Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vudak on November 05, 2004, 07:23:06 AM
-
Well, we've all heard some talk about the Evangelical Vote... Or "Value Voters"... Well, I went to a "Christian Answers" site linked from Bob Graham's website and found some things that really perturbed me.
All I've got to say is that it is a very scary world to live in, where our Nation's leader can be delivered through the votes of people who still believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and people lived together!!!
Laugh, Cry, Ponder? (http://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where3.html)
I mean come on people! Haven't you ever taken the trash out? How did those waffles you bought on Wednesday get above the Monday newspaper... Hmmmmm...
Although I must say it's a cute little picture of a perfectly white Adam puckering up to some sort of dinosaur...
Faith's a good thing and I respect those who have it... But lately, I wonder, is some people's faith blinding them? Is some people's faith leading them away from the message? Call me an elitist CT snob if you will, but I've always been brought up to believe Jesus preached love, not bigotry... And I've also been brought up to believe that anything that's been in man's hands for long will be tainted.
I find it very difficult to believe that the Christian Faith has evolved to what Christ envisioned. I daresay the very fact that there are so many denominations is hard evidence that it , in fact, has not.
Edit: I changed the title of this because it was obviously a very poor choice to entitle it "what's really sad about this election"
-
You don't need facts if you have faith.
-
Nice post..
Yea, it has become very strange to me how the god fearing jesus loving bible thumping christian could be so down with persecution..
All I'm thinking is I have to get outta my state.. lol Only here in this state could a govenor be elected on a state lottery funding education platform and then upon being elected have the church crowd come out and vote down the lottery.. !amazed
Oh, and lets not forget about judge roy moore.. lol what a god fearing moron..
I just wanna say thanks for these self rightous people attempting to save me from myself.. You wanna talk elitist, these people should be the definition..
-
So long as you libs keep believing that you lose at the ballot box because of a bunch of backwater snake handlers you're going to keep sliding into insignificance. Every election you libs try to convince each other that it's the flat earth people who are keeping your 133t politicians out of office. Keep up the good work.
-
hmm.. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush who aren't religious in the least... They just weren't black or old maids.
lazs
-
Lazs & Ra:
Sorry if this came off as a Bush Bash. I was actually trying to start a religious discussion.
But don't call me a liberal. Or a conservative. I'm a moderate, and agree with both of you on some things, just not on others.
So anyway, back to the religious discussion.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
You don't need facts if you have faith.
That's a rather dangerous approach IMO... A lot of people have had "faith" in things before that well, didn't pan out so well...
Hitler and Waco come to mind...
I think facts are usefull, and at the very least debate should be encouraged.
I just cannot understand how people can say that man and dinosaur lived side by side. I just cannot fathom it. And many such people will get so bitterly angry when called on it! That's foaming at the mouth religion if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by ra
So long as you libs keep believing that you lose at the ballot box because of a bunch of backwater snake handlers you're going to keep sliding into insignificance. Every election you libs try to convince each other that it's the flat earth people who are keeping your 133t politicians out of office. Keep up the good work.
what are you talking about?? I guess you just like tossing the 'lib' word about?? this post make you feel stronger or better?? cuase it's clueless with the rest of the thread....
-
Originally posted by Vudak
That's a rather dangerous approach IMO... A lot of people have had "faith" in things before that well, didn't pan out so well...
Hitler and Waco come to mind...
I think facts are usefull, and at the very least debate should be encouraged.
I just cannot understand how people can say that man and dinosaur lived side by side. I just cannot fathom it. And many such people will get so bitterly angry when called on it! That's foaming at the mouth religion if you ask me.
I dont think he was being serious Vudak..
-
well vudak you will have to be more specific... I can't really hate em because they are religious... is there some other reason I should marginalize their vote?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hmm.. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush who aren't religious in the least... They just weren't black or old maids.
lazs
I work with two blacks that both voted republican, and are not religious.
-
Odd,
I know tons of bible thumpers and "Born again/saved":rolleyes:
Types who dont believe the earth was created 6,000 ago or the Dinosaurs and humans lived together.
Just as an outside observation (I consider myself a moderate. with no party affiliation)
What the far left doesnt seem to get is the rest of the country and yes starting with the far right but including those in the middle does not want this liberal acceptance of everyone and everything Such as gay marriage, as an example crammed down their throats.
They are sick and tired of political correctness and having to constantly worry about what they do or say or believe out of worry over "offending someone"
(on that point I am in whole agreement)
They are sick of the Liberals ideas and telling them how to raise and/dicipline their kids.
and a host of other things that are not considered to be "politically correct"
how to dress
They dont want to be told that God should be taken out of the pledge or that courthouses cant have the ten commandments on State property
they are sick of what they see on regular noncable TV and see continued lack of restraint in the media itself in a race for the all important ratings
The country for better or worse is unquestionably shifting back towards more traditional values and religion.
The problem is the Democrats havent shifted with the rest of the country.
Its like they were leading everyone in a marathon and running and running and running and for a while everyone was following. Then somewhere along the line the rest of the country took a right fork in the road and the Democrats kept running without looking back, thinking everyone was still following behind.
Now they look behind them and only see their core followers running with them and everyone else is gone.
Now they are sitting there scratching their heads trying to figure out what happened
I heard a Democrat put it best on CNN yesterday when she said.
"what we need to realize is that we have been talking to ourselves and everyone else doesn't give a damn what we think anymore"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well vudak you will have to be more specific... I can't really hate em because they are religious... is there some other reason I should marginalize their vote?
lazs
Well when people vote based on moral values, I'd just like to hope that, despite whatever their opinions on moral values are, they at least have some semblance of a grasp on reality. I guess I'm trying to say this, in a nutshell:
It is my hope, that people come up with their own opinions on moral values. I think it would be a mistake, to accept their preacher's ideas as Undeniably correct. One glance at this website, by reasonable people or any creed, should show, that such preacher's ideas, are not undeniably correct at all. In fact, they are tragically mistaken.
Yet I'm not asking that their votes be marginalized, not at all. In fact, this isn't even really an election thread, despite the post title topic.
What I am saying, is that there is a group of highly religious people in this country, who do go out and exercise their Right to vote, yet are very much living in a fantasy world. I just found this website interesting.
But who said to hate someone because they're religious anyway?
Dude: he may not have been serious, but the point he raised is one that many people who are completely serious raise. So my reply is meant more for them.
-
would it be better to vote based on a movie/phony documentary or.... a rock concert? maybe the word of sean penn or barbara stiesand? Are you very much more comfortable with those voters?
maybe sharpton has the answer or the naacp? Vote based on a flier your union sends out?
Is there some guidline that you find particularly useful.... None of us want to be "sad".
lazs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Odd,
I know tons of bible thumpers and "Born again/saved":rolleyes:
Types who dont believe the earth was created 6,000 ago or the Dinosaurs and humans lived together.
Forgive me if my attempt at wit generalizes.
Still, on AOL (yes I KNOW AOL, lol), whenever there is a new archaelogical discovery that sparks a debate about evolution, the board is split fairly evenly... More often than not, the side that claims Darwin's an idiot brings up God as their star witness...
But yes, Drediock, you are quite correct, extreme-left liberals really ought to stop crying about anything and everything, if there's any hope for a two-party nation for much longer.
Parents getting DCF called on them for spanking, attemps made at taking "God" out of the pledge & currency, and basically just "political correctness" in general are not helping our country whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
would it be better to vote based on a movie/phony documentary or.... a rock concert? maybe the word of sean penn or barbara stiesand? Are you very much more comfortable with those voters?
Good God no!
Originally posted by lazs2
maybe sharpton has the answer or the naacp? Vote based on a flier your union sends out?
[/B]
Same issue I'm pointing out, flipped side, good point.
Originally posted by lazs2
Is there some guidline that you find particularly useful.... None of us want to be "sad".
[/B]
Um... Yes... A self-derived opinion weighed against many sources. I think this was a pretty good election to be torn over, I know I sat in the voting booth for awhile. True, the candidates were like night and day, but also true, they each had a few decent ideas.
-
is it possible (in your opinion) for a christian or any republican to make a choice based on your criteria or do they have to embrace the democrats first? I'm sure no one wants a "sad" election.
lazs
-
What the far left doesnt seem to get is the rest of the country and yes starting with the far right but including those in the middle does not want this liberal acceptance of everyone and everything Such as gay marriage, as an example crammed down their throats.
Who started the cramming?? Was it not the republican party with their idea of reform?? It was a non-issue until brought up by the compassionate conservatives. Lets remember who threw this up into the lime-lite..
they are sick of what they see on regular noncable TV and see continued lack of restraint in the media itself in a race for the all important ratings
'They' might be.. But it seems 'they' must be watching too. Whats the new Fox show?? Desperet House Wifes?
I heard a Democrat put it best on CNN yesterday when she said."what we need to realize is that we have been talking to ourselves and everyone else doesn't give a damn what we think anymore"
Not a good quote at all. All do respect but half the country was still there.. Just under the half that wasn't..
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Lazs & Ra:
Sorry if this came off as a Bush Bash. I was actually trying to start a religious discussion.
But don't call me a liberal. Or a conservative. I'm a moderate, and agree with both of you on some things, just not on others.
So anyway, back to the religious discussion.
LOL this isn't a religious discussion, this is a Christian bash thread, 'cause I'm pissed my candidate lost'.
You want to start a religious discussion? Like to discuss Hamartiology? Eschatology? Soteriology? Church history? Any specific denomination?
Also don't clump every Christian together and steriotype them like you are. You pointed out yourself that there are so many denominations - an FYI - they don't hold to the same doctrines (ex: DREDIOCK's post).
Shoot, Bob Graham? Who the heck is Bob Graham? :D
-
I believe that people do give a damn and that the election was proof.
lazs
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
what are you talking about?? I guess you just like tossing the 'lib' word about?? this post make you feel stronger or better?? cuase it's clueless with the rest of the thread....
You are clueless. Libs always try to blame losses at the ballot box as the result of ignorance. This thread is just another example of it, pretending to be sophisticated and concerned for the human race. If you really want to make fun of some religious some beliefs, check out what 800 million Hindus believe. It doesn't prevent them from being intelligent and rational. But U.S. libs aren't having any trouble with Hindus at the ballot box, so they blame their losses on Christians who pose more of a problem.
The life we live of material comfort and political freedom was not the result of hundreds of years of atheist enlightenment. In fact, atheists have a pretty poor track record when they get into power.
ra
-
Originally posted by Heiliger
LOL this isn't a religious discussion, this is a Christian bash thread, 'cause I'm pissed my candidate lost'.
You want to start a religious discussion? Like to discuss Hamartiology? Eschatology? Soteriology? Church history? Any specific denomination?
Oh boy can of worms I've opened...
Ok, so it is a Christian Bash thread then, if we must define it so :cool: but not because "my" candidate lost. Instead, because I'm honestly wondering how some people can honestly say that dinosaurs and people walked the earth!
That's what I want to discuss! Just the dinosaur thing! Please! I am now going to retitle this thread lol!
-
yep... if people were just smarter they would vote with the neurotic apartment dwelling big city girls who think sex in the city is too witty for pig farmers to understand.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Oh boy can of worms I've opened...
Ok, so it is a Christian Bash thread then, if we must define it so :cool: but not because "my" candidate lost. Instead, because I'm honestly wondering how some people can honestly say that dinosaurs and people walked the earth!
That's what I want to discuss! Just the dinosaur thing! Please! I am now going to retitle this thread lol!
Thank you! :D :aok
-
Unfortunately, I can't retitle this thread, try as I might.
Ra: True, religion does not prevent people from being intelligent. However, I beg to differ to your idea that it does not prevent them from being rational.
I think that website is good evidence that statement.
-
Originally posted by Heiliger
Thank you! :D :aok
Lol, you're welcome :cool:
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Unfortunately, I can't retitle this thread, try as I might.
Ra: True, religion does not prevent people from being intelligent. However, I beg to differ to your idea that it does not prevent them from being rational.
I think that website is good evidence that statement.
What is your proposal:
- re-education camps
- disenfranchisement
- soylent green
You and I were born into a life of comfort and freedom. We did not create this freedom, it was created by previous generations. And those generations were largely religious, and largely Christian. I cannot think of a RATIONAL reason to fear Christians.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
You are clueless. Libs always try to blame losses at the ballot box as the result of ignorance. This thread is just another example of it, pretending to be sophisticated and concerned for the human race. If you really want to make fun of some religious some beliefs, check out what 800 million Hindus believe. It doesn't prevent them from being intelligent and rational. But U.S. libs aren't having any trouble with Hindus at the ballot box, so they blame their losses on Christians who pose more of a problem.
The life we live of material comfort and political freedom was not the result of hundreds of years of atheist enlightenment. In fact, atheists have a pretty poor track record when they get into power.
ra
What a bunch of BS.. No one here blaming anyone for anything. These are questions of beliefs.. Nothing more.. Your a fool if you actually believe 'libs' or most any are not concerned for the human race.. Like you are more concerned?? wow!! how human of you..
If 800million hindus were americans, we might be questioning their beliefs as well, but as you and so many others are so quick to point out, they are not americans..
The life we live of material comfort and political freedom was certainly not hundreds of years of god enlightenment either.. Infact, christians have a pretty poor record with their values as well..
-
Originally posted by ra
What is your proposal:
- re-education camps
- disenfranchisement
- soylent green
You and I were born into a life of comfort and freedom. We did not create this freedom, it was created by previous generations. And those generations were largely religious, and largely Christian. I cannot think of a RATIONAL reason to fear Christians.
ra
Really? Then you cant think past your own nose..
What if you were gay??
What if you were muslim??
What if you were baptist across from a church of christ?? lol
-
Perhaps it was implied? But I never meant that we should fear Christians so much as fear people who listen to their preacher, pastor, father, rabbi, cleric, monk, etc. to an extent where they are blinded to overwhelming scientific evidence.
I think that is a fairly legit point?
As far as the word "rational" goes, I meant "rational" in that it is not rational to still argue the world was created 6,000 years ago.
Soooooo, what 'bout dem dinosaurs :D ?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
What a bunch of BS.. No one here blaming anyone for anything.
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Yea, it has become very strange to me how the god fearing jesus loving bible thumping christian could be so down with persecution..
All I'm thinking is I have to get outta my state.. lol Only here in this state could a govenor be elected on a state lottery funding education platform and then upon being elected have the church crowd come out and vote down the lottery.. !amazed
Oh, and lets not forget about judge roy moore.. lol what a god fearing moron..
I just wanna say thanks for these self rightous people attempting to save me from myself.. You wanna talk elitist, these people should be the definition..
It sounds like you blame those low-brow Christians for the election not going your way.
ra
-
skerry got the religious vote
the black religous vote - all he had to do was show up at a couple of masses
guess he didn't know how funny that looked - a white "catholic" attending black baptist church
-
Originally posted by Eagler
skerry got the religious vote
the black religous vote - all he had to do was show up at a couple of masses
guess he didn't know how funny that looked - a white "catholic" attending black baptist church
Lol... That's the problem with politicians... They go out of their way to show you they're idiots.
-
Originally posted by ra
It sounds like you blame those low-brow Christians for the election not going your way.
ra
Was a republican govenor.. And ya.. That election went my way.. Try again..
-
Originally posted by ra
It sounds like you blame those low-brow Christians for the election not going your way.
ra
Well, the part where he says:
"Only here in this state could a govenor be elected on a state lottery funding education platform and then upon being elected have the church crowd come out and vote down the lottery.."
Is very funny, if you think about it.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Soooooo, what 'bout dem dinosaurs :D ?
:rofl Vudak, I guess you're off the hook bro...
Thanks for at least trying HAHA!
:D
-
Heard an interesting point the last few nights..
People in New York have had the most terrorist attacks and arguably the largest gay population/sq. inch and their vote was largly not based on either of these two talking points.. They seem to have the least trouble from these campain issues yet the rest of america does.. Its the rest of america saving them from themselfs..
I thought it was funny.. hijack over.. 8)
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Really? Then you cant think past your own nose..
What if you were gay??
What if you were muslim??
What if you were baptist across from a church of christ?? lol
All those people live a free and comfortable life here in the good ol USA, Christians notwithstanding. Maybe my nose isn't in the same place yours is.
-
I honestly believe that dinosaurs are cute & fund.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Heard an interesting point the last few nights..
People in New York have had the most terrorist attacks and arguably the largest gay population/sq. inch and their vote was largly not based on either of these two talking points.. They seem to have the least trouble from these campain issues yet the rest of america does.. Its the rest of america saving them from themselfs..
I thought it was funny.. hijack over.. 8)
Ya that was funny.:lol
You forgot about the "comfort zone".:D
-
Originally posted by ra
All those people live a free and comfortable life here in the good ol USA, Christians notwithstanding. Maybe my nose isn't in the same place yours is.
It seems it isnt. Cause a gay women/man does not have the same freedoms that I have..
You said you could think of no reason anyone had to fear a christian and I gave 3..
Muslims sure live free, but if you think some do not live in fear of christians, our noses certainly are in different areas..
-
Originally posted by Torque
Ya that was funny.:lol
You forgot about the "comfort zone".:D
lol Certainly did!! I forget though the specifics...
Did you see Colbert's piece on this Wednesday night?? That was just splendid! hehe
-
Each to his own but These Christian Fundamentalist types are realy little different from other fundamrentalist types. Government should be based on human principles and common sense. Not some irrational belief system. A fundamentalist Christian Government is no better than a fundamentalist Muslim one.
Thought you guys had Freedom? be carefull it doesn't get eroded by religious zealots.
-
Originally posted by Blue2
Each to his own but These Christian Fundamentalist types are realy little different from other fundamrentalist types. Government should be based on human principles and common sense. Not some irrational belief system. A fundamentalist Christian Government is no better than a fundamentalist Muslim one.
Thought you guys had Freedom? be carefull it doesn't get eroded by religious zealots.
It's all good, between the Christian Jihad and the Muslim Cursade, there should be a few more interesting Vid games to come of it.
-
Why is it that when the issue of morality is talked about by the left it is considered a "Bad" thing? Or a religious thing?
-
Originally posted by Vudak
What I am saying, is that there is a group of highly religious people in this country, who do go out and exercise their Right to vote, yet are very much living in a fantasy world. I just found this website interesting.
what happened to "count every vote and every vote must count"?
or is that only democratic votes?
BTW blacks who normaly vote 95% democratic gave bush 20% of the black vote.
the democrats , once the party of the working class have become the party of the "eleet", movie stars, rock stars,millionair TV talking heads,soros,heinz,etc
-
FWIW ...
The US returning to values is a good thing. After the "me" 80's and "greed" 90's it's much needed. It is dangerous, though, when "values" is interpretted by many as "Christian values." That's very, very, very dangerous.
No reason to "fear Christians?" Depends on who and what you are. The KKK and American Nazi Party are two reasons some people would fear *some* Christians. The fact that a surprising number of Christians believe that the Holocaust never happened is another reason to fear *some* Christians. Most people who downplay racism or prejudice have never experienced it themselves ... and in this US, guess who is least likely to have experienced it.
Political correctness is now completely absurd. However the possible backlash is also very dangerous. There is still so much racism in this country that a return to "traditional values" of racial epithets could set this country back 40 years. And everyone is a lot better armed these days than they were in the 60's.
I think this is a valid thread - the polls show that 60% of the people who voted Bush into office go to church weekly. Anytime you get "church and state" closely associated it's worth a look. Most especially during an economic downturn - when the majority is looking for a scapegoat.
-
I have no problem with traditional values as long as they aren't a clever code for systematic oppression - as you said.
I have no hate for the GOP (seriously) just the few racists and religious extremists that hide in the GOP. If the GOP is consistant in its stand for traditional values - I'm on board. But you can't rage about how moraly corrupted Hollywood is and then go log on the family pc for a night of porn. Its just hypocritical. If you talk the talk you gota walk the walk (as they say).
-
What is the general feeling of some attempting to impose their morals on others?
I have a hard time with the idea america is 'moving toward a more moral society' when I do not feel America's morals were lacking. I'm talking the average american here.. Nothing much is going to change in America. Will out lawing gay mariage produce a more moral state? I do not think so. We will still have gays.. What 'real' values are we talking about here? If we are talking about abortion, what is more moral, early abortion or tossing your new born child in a dumpster? The basic everyday practices are not going to overnight turn for the better because we are said to be moving more moralistic. We had to have a lack of morals to begin with and I dont see that as the case. The whole idea to me seems more of a selling point than a real issue..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
....We had to have a lack of morals to begin with and I dont see that as the case. The whole idea to me seems more of a selling point than a real issue..
I guess it's a question of what you call "morals" and "values."
To me I see the get-ahead-at-any-cost, lie-if-you-have-to, kick-em-when-they're-down, i-got-mine, do-unto-others-then-run mindset as lacking in values and morals. You see that more and more in any workplace today. And work is where we spend half our waking hours.
Others see the spectre of dudes kissing or kids not praying to their God each day in school as far more upsetting.
Guess we wait to see where Bush draws that line. The Christian conservative leaders are already pressuring for "changing the judiciary." Bush's response to the media on this was:
"I told the people on the campaign trail that I'll pick somebody who knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said."
So far so good.
-
I guess it's a question of what you call "morals" and "values."
I guess that pretty much sums it up. It is not the fact that we might have fewer or more retarted morals, just that morals can be used as a selling point to cloud other issues.. I know and understand the issue of 'morals' has been used by both parites.. I wonder if the onslaught of using such ambiguous terms was the beginning of letting slip the seperation of church and state? I mean to say that the term 'morals' , imo, seems to imply some sort of religious teachings and I dont mean that negativly. I'm just babbling now.. haha
It is just such a vague term. I mean we have laws for everything that is illegal. Some things are not illegal but are infact, immoral. But is the government not only responsible for those things it has deemed illegal? Morality is not a law is it?
-
Aren't turtles, tortises, alligators and crocodiles *dinosaurs*?
There are also persistent rumors about a creature living in the swamps and jungles of central Africa. Scientific expeditions have not yet found any specimens living or dead but they have found strange (and very large) 3 toed tracks.
I googled for *dinosaurs in the congo*.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-349.htm
http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317914/us1157486/us219744/us289800/
I havent had time to read all the information at that 2nd link.
Let's consider something else, Loch Ness in Scotland. IF the Loch Ness monster does exist it is most likely a dinosaur of some sort. To many people have seen *something* in Loch Ness that they cant identify to totaly discredit the Loch Ness monster.
There is a lake in Canada that is not nearly as famous but has been the source of quite a few sightings of *something* in the water. Again, from the limited descriptions of eye witnesses IF there is something there it is most likely some sort of dinosaur.
The Book of Job in the Bible speaks of a creature called Leviathan.
Job, chapter 41:
Job 41:1 Is it possible for Leviathan to be pulled out with a fish-hook, or for a hook to be put through the bone of his mouth?
Job 41:2 Will you put a cord into his nose, or take him away with a cord round his tongue?
Job 41:3 Will he make prayers to you, or say soft words to you?
Job 41:4 Will he make an agreement with you, so that you may take him as a servant for ever?
Job 41:5 Will you make sport with him, as with a bird? or put him in chains for your young women?
Job 41:6 Will the fishermen make profit out of him? will they have him cut up for the traders?
Job 41:7 Will you put sharp-pointed irons into his skin, or fish-spears into his head?
Job 41:8 Only put your hand on him, and see what a fight you will have; you will not do it again!
Job 41:9 Truly, the hope of his attacker is false; he is overcome even on seeing him!
Job 41:10 He is so cruel that no one is ready to go against him. Who then is able to keep his place before me?
Job 41:11 Who ever went against me, and got the better of me? There is no one under heaven!
Job 41:12 I will not keep quiet about the parts of his body, or about his power, and the strength of his frame.
Job 41:13 Who has ever taken off his outer skin? who may come inside his inner coat of iron?
Job 41:14 Who has made open the doors of his face? Fear is round about his teeth.
Job 41:15 His back is made of lines of plates, joined tight together, one against the other, like a stamp.
Job 41:16 One is so near to the other that no air may come between them.
Job 41:17 They take a grip of one another; they are joined together, so that they may not be parted.
Job 41:18 His sneezings give out flames, and his eyes are like the eyes of the dawn.
Job 41:19 Out of his mouth go burning lights, and flames of fire are jumping up.
Job 41:20 Smoke comes out of his nose, like a pot boiling on the fire.
Job 41:21 His breath puts fire to coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.
Job 41:22 Strength is in his neck, and fear goes dancing before him.
Job 41:23 The plates of his flesh are joined together, fixed, and not to be moved.
Job 41:24 His heart is as strong as a stone, hard as the lower crushing-stone.
Job 41:25 When he gets ready for the fight, the strong are overcome with fear.
Job 41:26 The sword may come near him but is not able to go through him; the spear, or the arrow, or the sharp-pointed iron.
Job 41:27 Iron is to him as dry grass, and brass as soft wood.
Job 41:28 The arrow is not able to put him to flight: stones are no more to him than dry stems.
Job 41:29 A thick stick is no better than a leaf of grass, and he makes sport of the onrush of the spear.
Job 41:30 Under him are sharp edges of broken pots: as if he was pulling a grain-crushing instrument over the wet earth.
Job 41:31 The deep is boiling like a pot of spices, and the sea like a perfume-vessel.
Job 41:32 After him his way is shining, so that the deep seems white.
Job 41:33 On earth there is not another like him, who is made without fear.
Job 41:34 Everything which is high goes in fear of him; he is king over all the sons of pride.
Do we know what creature Job was describing in chapter 41? Of course not. It does appear to be a fearsome creature though.
There are other passages in the Bible that speak of the creature Leviathan. There is another creature the Bible speaks of as well, Behemoth. Both creatures must have been huge and many believe they were dinosaurs of some sort.
-
Sad? Who's sad? Oh yeah, I almost forgot. ;)
BTW
4 MORE YEARS
-
Sad, like implying everyone of a certain religious faith votes stupidly? Sad, yes.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Forgive me if my attempt at wit generalizes.
Still, on AOL (yes I KNOW AOL, lol), whenever there is a new archaelogical discovery that sparks a debate about evolution, the board is split fairly evenly... More often than not, the side that claims Darwin's an idiot brings up God as their star witness...
But yes, Drediock, you are quite correct, extreme-left liberals really ought to stop crying about anything and everything, if there's any hope for a two-party nation for much longer.
Parents getting DCF called on them for spanking, attemps made at taking "God" out of the pledge & currency, and basically just "political correctness" in general are not helping our country whatsoever.
Oh I agree. I have seen many such debates (evolution/Creation) and also know some that are like that.
Im just saying I know just as many that arent
fogive me if I was leaving the impression that every bible thumper I knew was like that.
LOLnow if you wanna see a debate go to ugly fast.
Start a debate on that subject here.
I've never seen one that ended pretty
-
Originally posted by Vudak
.
basically just "political correctness" in general are not helping our country whatsoever.
Here us how bad... no make that REDICULOUS its gotten.
I heard on the news last week about a town that did away with Halloween.
Why?
Because it might be offencive to real witches!
To all those that claim they get "offended" at one thing or another. Be it a flag, a tshirt, or whatever.
My suggestion is to grow a thicker skin and try being offended over something worthwhile.
Like starving children or something
-
Another BTW, Went to the Dallas Detroit game last Sunday, Cowboys won too! :aok
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Who started the cramming?? Was it not the republican party with their idea of reform?? It was a non-issue until brought up by the compassionate conservatives. Lets remember who threw this up into the lime-lite..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who started it? Near as I can tell the Dem's with their "accepting people" Gays is a good example.
Why does anyone have to accept them if it goes against everything they beleive?
I personally couldnt care less about gays one way or the other.
Buyt dont tell me I have to accept them or their lifestyle.
Or anyone else for that matter.
Far as Im concerned it should be a natural right. to like, or dislike whomever or whatever I choose for whatever reason I choose so long as I do not deliberately go out of my way to cause them harm. Be it for sexual prefrence,color, religeon, or because they cut their hair a funny way.
And I sure as hell dont want to be told not to do or say or wear something because someone "might be offended" over it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
'They' might be.. But it seems 'they' must be watching too. Whats the new Fox show?? Desperet House Wifes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunno. Dont watch it. Actually I dont watch much of any of the regular channels.
but for just as many that watch it there are at least as many that dont.
Thing is also if you look at where these peopple live that watch these shows it wouldnt at all suprise me to see that the majority of those that do live in highly democratic areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a good quote at all. All do respect but half the country was still there.. Just under the half that wasn't..
Actually I think its dead on accurate.
If Iraq wasnt an issue and part of the election. I think bush would have won in far far greater numbers.
I think its pretty easy to see that most of the people outside of the diehard democrats that voted against Bush were voting primarily in protest of Iraq.
Had it not been for Iraq Bush would have easily won in a landslide
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
...
My suggestion is to grow a thicker skin and try being offended over something worthwhile.
Like starving children or something
Where do you draw the line? Is bigotry worthwhile?
As for the Cowboys, who's the coach? The "Tuna." Oh no! He's from "liberal" New York and New England! The Horror. :D
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
As for the Cowboys, who's the coach? The "Tuna." Oh no! He's from "liberal" New York and New England! The Horror. :D
See? Who says we ain't tolerunt down here in thu south?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
...
I think its pretty easy to see that most of the people outside of the diehard democrats that voted against Bush were voting primarily in protest of Iraq.
...
Don't underestimate the economic issues and domestic affairs.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Aren't turtles, tortises, alligators and crocodiles *dinosaurs*?
There are also persistent rumors about a creature living in the swamps and jungles of central Africa. Scientific expeditions have not yet found any specimens living or dead but they have found strange (and very large) 3 toed tracks.
There are other passages in the Bible that speak of the creature Leviathan. There is another creature the Bible speaks of as well, Behemoth. Both creatures must have been huge and many believe they were dinosaurs of some sort.
Ok, that's fair. I actually have a house on Lake Champlain in upstate NY, where another Loch Ness type "monster" supposedly resides...
However, the bottom line is that currently dinosaurs (as we see on Jurassic Park or those nifty discovery channel specials) have not been found lying in the same layer of dirt as humans, to put it plainly.
"Trash-can concept".
I just don't understand why faith & science can't coexist... Anyone see the shows on the National Geographic channel about the theory that the formation of the Black Sea was Noah's Flood, or the one on the Discovery Channel that went into the whole plagues of Egypt, and how one could scientifically build off the next to result in the story actually happening?
The plague one was very interesting... They even came up with a reason for the 1st born Egyptian sons to all die off... Apparently the food (forget what sort, but something the Jews wouldn't eat) could have reacted with one of the earlier plagues to make it mildy poisonous. Now back in the day, I guess the Egyptian's would let their first born sons get the lion share of the food to keep the family line going and all... Well, eat enough of that mildly poisonous food might just kill you.
I found it very, uh, well let's say tantalizing. Made me want to learn more...
Hell, scientists have even speculated that a Virgin Birth is *technically* possible, though so incredibly mathematically unlikely that for it to ever happen would truly require a miracle. But hey, hence the faith.
And, I've heard, that looking at astrology or astronomy (forget which), showed that there is actually a plausible chance that three wise men from the East (they were thinking Babylonia if I recall correctly) would have actually seen a particular sequence of events in the sky that might actually lead them to make such a pilgramige. Apparently something terrific happened in the sky around the time Jesus was said to be born (not going by the Bible, going by the Roman/archaelogical evidence for his DOB). Now I don't have the source in front of me, and if someone does please pipe in, but apparently there was some planet, or constellation, or something in the sky that represented the Jews, and then Jupitor IIRC moved into it, and was also eclipsed by either the sun, moon, or both. I don't remember exactly, but it was pretty impressive.
Now, if you came from a culture like Babylon that had a large interest in the night sky, isn't it plausible that you might interpret something like this as the "King of the Jews" and set off?
Babylon's east of Bethlehem, after all.
Long post, no links, no sources. Still, these sort of things tend to intrigue me. And personally, I'd rather look at Biblical events like this then simply accept them as fact because "they're in the Bible and that's that".
It doesn't really take much of a stretch for science and religion to work together... Just if your mind's cemented in the idea that the Bible's always literal and always 100% correct as written, well.... Enough eggshells for me, I think you see what I'm trying to say.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Where do you draw the line? Is bigotry worthwhile?
As for the Cowboys, who's the coach? The "Tuna." Oh no! He's from "liberal" New York and New England! The Horror. :D
Why not. If thats how you feel.
so long as you do not act on it You may like or dislike anything, or anyone you wish. for whatever reason you wish.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Don't underestimate the economic issues and domestic affairs.
Just going by all the people I personally know.
The Vast majority of people I know who voted against Bush.
And that is most of the people I know. Voted against him primarilly not over the bogus claims of a bad economy, Not over Gay marriage,stemcell research or any other domestic issue. But over Iraq.
The rest that voted against him were diehard democrats who would have voted against Christ himself if he were on the republican ticket. But even those,their first complaint when talking to them was Iraq
Fully 100% of the people I know that voted against Bush their first reason for doing so was Iraq
-
Not that it mattered (My state was almost 60% Bush) but I voted for Nader, and not because of Iraq. Bush spends money like a neurotic woman with a wallet full of credit cards.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Not that it mattered (My state was almost 60% Bush) but I voted for Nader, and not because of Iraq. Bush spends money like a neurotic woman with a wallet full of credit cards.
Interstingly enough my state typically votes Democrat. so much so that The Reps hardly botherd campaigning here and pretty much conceeded it to Kerry.
and they still had the highest pro Republican vote in recent memory I think the final tally was like 52-47
Just curious as to your reasons for voting Nader?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
J...
Fully 100% of the people I know that voted against Bush their first reason for doing so was Iraq
Most of my circle are registered Independants, most from the technology sector living in either California or the Northeast. And most voted against Bush because of the economy ... the recession, the massive outsourcing of jobs, the way the Ken Lay's were protected while 1000's were layed off (no pun intended), and the fear that the bias towards the Southern US would continue another 4 years.
-
Only one reason. He impressed me as genuine. I'm not searching for the post, but its in here somewhere asking whats the difference between a Rep potato or a Dem potato - either way you have a potato for a POTUS.
Nader is nobody's potato.
-
....where our Nation's leader can be delivered through the votes of people who still believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago,
OK, just to be clear: Bush won because of religious people who voted?
It had nothing to do w/ Kerry's shortcomings? Nothing to do w/ any ot their other policy differences?
It's all the fault of christians?
-
Bush because of the economy ... the recession, the massive outsourcing of jobs,
Newsflash: the economy is booming. Unemployment is at 5.4 to 5.5 percent, depending on who you ask. This number is lower than any number during Clinton's first term and equal to the first year of his second term. Clinton inherited a robust economy. Bush inherited an economy already in depression and thenwe suffered the single largest attack on our soil....... ever.
What's that about the economy again?
Source:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Most of my circle are registered Independants, most from the technology sector living in either California or the Northeast. And most voted against Bush because of the economy ... the recession, the massive outsourcing of jobs, the way the Ken Lay's were protected while 1000's were layed off (no pun intended), and the fear that the bias towards the Southern US would continue another 4 years.
Dont know what the economy is like there at the moment. I know its certainly different in different parts of the country. Doing well in some parts and not as well in others. But thats generally the case anyway.
As for the recession they actually voted against Bush because of something that started before the election took place that put him in office?
Even in my most pessimistic opinions of Bush I never saw that as a problem that could be blamed on him.
The Tech industry basically petered out on its own and not through anything Bush, or Clinton for that matter had anything to do with. It ran its course. I remember during its height you practically couldn't go into a 7-11 without seeing a computer for sale. they were like the Pet Rocks of the 70s and Boom boxes of the 80's
Everyone had to have one.
The demand simply isnt there anymore. Cant blame the President for that no matter who it may be.
I can almost buy the argument of outsourcing except it makes sense to make something someplace else if its cheaper to make it there and import it back here then it is to pay American workers here..
But a good part of the blame there probably has more to do with the ever increasing union wages and what people are willing to pay for a product then anything else.
Sure you could keep the jobs here and have American workers build...whatever. And that would be great. Im all for Be American buy American
But at what cost?
Near as I have been able to see you can buy something thats made someplace else at a reasonable price OR you can buy something made here at 3 times the price.
American workers demand higher and higher wages. And it only gets worse if you have unions involved
Higher wages translate into higher prices at the cash register.
The Higher the price the less likely it is people will buy it.
And getting people to buy is the name of the game.
Much as I dont like it. Its not hard at all to understand why companies outsource. Unfortunately I dont see it as something to blame on the president.
As for the Bias. Well, guess its only fair. It was bias the other way around for the 8 before that LOL
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Only one reason. He impressed me as genuine. I'm not searching for the post, but its in here somewhere asking whats the difference between a Rep potato or a Dem potato - either way you have a potato for a POTUS.
Nader is nobody's potato.
Yanno I can buy and respect that line of reasoning.
Actually I can respect anyone who votes independant for any person with that reasoning.
I dont beleive you should only vote for one fo the two big parties simply because one of the two are most likely to win.
You should vote for who you think the best man is for the job.
Hopefully there will be more like you who do that and maybe someday the highjacking of this country by these two parties will come to an end and finally give us real choices and fresh meaningful ideas.
Nader said a few things I agree with as well.
I looked into him as well as the other independants. the only problem was none had enough about him on the issues that were most important to me that I agreed with or I would have gone that way also.
Nader though in particular said something the other day I found interesting.
He mentioned how it was obvious the big corperations had their hands in the pockets of both the Reps and Dems And made the point of mentioning how in spite of all the lip service on both sides it is curious how after all the corperate scandals there hasnt been a a serious significant move for corperate reform from either side
-
Originally posted by Steve
Newsflash: the economy is booming. Unemployment is at 5.4 to 5.5 percent, depending on who you ask. This number is lower than any number during Clinton's first term and equal to the first year of his second term. Clinton inherited a robust economy. Bush inherited an economy already in depression and thenwe suffered the single largest attack on our soil....... ever.
What's that about the economy again?
Source:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
In all fairness I dont know if you could discribe it as being "robust" but it certainly was on the upswing as oppsed to an economy that was already on the downswing when Bush got in.
I remember market experts all agreed just before Clinton took office that all Clinton had to do for the economy to get better was sit back and do nothing and simply let it happen.
By contrast I remember before Bush being elected listening to the downturn of the market day after day on the radio while at work and hearing the radio announcer blaming it all on Greenspan. I remember chuckling to myself thinking "you guy a stock for $50 thats barely worth
$5 it comes back to bite you on the prettythang and your blaming Greenspan?
Greenspan precicted this for a long time and did so over and over, You just wouldnt listen"
Of course we live in a shift the blame world, because we cant possibly be responable and accept responcabilityfor our own screw ups so fastforward a year later and the blame then gets shifted to Bush.
-
Yea, Nader is a life long consumer advocate - there is absolutely no question about that. He's devoted his entire life to it. He is not anti-business, just anti-screwing the consumer.
I wish I was as noble to have done the same thing if my state was up for grabs, but I probably would have went for one of the big 2 in that case. But you are right on the mark. One should vote their convictions and not who will probably win or lose.
Somone else in the oc said it well - a vote for a third party is not a wasted vote, its a vote for them to continue. I'm paraphrasing, and I forget who said it.
I think corporations have had a free ride over the last 20 years. Its no longer "the costumer is right", but "whatever the market will bare."
-
whatever the market will bare *sic*
Ummm... this is the basic premise of capitalism. What's wrong with this?
-
Absolutely nothing unless the government bails them out, which they DO.
excuse bear (sic me baby)
-
Deny God and just get it over with already.
Im glad to see the anti-god, pro gay marriage, pro infanticide liberal socialist democrats, who have hijacked the traditional party of the working man, revealed for what they really are.
They should just get it over with and condemn all people of faith and declare their hatred of God. That is the democratic party.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Not that it mattered (My state was almost 60% Bush) but I voted for Nader, and not because of Iraq. Bush spends money like a neurotic woman with a wallet full of credit cards.
Sexist.
-
Thats not sexism - its demographics - check them and see who shops.
-
Dred,
Tech goes through an "adjustment" every 8-10 years like clockwork. My dad was in tech before me ... always been this way. So I don't hold that against Bush.
What I do hold against him was the offshoring incentives which left many of the people who help create the boom of the 90's lucky to find a job at WalMart. The massive greed at the top which let executives remain in place while 1000's got layed off or oursourced was sickening. That's Ken Lay territory - I'm sure you've heard the tapes from Enron - bastards. They slip the noose, everyone else gets hosed. Did anyone from Anderson ever go to jail even? It's the tone that he and Cheney presided over that really hurt people.
Around 2002 San Fran. was the fastest shrinking city in the US. It cost about 3 times as much to rent a U-Haul leaving the city as going to it - if you could find a U-Haul in SF. If that had been Dallas or Miami, something tells me it would have been looked at.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
...The massive greed at the top which let executives remain in place while 1000's got layed off or oursourced was sickening. That's Ken Lay territory - I'm sure you've heard the tapes from Enron - bastards. They slip the noose, everyone else gets hosed. Did anyone from Anderson ever go to jail even? It's the tone that he and Cheney presided over that really hurt people.
WAS? Doc, that greed is alive and well and hungrier than ever.
One of the ramifications of Bush's reelection is a bright green light for outsourcing and more corporate shenanigans like Enron and Anderson.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
"Trash-can concept".
What you refer to as the "trash can" in theory, sounds like a good arguement, but the reality seems to cause more problems to evolutionists then creationists.
The Geologic Column: Does It Exist? (http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp)
A sample from the link:
Now what does all this mean? Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column! It remains primarily an invention of the uniformitarian imagination, and a textbook orthodoxy. So, although there are places where lithologies referable to all ten of the Phanerozoic systems can actually be seen superposed, creationists remain more than justified in highlighting the essential non-existence of the standard geologic column. And we have not even touched such matters as overlapping fossil ranges, non-superposed index fossils, and many other things, which expose the non-reality of the geologic column. That is, most fossils found are for only one geologic system (e.g. Devonian), and most index fossils do not actually superpose at the same locality. In other words, most locations with Devonian fishes are not overlain by rocks bearing Cretaceous ammonites, and most locations with Cretaceous ammonites do not overlie localities with Devo
nian fishes. The same can be said for all the index fossils of all of the geologic systems.
-
Here is what one political scientist thinks:
(http://www.theonion.com/election2004/images/national_outlook_map6.gif)
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
It seems it isnt. Cause a gay women/man does not have the same freedoms that I have..
What rights are they lacking???
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I have no hate for the GOP (seriously) just the few racists and religious extremists that hide in the GOP.
Agreed, they are there. But do you not see the same in the other party? It seems to me that that party has made a living on racial discrimination and religious hatred. The link Vudak provided is just an example.
-
You can find extreme behaviour/ideas in both parties. The fact that you point at one or two nut jubs and with a sweeping judgment label all Christians is bigotry. Flat out. The majority of the "right wing" Christians you hear them whining about on CNN are none other than your average midwestern/southerner. They go to church every week, live quite normal, everyday lives, and voted for Bush because they saw right through Kerry. I mean come on, who couldn't?
They voted because Bush HAS, or at least seems to have similar moral values. There is nothing wrong with that. Pretty much with Bush what you see is what you get. The guy speaks his mind, and does what he says, even if what he says/does is not "popular" with everyone. Vs. Kerry, who quite obviously would say/do anything to get elected. I liked alot of what Kerry said. I thought he did well in the debates, and made some great points. Unfort. most those points, and ideas that he had were just the opposite of what his TRUE feelings/opinions are. I base my knowledge of his TRUE feelings/opinions on his voting record, and what he has done in the past. A long, LONG time ago I quit judging people by their words. Words are cheap. I judge a man by his actions. A simple review of Kerry's life, how he voted on issues, and what he has done in the past were all I needed to see him for what he is. I don't dislike the guy, heck, he seemed genuine and quite likeable during his concession speach, but come on, he was hardly credible. Most of what spewed from his mouth before the election was exactly opposite of what he has said/done in the past.
Anywhoo I rant.
There is nothing at all wrong with getting back to moral values in this contry. High time.
-
For what it's worth, good rant WMLute.
-
republicans had a positive message for the future
the democrats had a negative, doom and gloom one ...
which road do you want the country taken down by its leaders?
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
It seems it isnt. Cause a gay women/man does not have the same freedoms that I have..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lazerus
What rights are they lacking???
I think he is referring to the Gay marriage issue.
and there they could probably have what they want if they just called it something other then "Marriage"
Its that word that many have the most problem with.
Only other issue is that of Gay couples raising children.
And just based on my own personal observations Im not sure I agree that that dispite what people say to the contrary is an altogether healthy situation for a child
-
>>Agreed, they are there. But do you not see the same in the other party? It seems to me that that party has made a living on racial discrimination and religious hatred.<<
Of course there are extremist and political opportunists on both sides. I've mentioned a few of them in posts (e.g., Al Sharpton, John Edwards, Micheal Moore etc.) The first time I used the term Dixiecrat was in reference to John Edwards.
But you have 95% of the OC pointing out the potatos to the left. You only have a few posts in the OC pointing out the potatos to the right.
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am - stuck in the middle with you..." or how ever that song goes.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
What rights are they lacking???
Are you really so ignorant that you haven't had this explained to you before. Or is it that you don't have the intellectual ability to understand it?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Aren't turtles, tortises, alligators and crocodiles *dinosaurs*?
No, Birds are the closest living descendants, they do have a common ancestor in early mamalian reptiles
*snip mythical claptrap*
-
Originally posted by Heiliger
What you refer to as the "trash can" in theory, sounds like a good arguement, but the reality seems to cause more problems to evolutionists then creationists.
The Geologic Column: Does It Exist? (http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp)
A sample from the link:
published in "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal" (god rag) with every single reference originating from yet another apologist
For the real science see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
for those afraid to read an article on the scientific research, conclusion :geologic column actually exists and is real
notice actual references to scientific research
Less of a problem for GEOLOGISTS than creationists would have you believe, you'd think they were trying to lie about it or something, follow the real research