Nuclear weapons should be banned altogether. Wouldn't want to get hit by one, no matter how bad incompetent my government may be... I guess this is a common sense.
♥ Woo! Go Obama. ♥ Copy and Paste If You Totally Agree, And please copy this part: Rikkigurls made this comment. If you have a prob, say it to my face.
D'ohBama is getting schooled; what an imbecile we have for President now.
I think I considered his childish, foolish notions of World Peace and Disarmament when I was 10 or 11 but quickly grew up. Too bad our president is still has an infants logic.
Well, Ted, do you actually live in Las Vegas? Ronald Reagan said exactly the same thing Obama did. Reagan almost signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with Gorbachev in Rekyevik,(sp?) Iceland. "Star Wars" missile defense tech (which still doesnt work,) got in the way. Why are people so emotional in their criticism of Obama. Racism maybe?
Reagan's proposal was total disarmament of MISSILES (only) if we also build SDI, which could've been done and eventually was - on a MUCH smaller scale. Gorby said no and that he wanted to rely, completely, on offensive weapons.
no but seriously, why would saying that getting rid of nukes all together be stupid ? He doesn't mean it'll happen in the next year or 2 obviously.. but how awesome is it for a US president to make clear that the final goal is peace, and NO nukes.
Yes, but what children, and fools, normally miss is that had we not dropped the bombs, and killed a half-million, we would have invaded. The invasion expected to produce 25 MILLION Japaneese casualties and a MILLION US casualties.
Particle beams? That must have been what Newt wanted to fire at Kim Jong Il. Problem is, the weapon DOESNT WORK. And if the Republicans get their way, spend billions and billions more on this fantasy, and derail nuclear disarmament again, and get a test weapon in space -- the Chinese will promptly shoot it down (that test WAS successful.)
Keep on licking Rove and Gingrich's asses. They sure love you!!
SDI was supposed to be a "space-based defense." That was the whole point. No such thing exists today -- thank god.
Interceptor missiles (designed to defeat intercontinental ballistic missiles,) that have been tested, have been tested under highly biased conditions, and held to extremely low standards of success. So your 13 out 14 statistic is BULLSHIT by any real weapon usefulness standard. No space based weapons exist.
Is disagree with you on disarmament. Morality and history are with me.
WRONG, Strategic Defense Initiative was a proposal for a multi-layered defense system and the last line of defense was ground-based missiles.
The only "biased" NMD tests were under Clinton b/c the White House demanded that we use pulse radar in track phase instead of doppler. Any halfwit can tell you that doppler is much better at tracking high-speed targets and since ICBMs travel at better than 14,000 mph, doppler is the way to go.
Then I guess you agree with me that no space-based missile defense exists, after billions and billions and billions have been spent on it. And hopefully you can see that this is a very good thing (we dont really want a war with China.)
Republicans and their weapons!!! They must all have small dicks.
First, we discovered we can adequately defend ourselves without going into space, so why bother spending that much?
Two, SDI launched a tech-revolution in the 90's that Clinton rode. Fiber-optics came from SDI. 3G cell phones came from SDI. A lot of tech inventions came from SDI; I bet you even enjoy some of those.
BTW, we had Anti-Sat technology back in the early 80's; China's is nothing new.
To your number two -- how about next time we spend the money on the desired technology, and skip the non-functioning weapons system -- cut to the chase -- save lots of money.
I know that anti-sat technology is pretty low tech these days. You support my point again. If all our fancy (and enormously expensive) SDI Reagan bullshit can be shot down by a low tech missile, whats the point of it?
Thanks for agreeing with me on almost every point. I guess bi-partisanship CAN be achieved after all.
OK, but you then suffer NO tech revolution or economic expansion AND you never find out what technologies BEST provide the defense that is the national government's PRIMARY responsibility.
Why is that liberals always want to get chinzy on our PRIMARY responsibilities but have no problem throwing money at our luxuries and lesser responsibilities?
BTW - Land-based NMD is a not sufficient enough shield and we have to keep our missiles. SDI would allow us to get rid of all missiles.
If we put the money DIRECTLY toward tech, it seems to me we get a BETTER, STRONGER tech revolution.
We know that nuclear weapons will have no usefulness in the battles we will be fighting in the future. So if it is really peace and security that you are worried about, nuclear weapons are a waste of money toward that end. And we already agreed that SDI (easily shot down) is an extreme waste of money.
Okay, well here is my RADICAL idea. Lets start spending the money on the technology for peaceful uses (as Obama is doing,) and stop wasting money on weapons systems that have no future use. Remember we are not talking about ALL weapons tech. We are arguing the usefulness of NUCLEAR weapons, and SDI, for the future.
Your confidence in SDI is unfounded. You probably want to insure the rights of every teenage boy in downtown Baltimore to easily get an automatic military style rifle. Same logic.
Oh, but my confidence is NOT unfounded because it is based on a LEARNED foundation.
Obama is a fool to weaken our military and play nice with our enemies. Putin, Jintao and others are running circles around that moron-in-cheif and he - and his blind followers - are too stupid to even realize it.
Mark my words, 3 years from now you'll be longing for the days of President Bush.
You are a member of the 21 club. The last 21% of diehards who still believe Dick Cheney's fear mongering bullshit.
Public schools have been spending millions on redundant standardized tests, which have done NOTHING to improve learning. They will improve with Obama's support.
You blame lack of availability of health care on the government? You're kidding right?
In the near future, local communities will have their own solar and wind power plants, providing INEXPENSIVE energy to neighborhoods
It wouldn't be the first time the majority was WRONG.
Solar and wind power are FAR MORE EXPENSIVE; do you understand the DIFFERENCE between EXPENSIVE and INEXPENSIVE.
(And you're trying to tell me that public schools are good? You don't even understand that Solar, at 4 times more expensive than coal, and wind, at 3 times more expensive than coal, are MORE EXPENSIVE than coal!!! What? Can't follow SIMPLE LOGIC!?!?!?!?!?
Okay, simple logic. EXPENSIVE = something which comes at great cost. To me, blowing the tops off of mountains, and letting the refuse run into the river is A GREAT COST.
Sure, making the TRANSITION will be costly. But once solar plants, and wind plants are set up in every community (along with rain-water collection systems, which are also badly needed,) energy will be cheaper than it is now. I have solar panels. Once you put them in, the power is practically free.
OK, moron. A solar plant costs as much as a coal plant to build and operate - over a 40-year cycle. The solar plant produces a FRACTION of the electricity a coal plant produces. We'd have to cover THE ENTIRE country with Solar collectors to get HALF of the electricity we need.
THAT'S not environmentally friendly, moron.
"blowing the tops off of mountains"? I guess you've never actually seen a coal mine. THAT never happens. I've been to quite a few.
Now you are really showing your ignorance. The tops of mountains ARE, IN FACT, blown off to extract coal. Google Tenn mountaintop coal extraction.
Large solar plants in the Southwestern deserts, and wind farms in the North, along with small community solar and wind power plants, very near the neighborhoods they serve, plus individual home panels, could easily replace oil and coal power plants. Your claim is FALSE. In fact, all the claims in your last post are FALSE and/or ignorant.
SDI is a welfare program for weapons engineers. Useless and extremely expensive.
I would submit that clean air, clean food, clean water, clean home-made energy, well equipped conventional military and special forces, basic health-care for our people, good education for all children, and the JOBS which will be created providing these things to Americans-- THESE ARE PRIMARY NEEDS.
The only jobs Republicans want to create are war jobs -- killing jobs. "The culture of life" indeed!!!
So, you don't like being safe or having technological advances? That's funny, or sad if true.
Clean air, food, etc are important but don't matter a hill of beans if OBL, Kim Sung IL or Hu Jintao drops a nuke in your backyard.
Defense saves lives and provides a better life for ALL citizens, maybe if you get a real education you'd know that. But, I bet you bought the public schools' lies.
If you want a good education, go to a private schools. The american public school system failed.
Lots of ad hominem, and no substance, in your last post. Yes I went to public school, and proud of it. So, do you have a substantive point you want to make?
It's a proven fact that the average SAT score of a private-school is substantially higher than that of public-school.
Besides, having been both, I can tell you the academics are much tougher in the cheapest and smallest of private schools than the best public schools. (My last year in a public school was in a top-20 academics ranked high school, nationwide).
Public schools are indoctrination camps, not education centers. What better explanation for your (and others') lack of wisdom.
Private school students generally have more educated parents. When you consider the wide range of students that public schools educate, they are doing a remarkable job. With fewer millions spent on redundant standardized testing (which most states already had,) they will do much better. America should be very proud of our public school systems -- which welcome ALL children, rich and poor. Easy to criticize, but why do it? I dont get it? You dont want to see poor children educated?
Really, so when the poorer parents in Wash DC were allowed to send their kids to Private schools - until Obama's friends killed the program - and those children of poorer parents substantially improved their education matters nothing to you?
OHHH, the callousness of the modern liberal. So tied to ideology that they refuse to learn or care about others!
So you think that Obama should have let the financial system collapse? Okay.
Of course, it was not Obama's fault that the financial system is in danger of collapsing. (He has been president for 78 days.) So you cant blame him until Sept 11. (Unless you want to accept that Bush was to blame for 9-11 happening on his watch.)
Study economics, its called constructive destruction. Yes, I'd rather see some companies collapse because the long run benefits FAR outweigh the temporary pain.
What Obama is doing is putting bandaids on heartfailure and broken bones and giving pain killers. I'd rather fix the problem. (And yes, Obama's making the SAME mistakes Bush made.)
I never said the earth is 6000 years old, don't put words in my mouth - IDIOT!
Yes, Bush was right; we were obligated by law to do what he did. Maybe you libs like breaking laws and commitments, I don't.
We should wait until solar power is viable; unless you libs want the poor to start burning wood and coal in their home to stay warm. Even I couldn't afford $500/mo to heat my home; which is what Solar power would cost.
Here is an economics lesson for you -- the economies of scale:
Solar power will become cheaper per watt, when it is produced in larger quanities. Remember the cost of the first calculators? The first digital cameras? Now you can get a good one for $100. The same thing will happen with solar and wind power -- not to mention the manufacturing jobs.
So you really think we should wait 100 years to START transitioning to sustainable power?
We CANNOT produce enough electricity through Solar or Wind. We would, literally, have to convert EVERY SQUARE INCH of this country to solar power plant - leaving no room for homes, businesses or wildlife - to supply a FRACTION of our electricity needs.
It's just not possible! Furthermore, wasting our money on this now drives up the cost of energy, hurting the poor - something that libs evidently don't care about.
Those last statements are just made up. You made them up, or you heard them form Hannity or Rush. It just isnt true. Its a lie. Completely false. No basis in fact. No evidence. Untrue.
As I said, large desert power plants, combined with wind farms, small community-based plants, individual panels and wind generators, plus geo-thermal, and our existing hydro-electric plants, could EASILY replace oil and coal and nuclear power plants. It is being done in Australia and Iceland now. It CAN BE DONE.
Calling me a liar? MORON! No, that comes from a comparison of power output.
Again, the combined output of the 2 largest Solar plants on this continent are a fraction of what a small, coal plant puts out. That is a fact, not made up!
In fact, the Nellis power plant cost $100 million to build and will produce - at current prices - only $40 million worth of electricity over it's lifetime.
Do you call that cost effective?
We could use more dams, but greenies hate those too.
Here is where the economies of scale lesson I gave you comes into play.
I have six solar panels. I have all the power I need. I run power tools, frig. lights, anything I want. In Australia they have community solar plants that supply power to the whole neighborhood. They also collect rainwater for the whole community. In Iceland, they heat almost all the homes wioth geo-thermal power.
I think we can do it. You dont. Obama does. Bush didnt. We'll see who is right.
Given that you are providing power for your residence and that residences make up a fraction of total power consuming, you're just shaving off a miniscule fraction of total power of the community.
Good for you! For the time being, this is THE only cost-effective scale.
Those Aussie communities still get ALOT of power from other means AND THEIR COSTS HAVE SKYROCKETED.
We're in enough money trouble, why make it worse? It hurts the poor more than anyone else.
If you want to teach your children that Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel are scientific facts, and evolution is not a scientific reality, that is your call. But thank god and Thomas Jefferson that no child will be taught mythology as truth in any government regulated public school.
It is incredibly ironic that you live in one of the most obscene power-sucking cities in the world, right next to one of the most perfect deserts for solar collection, and you are arguing against developing solar power plants.
Time to join the 21rst century! Support Obama in his efforts to transition the USA from Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, and filthy coal (which we have known is filthy since Charles Dickens,) to solar, wind, geo-thermal, (and natural gas to help with the transition.)
You are confused. The algae into bio-fuel thing is real. But still burning things that dont need to be burned to produce energy. Clean coal does not exist, has never existed.
You dont think evolution is a biological reality, and you want to give me a lesson in science. No thanks, fundie.
AHHH, the difference is that at least I'm honest enough to admit that some of my beliefs are based on faith rather than sciences that fail everytime its tested.
Please look up Francis Collins, bornagain scientist, leader of the Human Genome Project, wrote a book called The Language of God. He believes in evolution, but is still a Christian.
Do you think one can be a Christian, and still believe in evolution? If so, why waste hot air on the argument?
I'm certainly not going to waste time arguing with someone who believes the BIble is literally, historically, and scientifically true.
Yes, the only thing necessary to be a Christian is to understand that we've all sinned and are unworthy of Heaven but that God became a man, in the person of Jesus Christ, and died on the cross for everyone's sins. Those who then call on Jesus as Lord and Savior will be saved from the Judgment for their sins.
You can be wrong about just about anything and everything else and if you have that right, you're saved from Judgment.
That was sarcasm. I guess they dont teach that in private schools like the one you went to. I guess they taught you at that private school that the Bible is literally true, and nuclear weapons have made the world safer. What an education you got!!!
Okay, and I never said that I wanted to disarm, either. I said I think we should negotiate a vast reduction in nuclear weapons. This would give us SOME credibility in our dealings with Iran and North Korea. I mean, who can take our argument seriously now? Then take the money we were spending on that, and SDI, and build the most phenomenal and technologically advanced conventional and anti-terrorism army and intelligence network the world has ever seen.
Can't have it both ways. We need to either have an effective, large-scale shield or have enough weapons to overwhelm the largest of our potential nuclear foes.
The problem with NK and Iran is that both have SAID that they would use the weapons that are developed.
I'm not afraid of the country that wants an arsenal, I'm afraid of the man who wants to use it. At least the Ruskies didn't want to use theirs b/c they knew we'd wipe them out, and vice versa.
I agree with you that we probably will never completely get rid of nuclear weapons. That is an unfortunate reality. But it is out of control now. And needs to be seriously reigned in. And, at the same time, a gesture of scaling back on nuclear weapons would buy us a lot of bargaining power in these two crucial areas, Iran and NK.
Be a little more far sighted. Look down the road 20 or 30 years. What do we want the world to look like? Lets start moving toward that now. Kim Jong Il and Akmadinnerjacket are blips on the screen. It is the PEOPLE of Iran, and the PEOPLE of North Korea, that are our hope. Just like the American people. They will eventually wise up and do the right thing.
You really dont think Jesus was political? He was a leftist rebel -- opposing organized religion AND the rich and powerful. Obviously.
Do you really think that what we do or say is ACTUALLY being heard or seen by the people of those countries? Have you ever left the country to see how other many other countries, these 2 in particular, control what their people see or hear? The only way to reach them is to decapitate their leadership... and then they won't trust you anyway.
Jesus was apolitical and allpolitical; He is God! He didn't oppose the rich and powerful or the poor; He opposed the unrighteous who would not repent.
The people of Iran CERTAINLY SEE Western television, American movies, and much Western news. They are OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Western, when polled on actual issues. Have YOU ever been out of the country? The NK people are much more sheltered, but they still get information. They arent buying into this Kim Jong Il bullshit. And any one of them would give up their arms and legs to come to America.
Well, I think Jesus was VERY political. Called the Pharisees white-washed tombs!! That is bad-ass!
Yeah, sooo Pro-Western that they do NOTHING about the anti-western megalomaniacs in charge???
Calling the Pharisees white-washed tombs wasn't political, it was spiritual. All they had was religion, but religion without Jesus as LORD is dead b/c w/o HIM, the spirit is dead.
Here's two political paraphrases of Jesus':
1. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's.
2. Obey them that rule over you b/c all power comes from God.
Are you denying that the Iranian people, when polled on specific issues, are overwhelmingly pro-Western? If you say that, you are simply wrong. They will get rid of their megalomaniacs in due time, just like we did in America. The body politic is slow. But when it makes up its mind, it is powerful for change.
The Pharisees thought of it as political. When you criticize the legitimate right of a powerful person to be exercising control other others, and setting laws, that isnt political?
The Pharisees were men who held considerable influence with the Romans, who made and interpreted laws in their local communities -- they were political power brokers. Just like Rick Warren and Pat Robertson.
John the Baptist preached against Herod. He and Jesus were on the same team, right?
Early Christians defied the Romans, did they not? Perhaps they understood Jesus' message a little better than Pat Robertson.
No, Pharisees were more like the "apostles" that lead the Mormon church.
John the Baptist preached against the wickedness of Herod's lifestyle, not his politics.
The Early Christians didn't so much defy the Romans and their church as they stood for Jesus, putting the laws of God as more important than the laws of man. In doing so, they followed the example of Apostles John and Peter.
When the Roman Centurion - a VERY powerful and rich man - came to him seeking his daughter to be healed. What was His response? "I've not seen faith so great in all of Israel!" Hardly opposed him.
What about Nicodemus? The little guy was on the Sanhedrin; EXTREMELY powerful religious leader and yet Jesus had dinner with him and later called him one of His own.
He also opposed the wickedness of the poor. God is not a respector of persons; He promotes righteousness and foregiveness.
Very good point!! Jesus' message definitely TRANSCENDS NATIONAL AND CULTURAL BOUNDARIES. He is saying national allegiances are meaningless. Even cultural matters of dogma, and ritual practice are dispensable. It is between the individual and God. That is the revolution in Jesus' message. He is definitely on the side of the poor -- see Sermon on the Mount. And, you're right, respects ALL PEOPLE, and treats them with compassion, no matter their nationality, culture, or ritual practice.
It was not Jesus who said to obey your masters. I am glad I dont have to defend that statement, though, for the most part, I will defend Jesus' statements.
But the righteous and the unrighteous -- here we go. I'll bet you would consider Mark Twain "unrighteous." I'll bet Ben Franklin would not make it into your heaven. See, thats where I get off. Since who is "righteous" and who is "unrighteous" cannot be known, or even presumed (as Jesus said,) by us, in this life, why even talk about it?
Nope, it wasnt Jesus. It was one of the Epistle writers.
Obey your masters -- what a dumb thing to say. Should the Germans have obeyed Hitler? Should the Chinese have obeyed Mao Tse Tung? "I support my country all the time, and my government, when it deserves it." --Mark Twain. Oh thats right, Mark Twain is "unrighteous" because he didnt "accept the Truth of the Bible" (at least not in the sense you mean.)
I'll take my chances in the afterlife with Mark Twain, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson...
If that be true, you have my pity for your eternity shall be one of misery and pain because those who refuse Jesus Christ can expect nothing but the promised Judgment.
I never refused Jesus. In fact, I know what he said better than you do, apparently.
You're just a petty fundamentalist, who believes what his pastor taught him, and cannot think for himself under penalty of eternal hell-fire. Talk about childish? You employ as much logic and compassion as a Muslim suicide bomber.
First, I'm sorry my attempts to shock you into thinking beyond the twisted tales you were told failed. I shouldn't have done that.
However, my beliefs are based upon my own, careful study of the Bible over the past 30 years or so. God said what He said; changing what He said into something else more palatable to you doesn't change the standards He set and the avenue to escape Judgment that He provided.
So you are still standing by condemning all those billions and billions of people I named to hell?
And you want me to accept your interpretation of the BIble? Sorry, Bud, I believe in a LOVING God -- like I said, the basis of all valid belief systems. You are a fundamentalist. Just exactly like Osama Bin Laden. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY AND FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM. Stop believing in church dogma. It will be the death of all of us.
Yes, Jesus is a loving God - He IS God. But, He's also a righteous and just God and cannot allow wickedness and unrighteousness in His kingdom. That is why He chose to die on the cross for the sins of the world, so that "whosever believeth in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life."
A big difference between Islam and Christianity is Fundamentalist Islam says "Death to all infidels" and fundamentalist Christianity says "Reach and teach people about Jesus Christ before they die and respect their choices."
Fundamentalist Islam proselytizes at the point of a sword or gun but only perversions of Christianity have ever done that. Fundamentalist Christians understand that CHOOSING Christ is an individual's CHOICE, perhaps the only real choice any of us has.
Since we cannot know the truth of the afterlife in this life, we will never know (in this life) who is right, you, Omar, or neither of you.
My money is on NEITHER OF YOU ARE RIGHT. Since what both of you believe is completely illogical and immoral.
I CHOOSE to believe in MORALITY and LOGIC. The Bible CAN BE INTERPRETED with morality and logic. Or you can just swallow the illogical and immoral DOGMAS of the various churches and mosques around.
If you think the Bible says that adherents of other faiths are going to hell -- you are INTERPRETING the Bible in an illogical and immoral way.
A moral person will find morality in the Bible.
A logical person will apply logic to their interpretation of the Bible, and come up with some truths from the BIble which do not defy logic.
From your interpretation of the BIble, I can tell 2 things about you. You are not moral. You are not logical. The Bible is what you think it is. Just like any book
It's logical; Jesus said He is God therefore, those who want to worship God MUST worship Jesus. Those who don't worship Jesus, put another god (notice the little g) before Him.
Jesus claimed to be God; as C.S. Lewis put, that means He's either a) Lunatic, b) Liar, or c) LORD!
I say He is LORD.
Jesus also said that no man knows the Father unless he first knows Jesus as Christ and LORD. Its a postive way of saying the ONLY way to God the Father is through Jesus the Son.
"You must become as a child." I dont think he meant that we should believe everything some self-serving pastor tells us, without question, do you?
Do children claim know things they dont know? Do they condemn other children for relating to God by a different name, and worshiping her with different rituals?
Jesus is going to return and ethnic-cleanse the entire world of every human being who is not a Christian by your definition of Christianity?
No, I don't. As a matter of fact, he told us to compare any prophet (preacher) against the Bible and reject those who teach something different or don't teach the Whole Truth.
That's what I do.
BTW - It does require critical thought to do that...
Face it; try as you might, you cannot redefine me into your public-school indoctrinated characature of a fundamentalist. They failed you and your willingness to continue holding onto their misconceptions prove it.
It requires NO CRITICAL THOUGHT to accept without question what your pastor tells you is true, and then pay him for the service.
Do you believe that your name for God is the only valid name for God?
Do you believe that your BIble is literally true, and no other sacred books are literally true?
If you answered the previous questions in the affirmative then YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST, and yes I agree with you that ALL FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE CARICATURES. You and Osama Bin Laden both.
Its obvious that you're not even reading my comments because you would have seen that I've proven your beliefs about how I came to my believes MANY TIMES.
Quit, please. Your appearing very foolish.
I never accept what ANY PERSON says without question, not my pastor or anyone else.
I don't think I can make it any more clear than that...
Your problem is, I also question, Darwin, Einstein, Kant (he's a moron), etc.
FUNDAMENTALISM is the belief that ones own name for God is the only valid name for God.
That ones own Bible is literally true, and is the only valid sacred book.
Usually fundamentalists believe in hell, and have one male god.
IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL to ACCEOT THESE IMMORAL AND ILLOGICAL NOTIONS to have a loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and to accept his sacrifice for one's salvation (like you said was the ONLY ESSENTIAL BELIEF. Or are you adding more now?)
Apparently your public school education is getting in the way of your understanding of the meaning of simple words. I spelled out the meaning and definition of fundamentalism.
And yes, since God gave us these Truths, one MUST accept them to be true. Logically, the only alternative is to call God a liar, for these are the things He told us about Himself.
Fundamentalism -- whether you think so or not -- IS, IN FACT, the belief that YOUR NAME FOR GOD IS THE ONLY VALID NAME FOR GOD, AND THAT YOUR BIBLE IS THE ONLY VALID SACRED BOOK. Look it up, nut-case.
Either way, by your definition or mine, (and they are both the same at root,) YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST, JUST LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN.
The way you interpret the Bible, tells us all we need to know about your reasoning and intellectual capacity.
You believe that mythology is literally true. People who believe such things are usually children. But in your case, just a mental child.
I'll take my public school education over your Fundamentalist Indoctrination any day. Critical thinking -- try it some time. It doesnt hurt. Ask Jefferson, Franklin, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Twain, Faulkner, Shakespeare...
How can any of the men I mentioned DO ANY GOOD AT ALL, if they werent accepting of the FUNDAMENTALIST DOGMA you espouse?
Wouldnt everything these ungodly men have to say be from SATAN? Isnt that what you fundies say the Bible says?
Its not what the Bible says to me -- but its what YOU SAY IT SAYS.
Whatever you think the Bible says -- reveals what is in YOUR HEART. In your case, arrogance, intolerance, hubris, and false piety. Good luck with that gunk on judgment day.
What did your pastor tell you to believe last Sunday?
How much money did you give him (and it was a him, wasnt it?) to tell you what to believe?
What are you fundies afraid of? Are you afraid you might find out that what your pastor told you was true, isnt true? Wouldnt it be better to know than not know?
Seems like doubting, and asking questions would be a good thing!! But thats just me -- and Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Descartes, Kant, Kirkegard, etc.
He preached from John 13, how that Jesus - GOD - washed the disciples' feet, a role usually reserved for the lowest of the servants. If God, Himself, would stoop to serve others, so shouldn't the rest of us?
I gave what I believe I should give and want to give.
What are we afraid of? Being found to have wasted the gifts given to by Jesus instead of having used those gifts to his honor and glory.
I compare my pastor against the Bible, if he's wrong, I'll find another pastor.
Have you ever gone for a day referring to God with the feminine pronoun, just for fun? Why not? God has no gender, right? So why cant we, just for today call God her?
The Bible says the Bishop (Pastor) is to be the HUSBAND of one wife...
How can a woman be a husband???
Certainly, there were prophetess (female preachers) in the Early church and there are now too; but, to be a Pastor, one must be Husband. Since only men can be husbands, logic follows....
The balance of male and female is evident everywhere in Nature. But your interpretation of God is only male.
Does your god represent only half of Nature? Or does he have a wife?
You also say that your God is all good and only good. But clearly there is "bad" in Nature. Again, does your god represent only half of Nature? Or is there another God in your theology (say Satan?) which accounts for the "bad" things clearly evident in Nature.
Your interpretation of the BIble COMES DIRECTLY, WITHOUT ANY CHANGES AT ALL, from your Pastor.
Do I need to believe that evolution doesnt happen in order to be a Christian? Are we back to that?
Can I be a Christian if I accept the sacrifice of Jesus for my sins, and have a personal relationship with God, but DO NOT ACCEPT that all sincere believers in Buddhism will not burn in hell for eternity?
He thinks he's special, because he thinks his fundamentalist beliefs are correct wheras other people's are not, regardless of anything like evidence, logic or basic morality. Poor deluded fool.
What are the points of this debate that have been settled.
Here's my list:
1.You get all you dogma from your pastor.
2.You are a fundamentalist, just like Osama Bin Laden.
3. Your beliefs are illogical and immoral.
4. Ones interpretation of the Bible says something about them, but nothing about God, that isnt contradicted by another human being's interpretation of the Bible.
5. Me and Shakespeare and Mark Twain will burn in hell, according to you and Osama Bin Laden.
Name one point of interpetation of the Bible with which you disagree with your Pastor.
Name one way in which your absence of critical thinking differs with OBL.
Please defend the morality of Jesus returning and ethnic-cleansing the world. Or the Angel of Death murdering every firstborn child in Egypt. Or....on and on and on.
Please show how anyone can read any book, and have his ideas about that book be definitive -- overruling all other human readers of that book.
So, all I must do is read the Bible and do that which I understand from it?
Cool! That is what I do! And, of course, I always challenge everything I understand from all my reading. I go out of my way to read authors with whom I disagree. I never want to think I know what I dont know for sure. And I never claim to.
Can I also read the Tao Te Ching? The Bhagavad Gita? The Iliad? Early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark that dont include the resurrection? What am I allowed to read?
Shakespeare celebrated pagan mythology and was a homosexual. Read the Sonnets, and Midsummer Nights Dream. Twain was an atheist. So, we will be hanging out in hell, dont you think?
What is the substantive difference between ethnic-cleansing and "punishing wickedness?" What wickedness had the children of Egypt committed?
If OBL accepted what his Imam told him the Qu'ran meant, and you accept what your pastor told you the Bible meant, where is critical thinking employed in either of your cases?
You can't tell me that you still want to argue that I blindly follow my pastor? Do you?
There are none so blind as those who chose not to see.
I have got to get back to work; I'm obviously blogging with a wall here because you never accept anything that outside the dogma the public schools have given you.
If you had ANY critical-thinking skills, we wouldn't be stuck in this rut.
I'm done with you. I wipe the dirt of this conversation from my feet and will no longer blog with you.
I understand that you have to go back to work. No problem, brother.
But, oh my, why the vitriol? I thought this was an exercise in critical thinking and debate, all in good sport. You are wiping the dirt off your feet? Does that mean that it will be better at the judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for me? Whoa, harsh, brother! I would never wish that on anyone. Of course, the way I interpret the Bible, no such sentiment would ever be literally believed -- that would be grossly immoral.
It is a very good thing that modern morality has progressed light-years beyond the primitive morality of the Bible, which, if taken literally, in a childish, simplistic way, is very morally problematic by today's standards.
Hurray for modern morality, critical thinking, pluralistic democracy, and cultural diversity.
Hurray for love, and learning from other cultures and reading the sacred books of other religious traditions.
Stories which, after being passed down orally for centuries, and are finally written down.
Cultural stories whose purpose is to pass along culture to children.
Stories told by primitive people to explain conditions of Nature and human nature.
Stories told using poetic devices, which alert the reader to their metaphorical and figurative nature. Devices like numerical motifs: 3 days, 3 wishes, 3 sisters, 7 brothers, 7 days, 40 days and 40 nights, 40 thieves...
12 months, 12 tribes, 12 disciples..etc. etc. Just a few stories in the Bible which are obviously mythological: The creation story Adam and Eve Noahs Ark Job Jonah and the Big Fish The Tower of Babel Moses and the plagues of Egypt David and Goliath Jesus virgin birth Jesus ascent into heaven. etc etc etc
OH, BTW, didn't Twain also say, it's not what he didn't understand about the Bible that scared him, it was what he did understand that caused him to fear a righteous God?
Ok, we're splitting hairs here. Doctrine is something that is taught and Dogma is a system of doctrines.
However, my doctrine/dogma is not created by a church; my doctrine/dogma is established in the Bible. I then chose a church that is in keeping with my doctrines/dogma.
I find it very compassionate and loving to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that others can also escape Judgment.
I hate to break it to you, but your DOGMA was created by a church -- not by you.
You have accepted a church dogma, and ingested it without question, to the point that you will make the most unloving and immoral statements ever made by ANY religion, and still claim you believe in a loving god.
WRONG, no church created my doctrine or dogma. JESUS created my Dogma.
I have questioned, and continue to question, everything anybody tells me and accept only that which holds true to the Bible.
How dare you claim otherwise! Your statements are made in ignorance because you don't KNOW me well enough to make any such claim. NO, you just assume because you don't understand.
Fundamentalism -- which is what you believe -- IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.
FUNDAMENTALISM IS a wrong way to interpret the BIble, which no thinking person would ever come up with reading the BIble on their own. It is ONLY CHURCHES, who have much to gain by teaching others that their way is the ONLY WAY, that teach this bullshit.
Your DOGMA was taught to you in a church, by a church authority (Pastor, Priest, Minister) and you know it. DONT LIE, GOD IS WATCHING YOU AND YOU'LL GO TO HELL.
What does "fundamental" mean? That which is NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL.
To say that I am a Fundamentalist Christian is to say that I believe what is NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL to be a Christian. The other side of that coin is False Christianity; those who do not hold to what is NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL.
Have you ACTUALLY read the Bible? I have, many times. I can honestly tell you that as much as possibly can, hold myself to Its teaching, not some churches.
Yes, I have read the Bible, more than once. And I obviously know it better than you. Have you taken a look at John 5 yet?
You are lying about not adhering to the dogma of a church. You are flat-out bold-faced lying right in the presence of God and Man. How do I know this? Because NO ONE would come up with FUNDAMENTALIST beliefs from reading the Bible.
The Bible will say to each person what they already believe. Unless they swallow some Pastor's dogma out of fear.
If God has committed all judgment to the Son, then why are you judging?
Each reader will find, in the Bible, what they already believe. The real question is: Why do you need to believe that your way is the only way, that you are right and everyone is wrong?
Fear? A need to feel that you are better? More pious? Smarter? Luckier?
Why is it important enough to you to believe that YOU are right, that you would be willing to CONDEMN EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING, RELIGION AND CULTURE TO HELL?
The sad thing is when you figure out the BIBLE is totally true it will be too late to accept the belief of the BIBLE.
pauls74462 2 years ago
☻/
/▌
/ \
CrocodileMonkey 2 years ago
Nuclear weapons should be banned altogether. Wouldn't want to get hit by one, no matter how bad incompetent my government may be... I guess this is a common sense.
Antoshik81 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
♥ Obama Rocks. ♥
♥ Best president in so many years ♥
♥ Woo! Go Obama. ♥ Copy and Paste If You Totally Agree, And please copy this part: Rikkigurls made this comment. If you have a prob, say it to my face.
Rikkigurls 2 years ago
"turn that frown upside down"
on the dollar is far less offensive then that disgusting
"in God we trust" crap
samhamels 2 years ago
D'ohBama is getting schooled; what an imbecile we have for President now.
I think I considered his childish, foolish notions of World Peace and Disarmament when I was 10 or 11 but quickly grew up. Too bad our president is still has an infants logic.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Well, Ted, do you actually live in Las Vegas? Ronald Reagan said exactly the same thing Obama did. Reagan almost signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with Gorbachev in Rekyevik,(sp?) Iceland. "Star Wars" missile defense tech (which still doesnt work,) got in the way. Why are people so emotional in their criticism of Obama. Racism maybe?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Yes, I live here.
Reagan's proposal was total disarmament of MISSILES (only) if we also build SDI, which could've been done and eventually was - on a MUCH smaller scale. Gorby said no and that he wanted to rely, completely, on offensive weapons.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Is Charles Krauthammer alive? Human? A big wooden puppet?
SubmarinerAndroid 2 years ago
He is an extension of the Cheney-bot.
lamouchemorte 2 years ago
fucking terrifying is what he is
nomercyrules10 2 years ago
Haha nice editing!
no but seriously, why would saying that getting rid of nukes all together be stupid ? He doesn't mean it'll happen in the next year or 2 obviously.. but how awesome is it for a US president to make clear that the final goal is peace, and NO nukes.
samhamels 2 years ago
Jesus! Reagan said the same thing!! Why is this controversial?
If we want Iran and North Korea to disarm, we have to do it too. Fair is fair.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
just for the record, you're agreeing with me right ?
samhamels 2 years ago
If you think nuclear weapons are bad, and need to be done away with -- I agree with you.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Only a child, or someone older with the mentality of a child, believes that any weapon is "bad" or "good".
A weapon, regardless of type, is a tool which can be used for good or bad, depending on who's wielding it.
D'ohBama is a fool and a tool. 3 years from now, people will longing for the days of Bush.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Sometimes children see life quite clearly, since they dont get confused by Fox News Rove/Gingrich spin.
Take a look at the pictures of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons are bad. A child can understand THAT reality.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Yes, but what children, and fools, normally miss is that had we not dropped the bombs, and killed a half-million, we would have invaded. The invasion expected to produce 25 MILLION Japaneese casualties and a MILLION US casualties.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
It is a matter of definition, with you, I guess.
What is good?
What does it mean to work?
Particle beams? That must have been what Newt wanted to fire at Kim Jong Il. Problem is, the weapon DOESNT WORK. And if the Republicans get their way, spend billions and billions more on this fantasy, and derail nuclear disarmament again, and get a test weapon in space -- the Chinese will promptly shoot it down (that test WAS successful.)
Keep on licking Rove and Gingrich's asses. They sure love you!!
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Particle Beams were the science that the media glommed onto; but the backbone of SDI was interceptor missile - WHICH DO WORK (13 of 14!!!!!!)
The problem with disarmement is that you can't always - never should - trust the other side to follow through on the on the disarmement.
Out of all of the treaties we made with the USSR (SALT, SALT II, START, ABM, etc.), how many did the USSR not break?
1 - The ABM treaty. They broke EVERY other agreement.
Disarmament = idiocy
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
SDI was supposed to be a "space-based defense." That was the whole point. No such thing exists today -- thank god.
Interceptor missiles (designed to defeat intercontinental ballistic missiles,) that have been tested, have been tested under highly biased conditions, and held to extremely low standards of success. So your 13 out 14 statistic is BULLSHIT by any real weapon usefulness standard. No space based weapons exist.
Is disagree with you on disarmament. Morality and history are with me.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
WRONG, Strategic Defense Initiative was a proposal for a multi-layered defense system and the last line of defense was ground-based missiles.
The only "biased" NMD tests were under Clinton b/c the White House demanded that we use pulse radar in track phase instead of doppler. Any halfwit can tell you that doppler is much better at tracking high-speed targets and since ICBMs travel at better than 14,000 mph, doppler is the way to go.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Then I guess you agree with me that no space-based missile defense exists, after billions and billions and billions have been spent on it. And hopefully you can see that this is a very good thing (we dont really want a war with China.)
Republicans and their weapons!!! They must all have small dicks.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Hah, very funny but also very wrong.
First, we discovered we can adequately defend ourselves without going into space, so why bother spending that much?
Two, SDI launched a tech-revolution in the 90's that Clinton rode. Fiber-optics came from SDI. 3G cell phones came from SDI. A lot of tech inventions came from SDI; I bet you even enjoy some of those.
BTW, we had Anti-Sat technology back in the early 80's; China's is nothing new.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
To your number two -- how about next time we spend the money on the desired technology, and skip the non-functioning weapons system -- cut to the chase -- save lots of money.
I know that anti-sat technology is pretty low tech these days. You support my point again. If all our fancy (and enormously expensive) SDI Reagan bullshit can be shot down by a low tech missile, whats the point of it?
Thanks for agreeing with me on almost every point. I guess bi-partisanship CAN be achieved after all.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
OK, but you then suffer NO tech revolution or economic expansion AND you never find out what technologies BEST provide the defense that is the national government's PRIMARY responsibility.
Why is that liberals always want to get chinzy on our PRIMARY responsibilities but have no problem throwing money at our luxuries and lesser responsibilities?
BTW - Land-based NMD is a not sufficient enough shield and we have to keep our missiles. SDI would allow us to get rid of all missiles.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
If we put the money DIRECTLY toward tech, it seems to me we get a BETTER, STRONGER tech revolution.
We know that nuclear weapons will have no usefulness in the battles we will be fighting in the future. So if it is really peace and security that you are worried about, nuclear weapons are a waste of money toward that end. And we already agreed that SDI (easily shot down) is an extreme waste of money.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Check your history, almost every tech revolution came about by military spending.
Canned foods? military invention
Facsimile machines? military invention
Radio/RADAR? military invention
Modern medicine? mostly from military invention
It is the history of mankind that the inventions come, mostly, from military necessity and THEN civilian applications are found for those inventions.
SDI would not be "easily shot down" because the same tech used to shoot missiles could defend it.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Okay, well here is my RADICAL idea. Lets start spending the money on the technology for peaceful uses (as Obama is doing,) and stop wasting money on weapons systems that have no future use. Remember we are not talking about ALL weapons tech. We are arguing the usefulness of NUCLEAR weapons, and SDI, for the future.
Your confidence in SDI is unfounded. You probably want to insure the rights of every teenage boy in downtown Baltimore to easily get an automatic military style rifle. Same logic.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Oh, but my confidence is NOT unfounded because it is based on a LEARNED foundation.
Obama is a fool to weaken our military and play nice with our enemies. Putin, Jintao and others are running circles around that moron-in-cheif and he - and his blind followers - are too stupid to even realize it.
Mark my words, 3 years from now you'll be longing for the days of President Bush.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
I will check back with you in 3 years.
Iraq War (which never should have been fought,) -- OVER.
Wall Street -- REGULATED.
Public schools -- BETTER
Health care -- CHEAPER FOR ALL.
American made sustainable energy -- WELL ON ITS WAY.
The environment -- LESS RAVAGED.
Bush? If ever there was a moron-in-chief, it was him. You are one of the 21% huh? Do you think the earth is 6000 years old too?
Say what you want about Obama. But "moron" he aint. That accusation is sheer bullshit.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Well, you're wrong. We were obligated since 1994 to go into Iraq but had a WIMP of a president in the 90s.
Public schools are bad and getting worse.
Health care is becoming less available for all - a necessary result of government intervention. (Do you know anything about Economics?)
"Sustainable" Energy is in the realm of FOUR TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE; so poor people will now have to freeze in the winter and cook in the summer.
Environment? Yes, we now have no freedom to experience our land.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
You are a member of the 21 club. The last 21% of diehards who still believe Dick Cheney's fear mongering bullshit.
Public schools have been spending millions on redundant standardized tests, which have done NOTHING to improve learning. They will improve with Obama's support.
You blame lack of availability of health care on the government? You're kidding right?
In the near future, local communities will have their own solar and wind power plants, providing INEXPENSIVE energy to neighborhoods
taoofmichael 2 years ago
It wouldn't be the first time the majority was WRONG.
Solar and wind power are FAR MORE EXPENSIVE; do you understand the DIFFERENCE between EXPENSIVE and INEXPENSIVE.
(And you're trying to tell me that public schools are good? You don't even understand that Solar, at 4 times more expensive than coal, and wind, at 3 times more expensive than coal, are MORE EXPENSIVE than coal!!! What? Can't follow SIMPLE LOGIC!?!?!?!?!?
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Okay, simple logic. EXPENSIVE = something which comes at great cost. To me, blowing the tops off of mountains, and letting the refuse run into the river is A GREAT COST.
Sure, making the TRANSITION will be costly. But once solar plants, and wind plants are set up in every community (along with rain-water collection systems, which are also badly needed,) energy will be cheaper than it is now. I have solar panels. Once you put them in, the power is practically free.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
OK, moron. A solar plant costs as much as a coal plant to build and operate - over a 40-year cycle. The solar plant produces a FRACTION of the electricity a coal plant produces. We'd have to cover THE ENTIRE country with Solar collectors to get HALF of the electricity we need.
THAT'S not environmentally friendly, moron.
"blowing the tops off of mountains"? I guess you've never actually seen a coal mine. THAT never happens. I've been to quite a few.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Now you are really showing your ignorance. The tops of mountains ARE, IN FACT, blown off to extract coal. Google Tenn mountaintop coal extraction.
Large solar plants in the Southwestern deserts, and wind farms in the North, along with small community solar and wind power plants, very near the neighborhoods they serve, plus individual home panels, could easily replace oil and coal power plants. Your claim is FALSE. In fact, all the claims in your last post are FALSE and/or ignorant.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Yes, I live within 20 miles of the two largest Solar plants on this continent.
Neither will EVER recover their capital-investment outlays unless we're all paying $2.00 / KW hour.
Combined, both produce LESS ELECTRICITY than the single-stack coal plant I grew up next to in Hayden, CO.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
OK, I admit, mountaintop coal extraction is new to me.
Still, its better than believing the Solar Power lie!
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
BTW - Breast Cancer detection developed from the SDI X-Ray laser program. I guess you would rather more women suffer from Breast Cancer...
So was modern insulation (SEAgel).
The Particle Beam tech can be used to neutralize nuclear waste, safeguarding our planet - but you obviously don't want that.
The chemical lasers developed for SDI led to modern LASIK eye correction; I guess you don't want that either.
Get a clue and try again.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
SDI is a welfare program for weapons engineers. Useless and extremely expensive.
I would submit that clean air, clean food, clean water, clean home-made energy, well equipped conventional military and special forces, basic health-care for our people, good education for all children, and the JOBS which will be created providing these things to Americans-- THESE ARE PRIMARY NEEDS.
The only jobs Republicans want to create are war jobs -- killing jobs. "The culture of life" indeed!!!
taoofmichael 2 years ago
So, you don't like being safe or having technological advances? That's funny, or sad if true.
Clean air, food, etc are important but don't matter a hill of beans if OBL, Kim Sung IL or Hu Jintao drops a nuke in your backyard.
Defense saves lives and provides a better life for ALL citizens, maybe if you get a real education you'd know that. But, I bet you bought the public schools' lies.
If you want a good education, go to a private schools. The american public school system failed.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Lots of ad hominem, and no substance, in your last post. Yes I went to public school, and proud of it. So, do you have a substantive point you want to make?
Thought not.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
It's a proven fact that the average SAT score of a private-school is substantially higher than that of public-school.
Besides, having been both, I can tell you the academics are much tougher in the cheapest and smallest of private schools than the best public schools. (My last year in a public school was in a top-20 academics ranked high school, nationwide).
Public schools are indoctrination camps, not education centers. What better explanation for your (and others') lack of wisdom.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Private school students generally have more educated parents. When you consider the wide range of students that public schools educate, they are doing a remarkable job. With fewer millions spent on redundant standardized testing (which most states already had,) they will do much better. America should be very proud of our public school systems -- which welcome ALL children, rich and poor. Easy to criticize, but why do it? I dont get it? You dont want to see poor children educated?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Really, so when the poorer parents in Wash DC were allowed to send their kids to Private schools - until Obama's friends killed the program - and those children of poorer parents substantially improved their education matters nothing to you?
OHHH, the callousness of the modern liberal. So tied to ideology that they refuse to learn or care about others!
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Vouchers have been tried several times and have always led to substantial improvement in the education of the poor.
Liberals hate vouchers even though PROVEN far more effective than public schools.
Liberals must HATE poor kids.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Yeah, thats it. Obama hates poor kids.
Listen to yourself.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
No, that was sarcasm (another thing public school kids don't understand?)
He's just too stupid to see that thowing good money after bad doesn't fix anything.
Are you that stupid too?
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
So you think that Obama should have let the financial system collapse? Okay.
Of course, it was not Obama's fault that the financial system is in danger of collapsing. (He has been president for 78 days.) So you cant blame him until Sept 11. (Unless you want to accept that Bush was to blame for 9-11 happening on his watch.)
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Study economics, its called constructive destruction. Yes, I'd rather see some companies collapse because the long run benefits FAR outweigh the temporary pain.
What Obama is doing is putting bandaids on heartfailure and broken bones and giving pain killers. I'd rather fix the problem. (And yes, Obama's making the SAME mistakes Bush made.)
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Lets recap, you say:
Cheney and Bush were right on Iraq war.
Mountaintop coal extraction doesnt happen.
We should wait 100 years to START transitioning to sustainable power.
The earth is 6000 years old, and private schools who teach this are BETTER than highly regulated public schools.
Remind me again, why should I take your rambling seriously?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
I never said the earth is 6000 years old, don't put words in my mouth - IDIOT!
Yes, Bush was right; we were obligated by law to do what he did. Maybe you libs like breaking laws and commitments, I don't.
We should wait until solar power is viable; unless you libs want the poor to start burning wood and coal in their home to stay warm. Even I couldn't afford $500/mo to heat my home; which is what Solar power would cost.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Here is an economics lesson for you -- the economies of scale:
Solar power will become cheaper per watt, when it is produced in larger quanities. Remember the cost of the first calculators? The first digital cameras? Now you can get a good one for $100. The same thing will happen with solar and wind power -- not to mention the manufacturing jobs.
So you really think we should wait 100 years to START transitioning to sustainable power?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Even economics must bow to the laws of physics.
We CANNOT produce enough electricity through Solar or Wind. We would, literally, have to convert EVERY SQUARE INCH of this country to solar power plant - leaving no room for homes, businesses or wildlife - to supply a FRACTION of our electricity needs.
It's just not possible! Furthermore, wasting our money on this now drives up the cost of energy, hurting the poor - something that libs evidently don't care about.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Those last statements are just made up. You made them up, or you heard them form Hannity or Rush. It just isnt true. Its a lie. Completely false. No basis in fact. No evidence. Untrue.
As I said, large desert power plants, combined with wind farms, small community-based plants, individual panels and wind generators, plus geo-thermal, and our existing hydro-electric plants, could EASILY replace oil and coal and nuclear power plants. It is being done in Australia and Iceland now. It CAN BE DONE.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Calling me a liar? MORON! No, that comes from a comparison of power output.
Again, the combined output of the 2 largest Solar plants on this continent are a fraction of what a small, coal plant puts out. That is a fact, not made up!
In fact, the Nellis power plant cost $100 million to build and will produce - at current prices - only $40 million worth of electricity over it's lifetime.
Do you call that cost effective?
We could use more dams, but greenies hate those too.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Here is where the economies of scale lesson I gave you comes into play.
I have six solar panels. I have all the power I need. I run power tools, frig. lights, anything I want. In Australia they have community solar plants that supply power to the whole neighborhood. They also collect rainwater for the whole community. In Iceland, they heat almost all the homes wioth geo-thermal power.
I think we can do it. You dont. Obama does. Bush didnt. We'll see who is right.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Economics of scale?
Given that you are providing power for your residence and that residences make up a fraction of total power consuming, you're just shaving off a miniscule fraction of total power of the community.
Good for you! For the time being, this is THE only cost-effective scale.
Those Aussie communities still get ALOT of power from other means AND THEIR COSTS HAVE SKYROCKETED.
We're in enough money trouble, why make it worse? It hurts the poor more than anyone else.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
No. The Aussies I am referring to DO NOT get power from any other sources. You are talking out of your ass, again.
Multiply what I am doing by 50 million, and the problem is solved. And think of the jobs.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
I'm sorry, JOBS? Recent studies show that for each 1 "green" job created; 2.2 old jobs are destroyed!
JOBS????
Think about the poor who won't be able to heat their homes anymore!
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Yes, and especially MANUFACTURING jobs.
When we ramp up to build solar equip, and wind equip, and all geo-thermal etc. etc. etc. millions of MANUFACTURING jobs will be created.
WHICH JOBS WILL BE ELIMINATED AS A RESULT OF THIS RAMP UP?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Let me ask you again to tell me where the TRILLIONS of fossils necessary to prove evolution are.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
If you want to teach your children that Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel are scientific facts, and evolution is not a scientific reality, that is your call. But thank god and Thomas Jefferson that no child will be taught mythology as truth in any government regulated public school.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
It is incredibly ironic that you live in one of the most obscene power-sucking cities in the world, right next to one of the most perfect deserts for solar collection, and you are arguing against developing solar power plants.
Time to join the 21rst century! Support Obama in his efforts to transition the USA from Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, and filthy coal (which we have known is filthy since Charles Dickens,) to solar, wind, geo-thermal, (and natural gas to help with the transition.)
taoofmichael 2 years ago
It is incredibly ironic that you still don't understand the limitations of the science of Solar power.
Let me say this again; maybe, just maybe, your limited, public-schooled brain can catch this:
WE CANNOT PRODUCE ENOUGH ELECTRICITY FROM SOLAR TO MAKE IT WORTH WHILE, even if we convert ALL of the land in the US into a huge Solar power plant!
BTW - What are the main uses of electricity in LV?
1. Water pumps
2. Offices and business
3. Residential use
4. The lights of the strip.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
BTW - We've been able to burn coal cleanly since the 1990s... So why don't you get up to date with Science?
Guess what, we've found a way to use algae to COMPLETELY scrub coal emissions and then use the algae as bio-diesel.
Again, it is the public-school kid that can't handle the science.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
You are confused. The algae into bio-fuel thing is real. But still burning things that dont need to be burned to produce energy. Clean coal does not exist, has never existed.
You dont think evolution is a biological reality, and you want to give me a lesson in science. No thanks, fundie.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
You can't prove the fundamentals of your scientific beliefs, and you fault ME?
Talk about problem avoidence! Go stick your head in the sand!
Its the favorite position for libs when reality smacks them upside the head!
Clean coal is a reality and has been for decades. Denying it doesn't make you right, it just makes you a moron.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Do you think Noah's Ark actually happened?
Who cant prove the fundamentals of their beliefs?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
AHHH, the difference is that at least I'm honest enough to admit that some of my beliefs are based on faith rather than sciences that fail everytime its tested.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
There is no rational argument to be had with someone whose beliefs are based on faith.
I have faith that porpoises will solve the AIG problem. Prove I'm wrong.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Yeah, I don't doubt your beliefs; good luck with that!
Afterall, you do believe a "scientific" hypothesis that has failed every test applied to it!
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Please look up Francis Collins, bornagain scientist, leader of the Human Genome Project, wrote a book called The Language of God. He believes in evolution, but is still a Christian.
Do you think one can be a Christian, and still believe in evolution? If so, why waste hot air on the argument?
I'm certainly not going to waste time arguing with someone who believes the BIble is literally, historically, and scientifically true.
Its like arguing with a Republican.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Yes, the only thing necessary to be a Christian is to understand that we've all sinned and are unworthy of Heaven but that God became a man, in the person of Jesus Christ, and died on the cross for everyone's sins. Those who then call on Jesus as Lord and Savior will be saved from the Judgment for their sins.
You can be wrong about just about anything and everything else and if you have that right, you're saved from Judgment.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
That was sarcasm. I guess they dont teach that in private schools like the one you went to. I guess they taught you at that private school that the Bible is literally true, and nuclear weapons have made the world safer. What an education you got!!!
taoofmichael 2 years ago
What I got was an education in reality.
BTW - I never said that nuclear weapons made the world safer; I only said that disarming brings war, death and slavery.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Okay, and I never said that I wanted to disarm, either. I said I think we should negotiate a vast reduction in nuclear weapons. This would give us SOME credibility in our dealings with Iran and North Korea. I mean, who can take our argument seriously now? Then take the money we were spending on that, and SDI, and build the most phenomenal and technologically advanced conventional and anti-terrorism army and intelligence network the world has ever seen.
That is what Obama is going to do.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Can't have it both ways. We need to either have an effective, large-scale shield or have enough weapons to overwhelm the largest of our potential nuclear foes.
The problem with NK and Iran is that both have SAID that they would use the weapons that are developed.
I'm not afraid of the country that wants an arsenal, I'm afraid of the man who wants to use it. At least the Ruskies didn't want to use theirs b/c they knew we'd wipe them out, and vice versa.
NK & Iran would use them.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
I agree with you that we probably will never completely get rid of nuclear weapons. That is an unfortunate reality. But it is out of control now. And needs to be seriously reigned in. And, at the same time, a gesture of scaling back on nuclear weapons would buy us a lot of bargaining power in these two crucial areas, Iran and NK.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
No, it won't.
How do you bargain with someone who's opening line is "You're evil and should die"?
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Be a little more far sighted. Look down the road 20 or 30 years. What do we want the world to look like? Lets start moving toward that now. Kim Jong Il and Akmadinnerjacket are blips on the screen. It is the PEOPLE of Iran, and the PEOPLE of North Korea, that are our hope. Just like the American people. They will eventually wise up and do the right thing.
You really dont think Jesus was political? He was a leftist rebel -- opposing organized religion AND the rich and powerful. Obviously.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Do you really think that what we do or say is ACTUALLY being heard or seen by the people of those countries? Have you ever left the country to see how other many other countries, these 2 in particular, control what their people see or hear? The only way to reach them is to decapitate their leadership... and then they won't trust you anyway.
Jesus was apolitical and allpolitical; He is God! He didn't oppose the rich and powerful or the poor; He opposed the unrighteous who would not repent.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
The people of Iran CERTAINLY SEE Western television, American movies, and much Western news. They are OVERWHELMINGLY pro-Western, when polled on actual issues. Have YOU ever been out of the country? The NK people are much more sheltered, but they still get information. They arent buying into this Kim Jong Il bullshit. And any one of them would give up their arms and legs to come to America.
Well, I think Jesus was VERY political. Called the Pharisees white-washed tombs!! That is bad-ass!
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Yeah, sooo Pro-Western that they do NOTHING about the anti-western megalomaniacs in charge???
Calling the Pharisees white-washed tombs wasn't political, it was spiritual. All they had was religion, but religion without Jesus as LORD is dead b/c w/o HIM, the spirit is dead.
Here's two political paraphrases of Jesus':
1. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's.
2. Obey them that rule over you b/c all power comes from God.
Doesn't sound too rebellious to me.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Are you denying that the Iranian people, when polled on specific issues, are overwhelmingly pro-Western? If you say that, you are simply wrong. They will get rid of their megalomaniacs in due time, just like we did in America. The body politic is slow. But when it makes up its mind, it is powerful for change.
The Pharisees thought of it as political. When you criticize the legitimate right of a powerful person to be exercising control other others, and setting laws, that isnt political?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
The Pharisees were not political; they were religious and theological.
Herod the Tetrarch was the local ruler and Pilate was the Roman Governor; they were political.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two theological groups of the Sanhedrin - the leaders of the Jewish religion at that time.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
The Pharisees were men who held considerable influence with the Romans, who made and interpreted laws in their local communities -- they were political power brokers. Just like Rick Warren and Pat Robertson.
John the Baptist preached against Herod. He and Jesus were on the same team, right?
Early Christians defied the Romans, did they not? Perhaps they understood Jesus' message a little better than Pat Robertson.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
No, Pharisees were more like the "apostles" that lead the Mormon church.
John the Baptist preached against the wickedness of Herod's lifestyle, not his politics.
The Early Christians didn't so much defy the Romans and their church as they stood for Jesus, putting the laws of God as more important than the laws of man. In doing so, they followed the example of Apostles John and Peter.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
When the Roman Centurion - a VERY powerful and rich man - came to him seeking his daughter to be healed. What was His response? "I've not seen faith so great in all of Israel!" Hardly opposed him.
What about Nicodemus? The little guy was on the Sanhedrin; EXTREMELY powerful religious leader and yet Jesus had dinner with him and later called him one of His own.
He also opposed the wickedness of the poor. God is not a respector of persons; He promotes righteousness and foregiveness.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Very good point!! Jesus' message definitely TRANSCENDS NATIONAL AND CULTURAL BOUNDARIES. He is saying national allegiances are meaningless. Even cultural matters of dogma, and ritual practice are dispensable. It is between the individual and God. That is the revolution in Jesus' message. He is definitely on the side of the poor -- see Sermon on the Mount. And, you're right, respects ALL PEOPLE, and treats them with compassion, no matter their nationality, culture, or ritual practice.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
No, he treats the righteous equally; those who choose unrighteousness, He will judge. He said so himself.
He also said to obey the governments in charge.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
It was not Jesus who said to obey your masters. I am glad I dont have to defend that statement, though, for the most part, I will defend Jesus' statements.
But the righteous and the unrighteous -- here we go. I'll bet you would consider Mark Twain "unrighteous." I'll bet Ben Franklin would not make it into your heaven. See, thats where I get off. Since who is "righteous" and who is "unrighteous" cannot be known, or even presumed (as Jesus said,) by us, in this life, why even talk about it?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Yes, it was Jesus who said we should obey our masters.
Righteous / Unrighteous is easy; those who accept the Truth of the Bible and call on Jesus to save them are Righteous; those who don't, aren't.
That is the simplicity of Salvation as God created it.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Nope, it wasnt Jesus. It was one of the Epistle writers.
Obey your masters -- what a dumb thing to say. Should the Germans have obeyed Hitler? Should the Chinese have obeyed Mao Tse Tung? "I support my country all the time, and my government, when it deserves it." --Mark Twain. Oh thats right, Mark Twain is "unrighteous" because he didnt "accept the Truth of the Bible" (at least not in the sense you mean.)
I'll take my chances in the afterlife with Mark Twain, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson...
taoofmichael 2 years ago
If that be true, you have my pity for your eternity shall be one of misery and pain because those who refuse Jesus Christ can expect nothing but the promised Judgment.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
I never refused Jesus. In fact, I know what he said better than you do, apparently.
You're just a petty fundamentalist, who believes what his pastor taught him, and cannot think for himself under penalty of eternal hell-fire. Talk about childish? You employ as much logic and compassion as a Muslim suicide bomber.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
First, I'm sorry my attempts to shock you into thinking beyond the twisted tales you were told failed. I shouldn't have done that.
However, my beliefs are based upon my own, careful study of the Bible over the past 30 years or so. God said what He said; changing what He said into something else more palatable to you doesn't change the standards He set and the avenue to escape Judgment that He provided.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
So you are still standing by condemning all those billions and billions of people I named to hell?
And you want me to accept your interpretation of the BIble? Sorry, Bud, I believe in a LOVING God -- like I said, the basis of all valid belief systems. You are a fundamentalist. Just exactly like Osama Bin Laden. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY AND FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM. Stop believing in church dogma. It will be the death of all of us.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
I condemn no one; I'm just telling the truth.
Yes, Jesus is a loving God - He IS God. But, He's also a righteous and just God and cannot allow wickedness and unrighteousness in His kingdom. That is why He chose to die on the cross for the sins of the world, so that "whosever believeth in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life."
It is not dogma, it is doctrine.
BTW - He is also God of War...
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
A big difference between Islam and Christianity is Fundamentalist Islam says "Death to all infidels" and fundamentalist Christianity says "Reach and teach people about Jesus Christ before they die and respect their choices."
Fundamentalist Islam proselytizes at the point of a sword or gun but only perversions of Christianity have ever done that. Fundamentalist Christians understand that CHOOSING Christ is an individual's CHOICE, perhaps the only real choice any of us has.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Problem is, if you choose to be a Buddhist, he sends you to a burning lake of fire forever.
And that makes him better than the Muslim God, how again?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Maybe you missed the point.
He IS God.
There is no Muslim God, only a Muslim god, Allah.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
TedinLasVegas sez There is no Muslim God.
Omar in Iraq sez there is.
Score 1-1
Its a tie.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Omar is wrong; eternity will prove it.
Score:
God 1
Everyone else 0
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Since we cannot know the truth of the afterlife in this life, we will never know (in this life) who is right, you, Omar, or neither of you.
My money is on NEITHER OF YOU ARE RIGHT. Since what both of you believe is completely illogical and immoral.
I CHOOSE to believe in MORALITY and LOGIC. The Bible CAN BE INTERPRETED with morality and logic. Or you can just swallow the illogical and immoral DOGMAS of the various churches and mosques around.
ITS YOUR CHOICE! Love or Dogma.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
The Bible is not interpreted with morality and logic, IT IS MORALITY AND LOGIC.
Again, maybe you missed my multiple statements, I found a church that believes what I believe - NOT the other way around.
Love is part of my dogma; so is THE WHOLE Truth - not just that which I find palatable.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
If you think the Bible says that adherents of other faiths are going to hell -- you are INTERPRETING the Bible in an illogical and immoral way.
A moral person will find morality in the Bible.
A logical person will apply logic to their interpretation of the Bible, and come up with some truths from the BIble which do not defy logic.
From your interpretation of the BIble, I can tell 2 things about you. You are not moral. You are not logical. The Bible is what you think it is. Just like any book
taoofmichael 2 years ago
It's logical; Jesus said He is God therefore, those who want to worship God MUST worship Jesus. Those who don't worship Jesus, put another god (notice the little g) before Him.
Jesus claimed to be God; as C.S. Lewis put, that means He's either a) Lunatic, b) Liar, or c) LORD!
I say He is LORD.
Jesus also said that no man knows the Father unless he first knows Jesus as Christ and LORD. Its a postive way of saying the ONLY way to God the Father is through Jesus the Son.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
CS Lewis denied fundamentalist doctrine toward the end of his life. As did Mother Theresa. Read his last book, A Grief Observed.
Some day, you will grow up too.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Hope not, Jesus said that unless you come to the father as child, you may not enter into His kingdom.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
"You must become as a child." I dont think he meant that we should believe everything some self-serving pastor tells us, without question, do you?
Do children claim know things they dont know? Do they condemn other children for relating to God by a different name, and worshiping her with different rituals?
Jesus is going to return and ethnic-cleanse the entire world of every human being who is not a Christian by your definition of Christianity?
Would a child ever come up with that excrement?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
No, I don't. As a matter of fact, he told us to compare any prophet (preacher) against the Bible and reject those who teach something different or don't teach the Whole Truth.
That's what I do.
BTW - It does require critical thought to do that...
Face it; try as you might, you cannot redefine me into your public-school indoctrinated characature of a fundamentalist. They failed you and your willingness to continue holding onto their misconceptions prove it.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
It requires NO CRITICAL THOUGHT to accept without question what your pastor tells you is true, and then pay him for the service.
Do you believe that your name for God is the only valid name for God?
Do you believe that your BIble is literally true, and no other sacred books are literally true?
If you answered the previous questions in the affirmative then YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST, and yes I agree with you that ALL FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE CARICATURES. You and Osama Bin Laden both.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
You're just spouting now.
Its obvious that you're not even reading my comments because you would have seen that I've proven your beliefs about how I came to my believes MANY TIMES.
Quit, please. Your appearing very foolish.
I never accept what ANY PERSON says without question, not my pastor or anyone else.
I don't think I can make it any more clear than that...
Your problem is, I also question, Darwin, Einstein, Kant (he's a moron), etc.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
What were those ESSENTIAL BELIEFS AGAIN?
Are Catholics going to heaven?
How about Pentecostals?
Methodists?
Mormons?
Jehovah's Witnesses?
Anglicans?
OH I GET IT. Its your pastor's way or the highway.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
FUNDAMENTALISM is the belief that ones own name for God is the only valid name for God.
That ones own Bible is literally true, and is the only valid sacred book.
Usually fundamentalists believe in hell, and have one male god.
IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL to ACCEOT THESE IMMORAL AND ILLOGICAL NOTIONS to have a loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and to accept his sacrifice for one's salvation (like you said was the ONLY ESSENTIAL BELIEF. Or are you adding more now?)
taoofmichael 2 years ago
No, you are wrong about Fundamentalism.
Apparently your public school education is getting in the way of your understanding of the meaning of simple words. I spelled out the meaning and definition of fundamentalism.
And yes, since God gave us these Truths, one MUST accept them to be true. Logically, the only alternative is to call God a liar, for these are the things He told us about Himself.
I'm not prepared to call God a liar.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
I didnt call God a liar. I called YOU a liar.
Fundamentalism -- whether you think so or not -- IS, IN FACT, the belief that YOUR NAME FOR GOD IS THE ONLY VALID NAME FOR GOD, AND THAT YOUR BIBLE IS THE ONLY VALID SACRED BOOK. Look it up, nut-case.
Either way, by your definition or mine, (and they are both the same at root,) YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALIST, JUST LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN.
How sad for you, and for the world.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Check Acts 4:12: For their is no other name, given under Heaven, whereby we must be saved.
John 3:16: For God gave His only begotten Son, that whosever should believe on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
I didn't say Jesus is the only way; HE said it. (I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.)
Being a Fundamentalist Christian is entirely different than a Fundamentalist of any other religion. I've explained that before, I'm done.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
The way you interpret the Bible, tells us all we need to know about your reasoning and intellectual capacity.
You believe that mythology is literally true. People who believe such things are usually children. But in your case, just a mental child.
I'll take my public school education over your Fundamentalist Indoctrination any day. Critical thinking -- try it some time. It doesnt hurt. Ask Jefferson, Franklin, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Twain, Faulkner, Shakespeare...
Grow up fundies!!
taoofmichael 2 years ago
You can't truly be a fundamentalist without first exercising critical thought.
On the other hand, none of those people you mentioned were God or a prophet of God. They were simply well-educated men trying develop a better world.
I hope that each of them accepted Christ as Savior and believe a couple of them did. But their worldly wisdom in no way supplants the Word of God.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Fundamentalism and critical thought are ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTORY.
Fundamentalism does not allow questioning or doubt -- which are the basis of critical thought.
None of the men I mentioned believed what you believe. So we'll all be hanging out in hell, according to you, and Osama Bin Laden.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
How can any of the men I mentioned DO ANY GOOD AT ALL, if they werent accepting of the FUNDAMENTALIST DOGMA you espouse?
Wouldnt everything these ungodly men have to say be from SATAN? Isnt that what you fundies say the Bible says?
Its not what the Bible says to me -- but its what YOU SAY IT SAYS.
Whatever you think the Bible says -- reveals what is in YOUR HEART. In your case, arrogance, intolerance, hubris, and false piety. Good luck with that gunk on judgment day.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
What did your pastor tell you to believe last Sunday?
How much money did you give him (and it was a him, wasnt it?) to tell you what to believe?
What are you fundies afraid of? Are you afraid you might find out that what your pastor told you was true, isnt true? Wouldnt it be better to know than not know?
Seems like doubting, and asking questions would be a good thing!! But thats just me -- and Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Descartes, Kant, Kirkegard, etc.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
He preached from John 13, how that Jesus - GOD - washed the disciples' feet, a role usually reserved for the lowest of the servants. If God, Himself, would stoop to serve others, so shouldn't the rest of us?
I gave what I believe I should give and want to give.
What are we afraid of? Being found to have wasted the gifts given to by Jesus instead of having used those gifts to his honor and glory.
I compare my pastor against the Bible, if he's wrong, I'll find another pastor.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Have you tried a female Pastor? Why not?
Have you ever gone for a day referring to God with the feminine pronoun, just for fun? Why not? God has no gender, right? So why cant we, just for today call God her?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
The Bible says the Bishop (Pastor) is to be the HUSBAND of one wife...
How can a woman be a husband???
Certainly, there were prophetess (female preachers) in the Early church and there are now too; but, to be a Pastor, one must be Husband. Since only men can be husbands, logic follows....
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
That pastors must be married?
bonnienettles 2 years ago
God the Father???
Since when are women fathers?
Simple logic seems to have escaped you.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
So God IS A MAN!!!
Not all fundies go that far -- but you have no shame Ted.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
You say you know the Bible but you don't understand that?
Read John 1. God BECAME a man in the person of Jesus Christ.
It's all really simple.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
So, if God is a man, does he have a wife?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
No. Silly question.
BTW - I know where you're going with this and Jesus was not a Pastor, He is God.
Different qualifications for the office.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
The balance of male and female is evident everywhere in Nature. But your interpretation of God is only male.
Does your god represent only half of Nature? Or does he have a wife?
You also say that your God is all good and only good. But clearly there is "bad" in Nature. Again, does your god represent only half of Nature? Or is there another God in your theology (say Satan?) which accounts for the "bad" things clearly evident in Nature.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
God is above Nature because He created it.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
lol
dmc9021 2 years ago
Since when has any religion been about logic...
Chaperonizz 2 years ago 2
Funny though, you want me to question my pastor - and I do - and you want me to question the Bible, which I won't.
But, earlier, when I questioned how someone can believe Darwin - which has NEVER been proven right - you ridiculed me.
I do question ALL people and I've found all those whom you have listed as wanting.
Will you now ridicule me for having questioned a mere, mortal man, when I won't question the Immortal God, Jesus?
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Your interpretation of the BIble COMES DIRECTLY, WITHOUT ANY CHANGES AT ALL, from your Pastor.
Do I need to believe that evolution doesnt happen in order to be a Christian? Are we back to that?
Can I be a Christian if I accept the sacrifice of Jesus for my sins, and have a personal relationship with God, but DO NOT ACCEPT that all sincere believers in Buddhism will not burn in hell for eternity?
Why not?
Answer: Because thats what your pastor told you.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Hi Tao, how are you doing?
bonnienettles 2 years ago
Great bonnie. Look at this poor fundie I have annihilated over and over, and he keeps coming back for more!!!
taoofmichael 2 years ago
He thinks he's special, because he thinks his fundamentalist beliefs are correct wheras other people's are not, regardless of anything like evidence, logic or basic morality. Poor deluded fool.
bonnienettles 2 years ago
Actually, I'm still waiting for you to quit chasing tangents and rearguing settled points of the debate.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Please recap for me.
What are the points of this debate that have been settled.
Here's my list:
1.You get all you dogma from your pastor.
2.You are a fundamentalist, just like Osama Bin Laden.
3. Your beliefs are illogical and immoral.
4. Ones interpretation of the Bible says something about them, but nothing about God, that isnt contradicted by another human being's interpretation of the Bible.
5. Me and Shakespeare and Mark Twain will burn in hell, according to you and Osama Bin Laden.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
1. I get my dogma from the Bible and chose a pastor that is accurate.
2. I am a fundamentalist, but OBL is not like me.
3. My beliefs are supported by my fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom and the basis of morality.
4. The Bible says what it says, any interpretation thereof can be misinterpreted, but only if one ignores some scripture and clings to others.
5. I think I'll see Shakespeare in Heaven. I think OBL thinks I'll burn in Hell, but he's wrong.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Okay, lets debate!!
Name one point of interpetation of the Bible with which you disagree with your Pastor.
Name one way in which your absence of critical thinking differs with OBL.
Please defend the morality of Jesus returning and ethnic-cleansing the world. Or the Angel of Death murdering every firstborn child in Egypt. Or....on and on and on.
Please show how anyone can read any book, and have his ideas about that book be definitive -- overruling all other human readers of that book.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
My pastor and I disagree on the scriptural basis for divorce, but I choose him because he's more correct than any others available to me.
I don't have an absence of critial thinking; if you did, you'd question Darwin, Kant, etc. but don't.
Jesus will not perform any ethnic cleansing; He will, however, punish wickedness - as he did in Egypt.
Simple, read the Bible and do that which you understand from it, always willing to challenge your OWN understanding of it.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
So, all I must do is read the Bible and do that which I understand from it?
Cool! That is what I do! And, of course, I always challenge everything I understand from all my reading. I go out of my way to read authors with whom I disagree. I never want to think I know what I dont know for sure. And I never claim to.
Can I also read the Tao Te Ching? The Bhagavad Gita? The Iliad? Early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark that dont include the resurrection? What am I allowed to read?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Shakespeare celebrated pagan mythology and was a homosexual. Read the Sonnets, and Midsummer Nights Dream. Twain was an atheist. So, we will be hanging out in hell, dont you think?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Shakespeare also converted to Christianity in life, made that conversion public and even bequeathed his soul to his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ...
All manner of sin can and will be forgiven of men, except that of blasphemy...
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Please provide source for Shakespeare assertion.
Mark Twain did not say that. Please give source.
What is the substantive difference between ethnic-cleansing and "punishing wickedness?" What wickedness had the children of Egypt committed?
If OBL accepted what his Imam told him the Qu'ran meant, and you accept what your pastor told you the Bible meant, where is critical thinking employed in either of your cases?
taoofmichael 2 years ago
You can't tell me that you still want to argue that I blindly follow my pastor? Do you?
There are none so blind as those who chose not to see.
I have got to get back to work; I'm obviously blogging with a wall here because you never accept anything that outside the dogma the public schools have given you.
If you had ANY critical-thinking skills, we wouldn't be stuck in this rut.
I'm done with you. I wipe the dirt of this conversation from my feet and will no longer blog with you.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
I understand that you have to go back to work. No problem, brother.
But, oh my, why the vitriol? I thought this was an exercise in critical thinking and debate, all in good sport. You are wiping the dirt off your feet? Does that mean that it will be better at the judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for me? Whoa, harsh, brother! I would never wish that on anyone. Of course, the way I interpret the Bible, no such sentiment would ever be literally believed -- that would be grossly immoral.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
It is a very good thing that modern morality has progressed light-years beyond the primitive morality of the Bible, which, if taken literally, in a childish, simplistic way, is very morally problematic by today's standards.
Hurray for modern morality, critical thinking, pluralistic democracy, and cultural diversity.
Hurray for love, and learning from other cultures and reading the sacred books of other religious traditions.
The Bible is mythology. Hurray for mythology!
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Tao, curious to why you believe the Bible to be mythology?
JBKnepp 2 years ago
Some definitions of mythology:
Stories which, after being passed down orally for centuries, and are finally written down.
Cultural stories whose purpose is to pass along culture to children.
Stories told by primitive people to explain conditions of Nature and human nature.
Stories told using poetic devices, which alert the reader to their metaphorical and figurative nature. Devices like numerical motifs: 3 days, 3 wishes, 3 sisters, 7 brothers, 7 days, 40 days and 40 nights, 40 thieves...
taoofmichael 2 years ago
taoofmichael 2 years ago
OH, BTW, didn't Twain also say, it's not what he didn't understand about the Bible that scared him, it was what he did understand that caused him to fear a righteous God?
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Really, Big statement.
Care to prove it after I've refuted your foolishness MANY times....?
You're arguing like a child. "nahahanahah, I don't wanna listen. I've already made up my mind."
That's what you're sounding like.
FOR THE LAST TIME: I accept NO person's statements unless they prove themselves to me.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Its not dogma, its doctrine? "Doctrine" is the root of the word "indoctrination."
Please show the differences in the words dogma, dogmatic, indoctrination, indoctrinated.
Now you are straining at a gnat. Dogma and indoctrination are EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
You are indoctrinated by church dogma. Free your mind, and pass it on. The fate of the world rests on logic, compassion and love.
Fundamentalists, Christian and Muslim, have neither.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Ok, we're splitting hairs here. Doctrine is something that is taught and Dogma is a system of doctrines.
However, my doctrine/dogma is not created by a church; my doctrine/dogma is established in the Bible. I then chose a church that is in keeping with my doctrines/dogma.
I find it very compassionate and loving to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that others can also escape Judgment.
I'm sorry that this Truth disturbs you.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
I hate to break it to you, but your DOGMA was created by a church -- not by you.
You have accepted a church dogma, and ingested it without question, to the point that you will make the most unloving and immoral statements ever made by ANY religion, and still claim you believe in a loving god.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
WRONG, no church created my doctrine or dogma. JESUS created my Dogma.
I have questioned, and continue to question, everything anybody tells me and accept only that which holds true to the Bible.
How dare you claim otherwise! Your statements are made in ignorance because you don't KNOW me well enough to make any such claim. NO, you just assume because you don't understand.
That is an act of ignorance.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Fundamentalism -- which is what you believe -- IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.
FUNDAMENTALISM IS a wrong way to interpret the BIble, which no thinking person would ever come up with reading the BIble on their own. It is ONLY CHURCHES, who have much to gain by teaching others that their way is the ONLY WAY, that teach this bullshit.
Your DOGMA was taught to you in a church, by a church authority (Pastor, Priest, Minister) and you know it. DONT LIE, GOD IS WATCHING YOU AND YOU'LL GO TO HELL.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
What does "fundamental" mean? That which is NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL.
To say that I am a Fundamentalist Christian is to say that I believe what is NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL to be a Christian. The other side of that coin is False Christianity; those who do not hold to what is NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL.
Have you ACTUALLY read the Bible? I have, many times. I can honestly tell you that as much as possibly can, hold myself to Its teaching, not some churches.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
Yes, I have read the Bible, more than once. And I obviously know it better than you. Have you taken a look at John 5 yet?
You are lying about not adhering to the dogma of a church. You are flat-out bold-faced lying right in the presence of God and Man. How do I know this? Because NO ONE would come up with FUNDAMENTALIST beliefs from reading the Bible.
The Bible will say to each person what they already believe. Unless they swallow some Pastor's dogma out of fear.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
From John 5:
22: For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Tell me, do Muslims honor the Son the same as they honor the Father? NO!
Do they worship Jesus as the only True God, which He is? No
They don't worship the True God then.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
If God has committed all judgment to the Son, then why are you judging?
Each reader will find, in the Bible, what they already believe. The real question is: Why do you need to believe that your way is the only way, that you are right and everyone is wrong?
Fear? A need to feel that you are better? More pious? Smarter? Luckier?
Why is it important enough to you to believe that YOU are right, that you would be willing to CONDEMN EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING, RELIGION AND CULTURE TO HELL?
taoofmichael 2 years ago