Military spending - not necessarily. I don't think we need to police the world but I do think it's the government's responsibility to protect us and to maintain our freedom.
Education spending - definitely. A free education isn't a right. Privatize it and, if nothing else, provide tax credits for the education paid to private learning institutions.
Public healthcare - yes. There is some statistic floating around that says 40 million Americans are without health insurance. What is not mentioned is that a significant percentage of those people can get it but do not want it (they either have the funds to pay for any medical mishaps or they are willing to take the risk of sickness or injury). Looks like Bush has already mentioned something about cutting spending in this area.
Welfare - definitely. I'm sure it is a benefit to some. I'd like to see what number just works the system to stay on it.
My point is that I see very little direct scientific benefit to American lives from the space program. Satellites, yes. Voyager 1 & 2 - no. Cassini - no. SOHO - possibly, if these scientists can tell us when the power grid is going to go down because of a X-class solar flare. Personally, I think the war on terror has demonstrated a much higher return on investment than the space program. People's lives are truly at stake in the war on terror. The Crab Nebulae can wait.
I agree, but see almost no Christians who believe this.
I see lots of Christians who believe this, but few who practice this. It's unfortunate that Christians as a whole don't provide a better example of themselves to others. On the flip side, Jesus said that we'll be hated because the world hated Him first. (He was a rather outspoken man on the issues of the day Himself.) With the world so anti-Semetic and anti-Christian, I see his prophetic vision coming to fruition in my lifetime.
Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.
Christians hate unmarried mothers and adultery and women who have children with men who aren't their husbands otherwise
Christians aren't supposed to hate anyone, but rather hate the sin. We're all sinners in this world. Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less. I'm sorry if your view of Christianity has been skewed by those who don't hold to true beliefs.
Clearly you don't understand evolution then. It doesn't say we evolved from apes. Also it doesn't say anything about the origins of life. (ie, the primoridal soup you talk about)
Creationism, as stated in the Bible, is very improbable.
So were many miracles performed in the Bible, but it's faith-based and not fact based. I believe evolution (the part that states all life formed from some primordial soup as well as we all evolved from apes) is ridiculous as best; just as the chair you are sitting in had an intelligent designer, so did the rest of the universe. (I believe I read that humans and bananas share a significant part of their DNA. Did we all come from bananas instead?) I think it's highly unlikely that so many different life forms on this planet came from an amoeba floating in early-Earth soup. The chances of this happening are probably along the scales that you think the chances of creationism are of happening.
I know Slashdot is a secular site that looks for the facts as proof, but there are some things that just require faith. Jesus is the way, the truth and light and no one comes to the Father except by him. Might be offensive to some (just as some topics are to others), but I believe it's the truth just as I believe the Bible is the absolute truth.
If the bible is fact, then one must come to the conclusion that God has created a system whereby only the deaf, blind, and ignorant are admitted to heaven. The "smart" ones who try to interpet what they "see" and "feel" in the world he created and get "suckered in" by God's own illusions, are denied admittance.
Technically, all that is required for "admittance" is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. You need not be "suckered in" to gain admittance. It's all right there in the New Testament. I don't have to come to the conclusion that you must be deaf, blind or ignorant to get in. On the contrary, I feel those who don't see the Bible as fact are blinded to the truth.
Hell, even the Vatican (arguably the institution with the greatest vested interest in literal biblical interpretation) doesn't accept creationism anymore.
I don't agree with this, either. There is an awful lot of Mary worship (including from the Pope) that happens under Catholicism. That's necromancy. So if they don't accept creationism any longer (I haven't heard this, by the way - is there a link I can read on for this?), then they are in direct opposition to the Bible. Of course, the whole Mary worship thing is in direct opposition to the Bible as well.
I don't know how old the Earth is. I do know it was created by God (and therefore was a product of an intelligent design) - much like the computer you're working on or the chair you're sitting in - a product of an intelligent design.
I'd like some of your inputs on what you consider in the Bible to be easily disproven.
But to give you some credit, when He returns to this earth I'm sure He won't be a Democrat or a Republican.
I can't blame you for buying into the "Jesus was a liberal" lie. It's typical spin from a group of individuals (no matter what political, ethnic or race-based background) who refuse to accept the absolute truths of Jesus and the Bible.
If Jesus were a liberal, would he allow abortion? The Bible says that God knew you before you were born and in your mother's womb. Some liberals in this country would have you believe you're a sack of replaceable cells up until the time you are born. Until that time, however, it's alright to give women the "choice" to abort you. It's all about women's rights, right? The unborn child has no say.
If Jesus were a liberal, would he condone (or at least turn a blind eye) to unrepentant adultery? Nope - Clinton was a self-professed church-going Christian, but Jesus says that even lusting after another woman is adultery in your heart. I'm willing to bet that Clinton had a little more than his heart invested during his presidency, but so do countless others who somehow justify their thoughts and behavior.
If Jesus were a liberal, would he condone capital punishment? Yes. The Book of Numbers clearly defines when capital punishment is acceptable.
Now I can't help if some staunch Republicans are pot heads or swingers. I don't know of their moral convictions. But I do know that Jesus gave a speech called the Sermon on the Mount that taught people how to live their lives morally and ethically. Too many people claim to be a member of this religion we call Christianity but too few have a personal relationship with Christ and it shows in their fruits.
Re:I don't know about you...
on
NASA's Deep Impact
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
no, they were destroyed because the residents tried to gang-rape the messenger of god and thought that was a great idea, despite lot's offering to let them make sexual use of his daughter in a culture that valued virginity only slightly less than hospitality. you gonna start pulling pauline citations, now?
Genesis 13:13 reads, "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." Genesis 19:13 reads, "For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it." Just as the Lord destroyed all but a few lives on earth during the Flood because of their wickness and evil, He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
that notwithstanding, this isn't a theocracy: just b/c the bible says it, doesn't give it the force of law. you wanna get biblical? when's the last time you stoned a witch or an adulterer?
The New Testament is the new law. If you recall from the Book of Matthew, Jesus asked those poised to stone Mary Magdalene he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't recall God telling the Jews to stone anyone. This may have been Jewish law but it wasn't dictated down from God.
what i always find interesting in these discussions is that people are quick to cite the prospective financial costs. but let's consider that even the 10% gay estimate that keeps being floated is considered inflated. if critics of gays are right, so few gays are interested in monogamy, let alone marriage, that the costs will be miniscule.
You may be right. However, I just read a statistic yesterday that as many as 60% of couples plan or are living together before marriage. If not same-sex unions, what about opposite-sex unions? Certainly there's going to be a fight for "equality" in the eyes of the law either way.
Hi there! I'm a Fundamentalist Christian. Did I offend you?
There's an inherent problem with the President's moral values. He's trying to impose them on the population.
But who says that just because you don't see anything morally wrong with homosexuality that it's right? Isn't the homosexual lobby forcing me to accept their moral standards?
Do you have any idea how this country got its start.
Yes. The Puritans that came to this continent were sick of taxation without representation.
Oh, are you making a snide remark about HIV directed at homosexuals?
Nope. Didn't cross my mind until you mentioned it. It'll be higher because there are more people to cover (i.e. pay premiums for).
So if HIV is more of a problem with heterosexual couples than why would one expect insurance to faulter when it came to homosexual couples?
I didn't bring it up. I didn't ask that question.
Now that's short-sighted. They want the right to marry someone they love. They want the rights other married couples have in the eyes of the law. How can that be considered a special right?
So if a person wants to marry an animal because they love them or a grown man wants to marry a boy because he loves him, is it still okay? How low on the moral scale can one go before it's enough?
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness and homosexuality. It is an abomination before the Lord.
I will guarantee you that we will see more anti-homosexual laws on the books that are championed by the administration and their new-found morals, or should we say fair-weather morals.
Here's my question: where do you get your morals and why are they better than anyone else's? If you feel the moral guidance of the President is too strict surely there are others who may feel your moral values are too liberal.
I do think that marriage is between a man and a woman - that's the way the Bible intended it. I certainly don't want civil unions or gay marriage for moral reasons but also companies would be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex unions. You think health insurance is high now? Wait until civil unions/gay marriages are legal.
I feel sorry for the homosexual community.
I really don't. They want special rights, not equal rights. They have the same rights I have - to marry someone of the opposite sex.
And it's funny how most liberals I meet who belong to the party of tolerance just aren't tolerant of Republicans and call us names.
The Republican party isn't always right. I vote for the candidate whose moral and ethical standards most closely match my own. George W. does that for me (i.e. pro-life; anti-gay; cuts taxes; enhances defense).
So you think that John Kerry and the Democrats aren't callous, blood-sucking bastards (by the way, blood-sucking is a hyphenated term, but you're an educated liberal, so you knew that already, right) who care for you? I'd be willing to bet that John & Teresa are worth more than George and Laura. So where's the incentive to help a Slashdot techie who probably earns less than $100k? $100k is "rich" to the liberals so they will tax you more to give to the "less fortunate."
The single greatest achievement of the modern era is how the liberals have infiltrated the public schools and higher-learning institutions, and taken God out of them and replaced them with lies. The Democrats want to to be dependent on them and are happy to redistribute wealth to give to undeserving individuals who don't want to work and don't want to support the five illegitimate children they have fathered.
So under liberal rule, do you mind having a third of your paycheck going to someone else who doesn't want to work? Where's the incentive to succeed in America if the fruits of your labor are handed over to a welfare family who is otherwise healthy, or healthier, than you and able to work? That's why capitalism is so important in this country. Socialism has been tried and it has failed (the former Soviet Union comes to mind). Without capitalism, where is the desire to invent new products and to search for a cure for AIDS (as the liberals so want to happen)? Seems to me the best way to reduce AIDS infections is to tell people it's preventable - keep your pants on. The liberals want to pass out condoms in schools instead to "help" solve the problem.
Unfortunately as time goes on more and more people are going to side with the liberals and our country (and world) will be more socialist. People will accept the abomination that is homosexuality just like they have accepted the 40 million murders of children through the legalization of abortion 30 years ago. Just remember: in the last days good will be evil and evil will be good. Pride and arrogance will be man's downfall.
Do we start cloning babies to kill them for the cure to AIDS?
I vote we teach people that AIDS is preventable just like pregnancy and drug overdoses. For me it's a no-brainer; farming embroys for stem cells and such is immoral.
Now on the other hand, there are some illnesses which are not preventable. Do I agree with farming of embroys to cure those diseases? Nope. Why kill what could be a perfectly healthy human? Doesn't make sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
We attack a relatively weak Iraq to draw attention away from the fact that we can't capture Bin Laden,
Sort of like Clinton finally firing some missles over in Iraq to take attention off Monicagate?
Military spending - not necessarily. I don't think we need to police the world but I do think it's the government's responsibility to protect us and to maintain our freedom.
Education spending - definitely. A free education isn't a right. Privatize it and, if nothing else, provide tax credits for the education paid to private learning institutions.
Public healthcare - yes. There is some statistic floating around that says 40 million Americans are without health insurance. What is not mentioned is that a significant percentage of those people can get it but do not want it (they either have the funds to pay for any medical mishaps or they are willing to take the risk of sickness or injury). Looks like Bush has already mentioned something about cutting spending in this area.
Welfare - definitely. I'm sure it is a benefit to some. I'd like to see what number just works the system to stay on it.
My point is that I see very little direct scientific benefit to American lives from the space program. Satellites, yes. Voyager 1 & 2 - no. Cassini - no. SOHO - possibly, if these scientists can tell us when the power grid is going to go down because of a X-class solar flare. Personally, I think the war on terror has demonstrated a much higher return on investment than the space program. People's lives are truly at stake in the war on terror. The Crab Nebulae can wait.
reducing government spending. I think Hubble should not be repaired and not be replaced. Unpopular opinion on here, I know.
Or, maybe religious people are just dumber on average than atheists and are more likely to be convicted of any crimes they commit.
Or maybe people describe themselves as "Christian" by default - you know, like of a particular descent rather than a belief system.
I agree, but see almost no Christians who believe this.
I see lots of Christians who believe this, but few who practice this. It's unfortunate that Christians as a whole don't provide a better example of themselves to others. On the flip side, Jesus said that we'll be hated because the world hated Him first. (He was a rather outspoken man on the issues of the day Himself.) With the world so anti-Semetic and anti-Christian, I see his prophetic vision coming to fruition in my lifetime.
Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.
Christians hate unmarried mothers and adultery and women who have children with men who aren't their husbands otherwise
Christians aren't supposed to hate anyone, but rather hate the sin. We're all sinners in this world. Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less. I'm sorry if your view of Christianity has been skewed by those who don't hold to true beliefs.
Clearly you don't understand evolution then. It doesn't say we evolved from apes. Also it doesn't say anything about the origins of life. (ie, the primoridal soup you talk about)
What does it say, then? I'm curious. Really.
Creationism, as stated in the Bible, is very improbable.
So were many miracles performed in the Bible, but it's faith-based and not fact based. I believe evolution (the part that states all life formed from some primordial soup as well as we all evolved from apes) is ridiculous as best; just as the chair you are sitting in had an intelligent designer, so did the rest of the universe. (I believe I read that humans and bananas share a significant part of their DNA. Did we all come from bananas instead?) I think it's highly unlikely that so many different life forms on this planet came from an amoeba floating in early-Earth soup. The chances of this happening are probably along the scales that you think the chances of creationism are of happening.
I know Slashdot is a secular site that looks for the facts as proof, but there are some things that just require faith. Jesus is the way, the truth and light and no one comes to the Father except by him. Might be offensive to some (just as some topics are to others), but I believe it's the truth just as I believe the Bible is the absolute truth.
If the bible is fact, then one must come to the conclusion that God has created a system whereby only the deaf, blind, and ignorant are admitted to heaven. The "smart" ones who try to interpet what they "see" and "feel" in the world he created and get "suckered in" by God's own illusions, are denied admittance.
Technically, all that is required for "admittance" is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. You need not be "suckered in" to gain admittance. It's all right there in the New Testament. I don't have to come to the conclusion that you must be deaf, blind or ignorant to get in. On the contrary, I feel those who don't see the Bible as fact are blinded to the truth.
Hell, even the Vatican (arguably the institution with the greatest vested interest in literal biblical interpretation) doesn't accept creationism anymore.
I don't agree with this, either. There is an awful lot of Mary worship (including from the Pope) that happens under Catholicism. That's necromancy. So if they don't accept creationism any longer (I haven't heard this, by the way - is there a link I can read on for this?), then they are in direct opposition to the Bible. Of course, the whole Mary worship thing is in direct opposition to the Bible as well.
I don't know how old the Earth is. I do know it was created by God (and therefore was a product of an intelligent design) - much like the computer you're working on or the chair you're sitting in - a product of an intelligent design.
I'd like some of your inputs on what you consider in the Bible to be easily disproven.
But he did get the greatest number of popular votes for a presidential candidate - ever.
It was no Ronald Reagan victory for sure, though.
They still owe me a commission check for click-thrus from three years ago...
Jesus fans (the ultimate liberal)
Hardly the ultimate liberal.
But to give you some credit, when He returns to this earth I'm sure He won't be a Democrat or a Republican.
I can't blame you for buying into the "Jesus was a liberal" lie. It's typical spin from a group of individuals (no matter what political, ethnic or race-based background) who refuse to accept the absolute truths of Jesus and the Bible.
If Jesus were a liberal, would he allow abortion? The Bible says that God knew you before you were born and in your mother's womb. Some liberals in this country would have you believe you're a sack of replaceable cells up until the time you are born. Until that time, however, it's alright to give women the "choice" to abort you. It's all about women's rights, right? The unborn child has no say.
If Jesus were a liberal, would he condone (or at least turn a blind eye) to unrepentant adultery? Nope - Clinton was a self-professed church-going Christian, but Jesus says that even lusting after another woman is adultery in your heart. I'm willing to bet that Clinton had a little more than his heart invested during his presidency, but so do countless others who somehow justify their thoughts and behavior.
If Jesus were a liberal, would he condone capital punishment? Yes. The Book of Numbers clearly defines when capital punishment is acceptable.
Now I can't help if some staunch Republicans are pot heads or swingers. I don't know of their moral convictions. But I do know that Jesus gave a speech called the Sermon on the Mount that taught people how to live their lives morally and ethically. Too many people claim to be a member of this religion we call Christianity but too few have a personal relationship with Christ and it shows in their fruits.
It's not a majority of people.
2004 Election Results
Sort of like partial birth abortions...
Hi Ed,
no, they were destroyed because the residents tried to gang-rape the messenger of god and thought that was a great idea, despite lot's offering to let them make sexual use of his daughter in a culture that valued virginity only slightly less than hospitality. you gonna start pulling pauline citations, now?
Genesis 13:13 reads, "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." Genesis 19:13 reads, "For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it." Just as the Lord destroyed all but a few lives on earth during the Flood because of their wickness and evil, He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
that notwithstanding, this isn't a theocracy: just b/c the bible says it, doesn't give it the force of law. you wanna get biblical? when's the last time you stoned a witch or an adulterer?
The New Testament is the new law. If you recall from the Book of Matthew, Jesus asked those poised to stone Mary Magdalene he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't recall God telling the Jews to stone anyone. This may have been Jewish law but it wasn't dictated down from God.
what i always find interesting in these discussions is that people are quick to cite the prospective financial costs. but let's consider that even the 10% gay estimate that keeps being floated is considered inflated. if critics of gays are right, so few gays are interested in monogamy, let alone marriage, that the costs will be miniscule.
You may be right. However, I just read a statistic yesterday that as many as 60% of couples plan or are living together before marriage. If not same-sex unions, what about opposite-sex unions? Certainly there's going to be a fight for "equality" in the eyes of the law either way.
Actually, according to the Bible, there were seven of each unclean and two of each clean animal.
I'm an Athiest. Don't try to preach to me.
Hi there! I'm a Fundamentalist Christian. Did I offend you?
There's an inherent problem with the President's moral values. He's trying to impose them on the population.
But who says that just because you don't see anything morally wrong with homosexuality that it's right? Isn't the homosexual lobby forcing me to accept their moral standards?
Do you have any idea how this country got its start.
Yes. The Puritans that came to this continent were sick of taxation without representation.
Oh, are you making a snide remark about HIV directed at homosexuals?
Nope. Didn't cross my mind until you mentioned it. It'll be higher because there are more people to cover (i.e. pay premiums for).
So if HIV is more of a problem with heterosexual couples than why would one expect insurance to faulter when it came to homosexual couples?
I didn't bring it up. I didn't ask that question.
Now that's short-sighted. They want the right to marry someone they love. They want the rights other married couples have in the eyes of the law. How can that be considered a special right?
So if a person wants to marry an animal because they love them or a grown man wants to marry a boy because he loves him, is it still okay? How low on the moral scale can one go before it's enough?
If nothing else it's prophetic.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness and homosexuality. It is an abomination before the Lord.
I will guarantee you that we will see more anti-homosexual laws on the books that are championed by the administration and their new-found morals, or should we say fair-weather morals.
Here's my question: where do you get your morals and why are they better than anyone else's? If you feel the moral guidance of the President is too strict surely there are others who may feel your moral values are too liberal.
I do think that marriage is between a man and a woman - that's the way the Bible intended it. I certainly don't want civil unions or gay marriage for moral reasons but also companies would be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex unions. You think health insurance is high now? Wait until civil unions/gay marriages are legal.
I feel sorry for the homosexual community.
I really don't. They want special rights, not equal rights. They have the same rights I have - to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Good point!
And you wake up three years later at a thin 100 pounds. Forget Atkins, let's go to Mars!
Golly. All anonymous cowards replied to my comment. What a surprise.
And it's funny how most liberals I meet who belong to the party of tolerance just aren't tolerant of Republicans and call us names.
The Republican party isn't always right. I vote for the candidate whose moral and ethical standards most closely match my own. George W. does that for me (i.e. pro-life; anti-gay; cuts taxes; enhances defense).
So you think that John Kerry and the Democrats aren't callous, blood-sucking bastards (by the way, blood-sucking is a hyphenated term, but you're an educated liberal, so you knew that already, right) who care for you? I'd be willing to bet that John & Teresa are worth more than George and Laura. So where's the incentive to help a Slashdot techie who probably earns less than $100k? $100k is "rich" to the liberals so they will tax you more to give to the "less fortunate."
The single greatest achievement of the modern era is how the liberals have infiltrated the public schools and higher-learning institutions, and taken God out of them and replaced them with lies. The Democrats want to to be dependent on them and are happy to redistribute wealth to give to undeserving individuals who don't want to work and don't want to support the five illegitimate children they have fathered.
So under liberal rule, do you mind having a third of your paycheck going to someone else who doesn't want to work? Where's the incentive to succeed in America if the fruits of your labor are handed over to a welfare family who is otherwise healthy, or healthier, than you and able to work? That's why capitalism is so important in this country. Socialism has been tried and it has failed (the former Soviet Union comes to mind). Without capitalism, where is the desire to invent new products and to search for a cure for AIDS (as the liberals so want to happen)? Seems to me the best way to reduce AIDS infections is to tell people it's preventable - keep your pants on. The liberals want to pass out condoms in schools instead to "help" solve the problem.
Unfortunately as time goes on more and more people are going to side with the liberals and our country (and world) will be more socialist. People will accept the abomination that is homosexuality just like they have accepted the 40 million murders of children through the legalization of abortion 30 years ago. Just remember: in the last days good will be evil and evil will be good. Pride and arrogance will be man's downfall.
Finally. A fellow conservative voice on Slashdot!
Do we start cloning babies to kill them for the cure to AIDS?
I vote we teach people that AIDS is preventable just like pregnancy and drug overdoses. For me it's a no-brainer; farming embroys for stem cells and such is immoral.
Now on the other hand, there are some illnesses which are not preventable. Do I agree with farming of embroys to cure those diseases? Nope. Why kill what could be a perfectly healthy human? Doesn't make sense to me.
I don't see much difference between this and Michael Moore's F-9/11 movie. Both are designed to mislead and misinform.