that had to occur prior to the rapture was fulfilled when Israel was formed as a nation and the Jewish people began their return. Who would have thought that would happen when the scriptures were written or even in the WWII generation of my parents. Yet it did happen. Here's another scripture that even when I was born had no real way of ever coming true, yet now could be easily fulfilled. It wouldn't be fulfilled in the way that people thought it would 100 or 200 years ago - they were thinking literal tattoos. But now there is a reality that fits the scripture. You may not like that reality, but it doesn't make it false just because you reject it.
And just to set the record straight. True Christians aren't out to kill anyone.
Information storage was expensive.
At some point we started word processing on the desktop.
Information storage was still expensive.
Files were still small and the majority of the bytes in each file was information.
As time progressed and Microsoft Office has permeated the work area, the information content of each file hasn't changed much.
Each release seemed to take more space to store the same information.
Today, the portion of the file consumed in making it pretty though has gone through the roof.
We could always go back to just plain text files that were easy to search and cheap to store. Project Gutenberg has taken that approach for saving books. Keep it simple. Of course if we did that the productivity might go through the roof and layoffs might be high.
Guess pretty isn't so bad, even if it is part of the zettabyte problem.
It isn't the prayer that does it. That's why praying for random people who may or may not be Christian is a pointless test.
Yes, the body is a remarkable machine and there is a placebo affect that can influence how the body works. I don't dispute that at all. But the placebo effect of the body doesn't work instantaneously either.
One of the older ladies at our church wasn't feeling well. She had a chest X-Ray and the doctor said from the images that she had cancer and was going to schedule surgery. She was prayed for and felt better. She went back to the doctor the next day and they took another X-Ray and it was clear. You can maintain that there was something wrong with the X-Ray they took, but the only reason she went to the doctor in the first place was that she knew something was wrong with her. The reason she went back was she felt like God had healed her. The X-Ray confirmed what she felt.
My wife was afflicted with tremor in her hands. It had gotten bad enough that people at work were concerned and she couldn't ride her bike anymore. The doctors said that she was likely either suffering from essential tremors or the early stages of Parkinson's IIRC. She was scheduled to see a specialist to rule out the latter, but there wasn't anything the doctor's could do in either case. She went up for prayer and came back able to hold her hands out without shaking.
Another person at another time was wheelchair bound and walked out of the service under his own power. He didn't need a wheelchair again.
For you, these are random anecdotal meaningless events, but they happened to people who I personally know and know the history of. Other Christians could tell of similar events that happened in their bodies. You can discount them because they are just words written by someone you don't know and whose way of life is foreign to you. Although contemporary, they are no different to you than the Biblical accounts of miracles and healing. I don't discount them because I know the people and the circumstances and in at least the one case paid for the medical bills.
God isn't someone who performs on demand. He doesn't conform to the scientific method. You can't just say - God heal this person now and expect Him to do it any more than you can tell the Queen of England to give you $1,000,000,000 and expect her to do it just because you told her to. So you can't prove God exists by a scientific experiment. George Burns did a cute God on the movie, but God is Soverign. He doesn't come into a court room and show off with parlor tricks. He's done His work that proves He is. It is up to the individual to believe in faith in what their own eyes have seen (or read) or not. It is your personal decision with eternal consequences. I can't make it for you. As someone who enjoyed science all through school and college, I can say that throwing out observed data because they don't fit your idea of how the whole experiment should work is wrong.
And by the way, God doesn't do things so people can get famous. I'm pretty sure He's had quite enough of the televangelists and their ilk perverting the gospel for their own gain. I firmly believe that is why we don't see more miracles and acts of healing today. He's interested in getting the glory - not giving someone a Nobel Prize.
As a Christian, I see evidence of God working today, just as the Bible says He will work. I see people who I know well who have had illnesses who are prayed for and are healed of what ails them without any medical intervention (but after medical tests confirming their condition). I see lives freed from addiction after prayer. I see people's hearts and lifestyles dramatically changed when they accept Christ as savior.
Not a single one of these is a proof of creation. But each of these is evidence that God exists and is still going about business just as the Bible declares He will. Perhaps we are at fault for not splashing what He does for us around the world as you think we should.
Anyway, when I am exposed to scientific ideas that seem at odds to what some in my religion teach, I study the Biblical source material more thoroughly. None of the scientific ideas being debated at length in this article are at odds with my understanding of what the complete Bible actually declares. Always keep in mind that the Bible is about humanity and its relationship to God. Perhaps more verses should have been dedicated to the beginning of the Earth and its history back when Lucifer was in charge of it to forestall this whole science versus religion debate that rages from time to time in the world today, but it wasn't central to the purpose of describing the means of reconciling man and God so it wasn't included.
While true, I think that would be a bit deceptive on his part and that doesn't fit in with His character as described in the Bible. I don't think He wants anyone to be able to say that He deceived them when they stand at the White Throne judgment.
And yet, after 1951 years (or so) the Bible is just as relevant today as it was then.
The first part of that hearkens back to Isa. 29:14 written around 750 B.C., so really, the more things change....
If you actually study what the Bible says from cover to cover, you'll find that from Gen. 1:1 where creation is mentioned "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --" YLT to 2 Pet 3:10 (for example) "and it will come -- the day of the Lord -- as a thief in the night, in which the heavens with a rushing noise will pass away, and the elements with burning heat be dissolved, and earth and the works in it shall be burnt up." YLT where the Earth's eventual destruction is foretold there is little disharmony between science and the text. Gen. 1:1 could easily be a one verse description of the "Big Bang" and 2 Pet 3:10 could be a description of our sun eventually dying and wiping out the nearby planets.
There is a vast amount of the Earth's history that gets little mention in the Bible other than oblique references to Lucifer (the original ruler) leading an insurrection against God sometime before Adam was around and God wiping that rebellion out, along with the Earth's inhabitants and starting over again at Adam's time. The duration of the Garden of Eden time is likewise undefined in the Bible. The interesting thing about all of our supposedly common ancestors is that all of those lines come to a common end at some point around 25-35,000 years ago and the current line of humans starts. There is enough leeway in Scripture for my faith to accept that the Bible gives a good, if brief, discussion of these times (if you look in lots of places other than Gen. 1:2 and following) that does fit in with what anthropology and paleontology observes.
I do, however, also know that the purpose of the Bible isn't to be an anthropology textbook. It is to help people know how to reconcile themselves to God, and to know what pleases and displeases Him. Much of the verbiage from Christians about science surely falls in category two.
Facts don't really go against Christianity. That isn't to say we will always agree on the interpretation of 100% of the science facts or that all Christians will agree 100% on Bible facts, but we would agree on enough to probably not have a real argument.
We would debate evolution vs. natural selection, but the Bible is silent on the billions of years pre Lucifer's rebellion, so I would be comfortable letting you believe that evolution shaped the development of the world's species and your arguments wouldn't alter my continued belief that God made many of the little bits from time to time to start with to amuse Himself (the marine critter era - I particularly liked the trilobites, the dinosaur era, the mammal era), natural selection led to minor changes over the course of time, and when He started over again at the point where human history starts getting eventually recorded (orally and then in written form), He reused some existing bits or simply preserved what He liked when He judged the world for Lucifer's rebellion and let it continue on. (Gen. 1:2 is a picture of the Earth or part of it post judgment, and you should note that there is a difference in the Hebrew words used for the original creation in Gen. 1:1 and the made used in the rest of Gen. 1, for example leading to a valid interpretation that different things were being recorded in each instance.)
Neither one of us can really prove which is right. We may both be partially right. But I would say it is just as insane to risk your eternal future because what you've been told the Bible says doesn't line up with the science facts you believe. If I'm wrong and there is no God and science was right all along, I've lost nothing of importance. I've spent time enjoying the fellowship of like minded friends when I might have been sleeping instead; I've donated money to charity that I might have kept, but haven't yet missed; I've missed out on the morning after experiences; haven't had a lot of worries the drug and alcohol abusers suffer; all no loss. If you're wrong and God does exist - just like the Bible says - with all of the consequences for rejecting Him and Christ, what a price to pay!
You have it backwards. Religions became organized because enough similarly minded individuals wanted to associate together. You can monitor the ebb and flow of religious and denominational numbers through the generations to see the number of similarly minded individuals who are still joining together for fellowship.
Most current branches of Christianity, for example, started because a large enough number in a previously existing body of believers felt slightly differently than the main body about their interpretation of part of the Bible. The core beliefs are essentially unchanged in any Christian body, but there is variation in non-core beliefs or dissatisfaction with the direction or actions of leadership in the previous body that caused the split to occur.
There are a few groups that perhaps started organized but they rarely make it to even denominational numbers of adherents, let alone religions. They would be more accurately termed cults in today's nomenclature.
Everyone must decide for themselves where truth is established.
It isn't surprising to me that on Easter, Slashdot would select an article casting doubt on the existence of Heaven. But let's use Easter as an example. Christ was crucified on the day of preparation of the Passover. The next day was a mid week Sabbath associated with the start of the long Passover celebration. Then there was a normal day when some work could be done. Then there was the normal weekly Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. On the Jewish first day of the week (Sunday), the women took items to anoint the body of Christ and were told He was risen (at some point from Saturday sunset to the point they arrived). This fulfills the Scripture correctly, giving three day between crucifixion and burial, and resurrection.
Unfortunately, the Catholic church decided that they wanted to celebrate Easter Sunday rather than the actual day that Christ was resurrected, and above that, didn't want to acknowledge the Jewish religion in any way so kind of ignored that whole Passover thing. Thus we have Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday which don't line up with Scripture. Is this foundational to the Christian belief system? No. But on those Jewish leap years when Passover doesn't line up with Easter, it is way off, just the same. If I were going to commemorate someone's death, I'd do it on the proper day on their calendar system regardless of when it fell on mine. Celebrating Christ's birth on December 25th is even worse, as it is unlikely the month is even right there, regardless of the fact that the day would vary on our calendar as the Jewish date is superimposed to ours.
Incidentally, the Passover celebration is held at a fixed time on the Jewish calendar. If you read the initial Passover circumstances, you'll see that all the way back when the Jews were slaves in Egypt, God was looking ahead to when Christ would die on the cross. The perfect lamb was sacrificed. The blood was put on the doorposts and lintel. He chose to start their calendar year with the time when Christ would reach His peak of power the first time on Earth. Kind of ironic, when you think about it.
I give that as an example of how "organized" religion can propagate aspects of religion that are carried down from generation to generation that aren't quite right. The Jews honor a time in their history completing missing what it was a symbol of. If you actually study the Passover ritual, you'll see just how symbolic of Christ the whole celebration is. The Christian church made a decision to honor the historical day of the week rather than the calendar day.
These aspects (the date of Christ's birth and death not being normally correct) in no way affect my faith, nor do they affect the faith of the rest of the Christians. Faith is separate from all the little details that may or may not be handled correctly by organized religion. It is the fact that Christ became our sacrifice for our sin and was resurrected that is important. The "organization" is merely a convenience for facilitating fellowship.
There were, among the alternatives, good candidates that you could have voted for. As long as you continue to vote for the repdem party, you will have similar results in legislation.
Just to be clear, most of the problem is not with the Executive branch of government. The president is largely constrained to approve or veto legislation that the Congress passes. Treaties can cause occasional troubles, but even these need approval by 2/3 of the Senate to have effect. Rid Congress of the repdem party or at least the majority of its incumbents and put in place candidates who will actually do what the members of Congress swear to do...
Of course it might help if they actually read it as well and had several junior high civics teachers explain what it means if the pretty basic language escapes them.
Then those people would be mistaken. The mark of the beast from Revelation (see other quotes nearby) is a measure controlling buying and selling and is placed physically in the hand or forehead. An ID card as described here would not fit that bill.
Bible prophecy has this annoying habit of coming true exactly as said rather than something close to what was said when it is specific rather than general in its nature. This particular prophecy is very specific.
Of note, there is a company that produces RFID chips which can be injected into your hand and have the chip's ID tag tied to your credit card so you just have to wave your hand over a scanner to make a purchase. It has had a production test in a couple of resorts in Europe. This technology wasn't even dreamed of when Revelation was written, but it is now here and in use today. Nothing new has to be invented to implement the mark of the beast. It only needs to be legally required for commerce.
The concern about things like this ID card (and even the RFID chips mentioned) isn't that they are the mark of the beast themselves as the rapture hasn't happened and the period of prophecy from Revelation hasn't begun. The actual mark may be something completely different and beyond what we can even dream of today. Yet this is the first generation in history when the technology to administer such a mark has existed.
With identity theft, fraud, and a move away from cash and checks in the society and banking system in general all these things create a slippery slope where it will be easy to implement a new technological mark or mandate the existing technology be used in the period of widespread disorder following the aftermath of the rapture. The more common such things are made, the easier the world will accept the laws without hesitation when implemented.
We can rail against technology all we want as Christians, but the Bible says something like it will be implemented so it is largely pointless. The point is to accept Christ as Savior and leave beforehand so we don't have to worry about it (and all the rest of the prophecy, for that matter).
Fedora is a bleeding edge Linux distribution and has more updates than most. I've got a test F12 box at work that I turn on periodically and it patched around 800M of updates today.
If you want fewer updates, go with RHEL or CentOS. Both have few updates since the only changes that are made are security patches or serious bug fixes.
Bleeding edge with lots of updates or safe and secure with stale apps (a year or two after the initial release anyway) is the Fedora to RHEL spectrum. Most other distros fall somewhere in between.
If you don't want to be bothered with updates but really want to live on the ragged dangerous edge, just add a cron program to run "yum -y update" in the middle of the night. You won't have to worry about doing updates, but you also might have an unstable system when you come in. The cron script will e-mail the root user (or some other specified user) of what was updated overnight. I do this on my main system at work, but it runs an n-1 version of Fedora. I also watch what is out in updates from their package announce page, and if I see something that I suspect might cause issues (new kernel, new desktop environment, et cetera) I go ahead and do those package updates early so I can be around if there is any fallout.
If you have enough servers/desktops, run your own repository mirror. That way all your systems can update or install against it and only pay the bandwidth once (although there is a cross over point for a full mirror vs. multiple updates - use excludes to carefully trim the total number of packages you mirror to stuff you're likely to use.) You could also set up /var/cache/yum as a NFS mount for everyone and tell all your Fedora boxes to retain packages. If you have mixed architectures, be creative on your naming of directories. That way each could benefit from the other boxes downloads.
We can. We don't expect you to reach a particular potential in order to be loved. But keep in mind that all Christians are trying to reach their potential as well and none of us have reached it yet either, so sometimes we say things that are unfortunate and none of us exhibit the kind of perfect love that Christ had for people.
The problem is that the guidebook we follow (the Bible) says that God won't tolerate some things. He's black and white when it comes to what people do, and nobody lives a completely white life on their own. That's true for you and for me. The things that I'm not living up to my potential at may be different than yours, but they are there nonetheless. We can never be good enough, on our own, to meet His standards.
He offers a bridge between our lives and Himself. That bridge is Jesus Christ. It's the only way to get from point A (our lives) to point B (the eternal destination of heaven). You can choose not to make that choice. But if you don't make that choice you pay the consequences. If you do, the standards that sinners will be judged against at the great white throne judgment don't go away. When you make that choice to accept Christ as Savior, He expects you to work hard to conform your life to Christ's. He doesn't expect you to fix everything at once, but He does expect you to fix those things He points out. Some of the actions that are specified higher up in the posting list are actions or life styles that He expressly forbids. Neither you nor I may understand why He has chosen to be against those things, but it isn't up to us. They're His standards.
When it comes down to Christians commenting on these things, we typically get flamed. Do you train up your child in a vacuum of the knowledge of what is right and wrong and hope for the best? Many parents take that approach today. They take the "there are no absolutes - everything is relative approach". That isn't working out so well for society as a whole today. There is nothing relative when it comes to sin. If you are guilty of one, it is just as bad as if you were guilty of all.
God does call on Christians to exhibit love to everyone, even when it is hard. Part of that love is trying to let people know when they are breaking God's law. Beating them over the head about any particular issue isn't the right approach, but remaining silent when the subject comes up is not the right approach either. Earthly actions have earthly consequences. Sometimes they also have eternal consequences. The point is not to beat down the actions of those who have not accepted Christ as their Savior. The point is to lead them to accept Christ. Many problems we struggle with cannot be changed without His work in our lives. Unfortunately, too many Christians address issues rather than hearts.
You may not agree with the Bible's position on many subjects. I will freely admit that there are a tiny number of restrictions that I don't understand as well. But ultimately it isn't going to be about what you or I think. It is solely about what He thinks and whether or not you have chosen to cross the bridge of Christ to Him. If you have, He has high expectations for your behavior. If you haven't crossed that bridge, then you have no hope. You can disregard the Bible as a source of God's word. I've seen too many things in my life that are outside the natural but which do line up with the Bible to do that. Perhaps you haven't yet. If you do accept the Bible as God's word, then you have to try to live up to its expectations for you and rely on God's grace and mercy through faith to cover our sins when you fail. That may require you to make some changes in your life that you don't look on favorably. But the eternal consequences are far more important than any change you might have to make to conform to His positions on right and wrong.
Don't bother reading a Catholic priest's blog or a Protestant pastor's blog to decide where you should go. If you do that, you will only be attending a place that sounds like it would be good in your opinion based on hopefully carefully chosen words they choose to post.
Pray. Ask God Himself where he wants you to go and then go. He has a place for you and a plan for your life. You might not be comfortable where He directs you at first, but He has a purpose for you there. Perhaps you'll find your dormant faith awakened and refreshed by the changes that have gone on in the Catholic church since you last attended. Maybe you'll meet a great Christian friend that you would never have considered before if you select a Protestant denomination - and that's just offered as a counterpoint and not to say you might not find a great friend at a Catholic church as well. Perhaps you will help to build a bridge between belief systems that strengthens His church in your local community of churches.
Find your place of ministry and start participating. There is more that is in common between Christian churches (both Catholic and Protestant) than there is that is different. Both sides have emphasized that which sets us apart for far too long. The lack of identity of His church in today's culture is huge. Instead there are tens or hundreds of churches and denominations in many cities of any size. It is one of Satan's greatest triumphs and greatest weapons against those who would seek to find Christianity. The old worry of "Which is the right one?" and "What if I make a wrong choice?" It is time to emphasize what binds us together in these last days. Step up and get involved.
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
No. I don't defend the system as it is.
I think the federal tax code should be thrown out and replaced:
That's the short version of my thoughts, anyway. In 2007, the top 50% of tax payers reported they received 87.74% of the total AGI, but paid 97.11% of the total federal taxes. That's insane. Until the federal tax burden on each U.S. citizen is equalized in dollar terms with some possible proration from birth to voting age or in extreme old age and the deductions are eliminated (and I'd prefer totally equal even though under the current tax structure that would increase my taxes substantially - not due primarily to charitable donations BTW), there will be no incentive to get rid of the bums in government and elect some people who will get focused on getting the finances of the United States and the states put back into shape. When half the voters just pay 2.89% of the burden, they'll keep voting in whoever promises them the most and the politicians will keep spending money as fast as they can to keep getting reelected. But, as you say, the forces inherent in the system will keep it largely intact.
Till then, my arguments for the tax exempt status for all charities (religious institutions included) still stand. They aren't businesses in the traditional sense, much as you would like them to be and the tax breaks exist for a reason. The studies I've seen show that donations to churches - to name your pet peeve - has fallen to somewhere under 3 percent of disposable income for those people who actually attend churches. That number itself has been decreasing over the last century. Does that account to some fraction of a dollar or two in higher taxes for you. Yes it does.
I'm sorry that you have never experienced anything that causes you to believe that God exists. I suspect you just thought blah, blah, blah or something totally unprintable. Please read on. My wife was healed in the prayer portion of a normal church service of a debilitating condition. The prayer was done by a lay person who didn't receive any renumeration for her time and effort. It was after consulting a doctor and a specialist who both indicated there was nothing they could do for my wife other than give her medicine to help manage her condition till her body built up a resistance to the medicine and it stopped working. She had decided to forgo the medicine route till it got to the place she couldn't function in order to delay the time when the medicine stopped working till she was as old as possible. Before going up for prayer, she exhibited symptoms. After going up and being prayed for she was fine. She has been fine since.
I don't expect you to believe me, or to have your heart somehow change just because someone you have never heard of says his wife was healed. I'm not saying that all the religions out there are true. I'm not even saying that there are no problems anywhe
FWIW, I partially agree with you. My only disagreement is that the first amendment is neither the problem nor the solution to the perceived injustices you mention. The things you feel are wrong are a matter of tax law. You can't blame only religion, or only people who are religious, directly for that. The tax law applies equally to ANY charitable organization and ANY religion for that matter - not just the majority religion that most are concerned about. In that sense, the establishment clause is intact since no religion is singled out for preferential treatment.
Do religious people benefit. Yes, in a sense they do. Although local charitable organizations (not just faith based) do a lot of good things for the community (whether the people who need services are members or not) at a fairly low overhead compared to the government. Any federal money that they get does get effectively transmitted back to the community. Most charities are not getting rich. They're non-profit in the strictest sense. I couldn't afford to live on the salary most pastors in town are paid. With my family, I'd probably be below the poverty level. There will always be a few high profile exceptions which make the rest of the charitable organizations look bad because humans are involved and we make mistakes.
If the tax laws were changed, depending on the changes enacted, many charities would not be able to afford to keep their doors open. It isn't like they have a product to sell. It is also pretty clear that just giving money saved by taxing them to the government will not cause a greater level of local service. Politicians are great at spending money, but it's easier to justify a new submarine or a new golf course (in our area) or a new civic arena or a new sports stadium so their favorite sports team won't move (and then letting the old one stand vacant for years) than financing local soup kitchens in major cities - maybe I'm just jaded, but I trust most charities to help out the little guy more than I trust the government.
Most churches (with the possible exception of a couple of denominations that come to mind which might deny communion or the like if you aren't a member of the church) will give the same level of service to any person who comes in the door, without any knowledge of whether that person is supporting the church or not whenever possible. If they had more funds available, they would do more. When funds are tight (as they have been during this recession), they have to try to do some screening to make sure that the money isn't just being thrown away - they try to be good stewards of what they receive (and that is again true for all charitable organizations and not just churches). They serve everyone to the greatest extent possible regardless of whether they get any financial renumeration. This is a key difference between a business and a charitable organization. A business just serves paying customers. A church does not do this. And that, historically, has been the primary basis for the tax exemption.
These tax laws have been in place for a very long time, were written by people who were largely religious, for constituents who were largely religious. I'm personally in favor of a complete rewrite of the tax code to a much simpler form, but that isn't likely to happen because there are way too many entrenched special interest groups, only a tiny percentage of which are religious charitable organizations. The biggest problem is the business parts of the tax code. In the mean time, it would be just as foolish of me to ignore a tax benefit for charitable donations as it would be to skip mortgage interest or child tax credits. You work legally within the system you're given.
In your example, you are bitter because I donate money to a church type of charitable organization and get a tax benefit. You have that right. But a person who gives the same amount of money to breast cancer research would get the exact same tax write-off. Someday, that donation to fight breast cancer may lead to a cure. There are people w
Actually, there was the prophecy of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9 that gave some pretty good guidelines for when particular events had to occur.
The first 7 - 7 year periods or 49 years were allocated for rebuilding the city of Jerusalem. This is followed by a block of 62 sevens or 434 years from the completion of the city till the Messiah was to be cut off or crucified. The last week is interpreted to be the tribulation period of 7 years, broken into a 3 1/2 year lesser and a 3 1/2 year greater tribulation. The church age is between the 69th and the 70th week and is, as you say, of unknown length. I do believe that all the prophecy that the Bible says will come about has been completed though, so there is nothing standing in the way of Christ's return.
Counting from the starting events of the 69 weeks of years (483 years) to the crucifixion put a limit on when the Messiah would have had to be born and there was a general expectation of His birth in Israel at the time He was born. One study I've read puts the birth date on Tishri 15, 3757 (October 4, 4 B.C.). The numbers work out pretty well to when Christians estimate Yeshua was crucified. The 20th year of the reign of Artaxerses, he gave Nehemiah the decree "to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince" Dan. 9:24-25 and Neh. 2:1-6:19. Nehemiah records this as happening in the month of Nisan. This was, by the studies I've seen, around 452 B.C. If you add 483 years to that, you hit 31 A.D., which at least one study I've read coincides to the death of Yeshua on Nisan 15, 3790 (April 24, 31). Those Jews who are still waiting have chosen to disregard clear prophecy.
The verse breaks were put in by various translators. "And the Lord was with Judah", should be with verse 18. Some codices read in v. 19 "did not" instead of "could not" revealing the failure to be in Judah due to fear rather than a lack of power of God. This is also consistent with the rest of the verses where failure is referenced in the chapter.
Other translations make the verse clearer: Rotherham: "took possession of the hill country - but did not possess the inhabitants of the vale." The Septuagint: "he (Judah) took possession of the mountain, for they were not enabled to drive out the inhabitants of the vale, because Rechab dissuaded them." Jonathan ben Uzziel: "they extirpated the inhabitants of the mountains; but afterwards, when they sinned, they were not able to extirpate the inhabitants of the plain country, because they had chariots of iron.
When they sinned, they were left to their own strength.
I likewise do not defend all actions of self-described Christians. I probably wouldn't use your words, as I haven't lived a perfect life either. I would point out that the vast majority of Christians are people you'll never hear anything about. It's the exceptions that make the news and get recorded in the history books. Some in this last group have done some awful things through recorded history. They'll stand before God one day who will judge what they did. Whether they got right with God before they died and it will be just their works that are judged or whether they didn't get right with God and end up at the White Throne judgment only God knows.
But for every one that did things on the side of evil, there are Christians that did things for the side of good or did things that furthered mankind's cause. While Mother Teresa comes to mind in a general case, you could look up any list of 100 most influential Christian ____ and recognize names left and right - try looking up scientists first.
To answer your specific moral code question, though --- the simplest answer came from Christ.
IIRC, atheism has been declared equivalent to a religion by more than one U.S. court decision. So it's not just the religious persons of the world that think so.
The wording of the first amendment to the Constitution is clear and precise. It doesn't mention freedom at all when talking about religion. It mentions establishment and free exercise of religion. Let me quote it for you:
It says exactly what they wanted it to say. They had broken off from a country where there was a state church - the Church of England. They did not want any federal government in the future to be able to make a requirement that you must join a particular religion to hold office or to proclaim that only one particular religion could exist in the land. That's all the first clause says and that is all it implied.
All of the activities you feel are so horrible to have done in a government setting or with government funds or on government property (if done at a federal level) fall under that "make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof" second clause of the first amendment. When those activities are performed, the people doing them are freely exercising their religion. If you make a law to stop it, you're violating their first amendment rights. When they freely exercise their religion, it does nothing to force you to accept their religion nor join their religion to hold federal office. I would go so far as to say that in your case, it probably makes it less likely. They aren't violating the establishment clause by their actions. But it is in no way a violation of the first amendment. When all of the posters on slashdot.org talk about the flying spaghetti monster, it does nothing to establish the flying spaghetti monster as the U.S. state religion either, and I can ignore the babble in much the same way that you can ignore the Christian displays around you wherever and however they appear.
The first amendment sets a mandate at the federal level of government only, although many state constitutions may have similar wordings. Do all the federal courts agree? No. They have a problem with understanding simple English and a tendency to try to increase the power of the federal government over the state governments at every conceivable opportunity. But make no mistake that that was the intent. The thought that the people who had just won the Revolutionary war couldn't worship when, how, and where they wanted would have been unbelievable to the majority of them. I won't say it would have been 100%, but certainly to the majority.
And just for the record - getting away from the federal level where the first amendment applies, and to forestall some of the criticisms that are sure to be thought whether posted or not, I do feel that the use of taxpayer dollars should be religion-neutral. If people want to put up a plaque honoring the flying spaghetti monster in a courthouse, so be it. Just stop getting defensive when the majority religion does something. If a particular setting calls for prayer before it begins, then I think that the religious leanings of all those who normally attend should be taken into account (including atheist/agnostic) and an appropriate religious leader (or nobody in the last case) should be selected on a random basis taking into account the proportion of the body that is of each religious persuasion.
It's not a threat to my religious beliefs if a mullah occasionally prays before the legislature or Congress starts its session or prays at a high school graduation. It shouldn't be a threat to your religious beliefs if most of the time it is a Christian (if you live in large parts of the country where Christianity prevails), or if it is omitted most times in more non-religious parts of the country, or if it is led by another flavor religious leader most times in towns or suburbs where another religion is dominant. Let them pray a long time and maybe
I would hesitate to argue with someone who knows his Old Testament well. I've tried to be careful with the O.T. history I recount here, but I apologize in advance if I miss some fact that is important. I haven't felt any conviction for using God versus G-d or the like, so I hope you don't take offense at that.
First, I believe that it was the people who asked Aaron to make gods for them to worship. Should Aaron have said no? Yes. People make mistakes both individually and as groups and Aaron should have led the people back onto the right path. My understanding was that the image he made was one of the gods that were worshiped in Egypt, so the people recognized it. It wasn't some random idol. When the people declared that these idols were the gods that brought the people up out of Egypt and Aaron made a proclamation that tomorrow was a feast to the LORD (Jehovah) and offered burnt offerings in front of the idol - implying that the idol represented Jehovah, he was wrong to do so. The people clearly knew that the association of the idol with Jehovah was incorrect and chose to ignore it in order to party. The God that had brought them out of Egypt was up talking (for an admittedly long time) to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they could see in the distance the power of God working there. They knew the difference between that and the impotent idols of the Egyptians. Why did they leave Egypt? To worship Him! Who had been leading them night and day? The angel of God! From the time Pharoah's heart was first hardened till that day, God had done miracle after miracle, but all that was forgotten with the desire to do evil.
In the end, my last response still stands. The Holy Spirit was working in the hearts of Jews and Gentiles from the time that Adam and Eve first sinned convicting men and women of the evil they were doing. God doesn't judge without warning. As far as the 3,000 go, Moses gave a final ultimatum before that judgment was carried out. He commanded everyone who was on the side of Jehovah to come join him. Anyone who did so was safe from the judgment - even if they had made a mistake earlier by my reading of the Bible. The Levites picked the side of Jehovah. Those who would not commit to being on God's side were the ones that paid the price.
For the question of the Methodist's cross, I have attended Methodist churches for a period, although I don't now. I would be very surprised if there was a single person in the church who worshiped the cross or any other item in a similar fashion to the way the golden calf was worshiped. Their organ may come closer if they have one. Lest Methodists take offense, the praise bands in evangelical churches have a similar lofty must go on zeal about them. But to get back to the point, the cross is not a god to them like the golden calf was. They don't ascribe divine power to the cross on the wall like the Israelites did. Most Protestant denominations would be similar in a disavowal of any religious power in an object, although a couple of technically Protestant denominations aren't far from Catholicism in their worship format. This is the key difference. Having pretty things around isn't what got them in trouble. It was their worship and sacrifice to the pretty thing instead of God that He stomped on.
I'm not going to go so far as to say that such worship is not present anywhere in Christianity. There are some parts of the church that have big hang ups about religious relics, saints, Mary and the like, and I feel they ascribe to them reverence and devotion that should be God's. We are commanded to pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ for what we need. We aren't told to pray to our dead church leaders or the mother of Jesus, or some symbolic religious token, statue, or medallion regardless of what good things a saint may have done while they were alive. Prayers with vain repetitions also get a black mark if you read the Bible, but seem to be popular in some places - Catholic and Protestant alike. The Methodist services wouldn't be complete without reciting the Lord's
He doesn't, and I'm pretty sure you can't cite any scripture reference where He says you should.
Like I said - the church today bears little resemblance to the New Testament church. That isn't to say you won't find churches out there that operate pretty close to the N.T. model. There may even be a few of the mega churches that do. I think you'll find a closer match to the N.T. in small churches where the pastor may work an outside job to support his family and people meet in homes because they can't afford to buy or rent a building at all. It is safe to say that there are Christians at all churches (mega or small) who would fit the N.T. model closely and others who may have accepted Christ as Savior, but really haven't done anything more than that and don't wish to. That was probably true to some extent in the N.T. time period as well.
As far as pastor's lifestyles are concerned, the majority work long hours for little pay. Like any profession, the few make a bad name for the many. I think the median salary for a senior pastor (implying an individual who has at least one other pastor that he works with and supervises) is somewhere between 45,000 to 50,000 per year. A youth pastor's median salary is around 35,000 per year. To some, those might look like great numbers. But if you've been around churches for any length of time and know what all pastors have to do and gracefully put up with week after week, they are really low. Sick calls, calls to visit people in jail, calls to accident scenes, free counseling, funerals, weddings, Christmas and Easter programs with all the unfortunate feelings to keep smoothed so they go off well, and don't forget a sermon or two on Sunday that always has to be "On" and "Right" or someone will be talking all over lunch about the mistakes he or she made, planning budgets, interfacing with the board, frequently cleaning the church and doing its repairs, helping move people, and on and on, and still somehow try and manage to keep his own family from falling apart since he isn't there as often as he should be. The mega church pastors may have other people who take care of those things, but the rank and file do not.
Yes. We are and we do.
So when a person that I know who attended our church services in a wheel chair went up during an evangelist's healing service and requested healing and left the building without needing a wheel chair or my wife who had been to a doctor and a specialist and gotten a temporarily manageable but ultimately can't do anything about it diagnosis went up for healing and came back also visibly improved and neither subsequently regressed to their previous state (at least so far) to give but two examples, I must analyze the situation as an engineer. I know that the individuals weren't faking it in the first place. I saw what their condition was before. I saw what their condition was immediately after. All that happened in between was prayer to God for healing.
The engineer in me says - well - what's written in the book must be true because there's no other explanation. There was no other input to the closed system during the event. I've sought out the answer, and found it. The people who believe without seeing any signs or wonders get more credit, but when you're presented with them in your direct viewing, the engineer kicks in and says this rational easy to read and understand document from a few thousand years ago was right all along. We pick the simplest explanation that fits the observed facts, and the Bible does that for me.
That doesn't mean that every Christian who needs healing is healed. Everyone in the general area of Israel wasn't healed by Christ either. One evangelist who has a healing ministry will tell you flat out that he doesn't have a 100% success rate. What he will also say is that when someone calls for healing, he will ask them not to tell him anything about what is wrong. He prays to God, and if he gets a clear vision of what is actually wrong with the person - which doesn't always happen - he feels that it is God's will to heal them and he has a great success rate in those cases. If he can't get an idea of what is wrong, then he doesn't pray. It doesn't help that the church today has fallen in oh so many long ways from what the Early Church was.
The liberal arts person would figure out how to reason his or her way around what their eyes just saw (or probably didn't come often enough in the first place to get to know the people and realize that it wasn't faked). They've been conditioned by reading slashdot and the like that the only real explanation for what they just witnessed couldn't possibly be true, so they either make up their own weird explanation or go away and try to forget everything about what they just saw. The scoffers reading the above testimonies will feel the same way, although they'll probably take the time to reply. It doesn't change the reality that the simplest, most rational and logical explanation is that God exists, the Bible is correct, and God is still carrying out the promises He made to Christians a couple thousand years ago.
That isn't to say that there may not be some natural predisposition to order that leads engineers to religion. It also isn't to say that there aren't cults out there that are good at deceiving people and that engineers may be more susceptible due to that predisposition. When we have such a large group of people in the U.S. who have not been exposed to the religion of our forefathers because the generation of the 60's and 70's checked out of religion altogether and didn't pass it on to their kids, they may turn to whatever they discover on their own, following in their parents path of rejecting anything that smacks of traditional boring church and seeking out something that looks cool. The recent history of scandal in some leaders in churches hasn't helped any either - but God isn't the one to blame for those things. I'm pretty sure He's just as unhappy as the rest of us at some things that are going on today and that have gone on in recent history.
For what it's worth, "It was God's will" when something goes wrong is rarely the correct answer in my experience. God's pretty good about warning people in advance if He's about to lower the boom (Daniel and Revelation come to mind for modern day examples) and it is always His will that people change so the judgment won't happen at all.