60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

[BluegrassCat]

I read this today and it summarizes the evolution discussion nicely.

"Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html

[trish]

But I am already nuts in most members views here because I believe in God. The choice is purely mine. I think it only goes to say I would believe in Genesis Chapter 1.

Belief in God doesn’t make you nuts. Most people in world start life indoctrinated into one religion or another which usually requires a belief in one or more deities. Religion is often an important shared belief system that holds communities, social life and families together. It’s not insane to adhere to the belief system one was indoctrinated into from birth, especially if you never had occasion to question those beliefs critically.

What is not so understandable is adherence to a religion when it comes into conflict with well established facts and well understood science and you have become aware of the conflict. Persistence of religious beliefs that contradict well established science (as well as persistence of ideological belief that contradicts established scientific facts) is indicative of a psychological inability to give up a childhood dependency. It is a sort of mental illness. But that doesn’t make you nuts or crazy. Though it can make you a obstruction and one who reinforces social injustice.

Here’s what’s crazy. Taking your garden variety religion and adding on ludicrous doodads like the time-traveling Christ. Doodads which are not recognized by the great majority of religious authorities or the vast majority of the practitioners of your faith. Doodads for which the evidence (even granting all the bizarre peripheral apparatus that one has to grant when arguing from within religious belief) is tenuous, ephemeral and dissolves at a touch. It’s especially crazy when the people who believe these things present themselves as skeptics in other areas in which they have no expertise, no knowledge and no honest interest. These clowns have opinions on evolution and climate change but couldn’t give two fucks about any of the other important areas or advances in science. Do you have an opinion on the energy of Higg's boson or whether it's there to be found? Is the law of entropy fundamental, or does it derive from cosmological boundary conditions? Do favor the Lagrangian approach to general relativity or the traditional approach through differential geometry? What's your opinion on the Church-Turing hypothesis? Does it generalize? Are you a string theory man or not? Dark matter or MONDO? That one has strong opinions in two politicized areas of science and no interest in science is a clue that your opinion derives from a point of view outside of science per se; i.e. their evaluation is not a scientific one. It's not hard to imagine Faldur siding with the conservative POV against Galileo and the Copernican Theory had he lived during the Renaissance. BTW, it's still called the Copernican Theory.

In any case, have a great vacation Faldur. Don’t strain your brain.

(Hello Nicole, I appreciate the appreciation. And I do enjoy and appreciation or contributions both in this forum and in the general discussion. Missed you when you were gone).

[hippifried]

How did we get back on this evolution silliness?

It only took me 6 days to put all this together. Almost fucked up by creating light first, so I had to create stars to give all you brainy know-it-alls a source to point to. Anyway, y'all've been very entertaining & all, but I'm gonna have to pull the plug pretty soon. Sometime in the next billion years or so. Think I might try a contracting universe this time. See ya in the funny papers...
~ Blasphemers Я us ~

[yodajazz]

How did we get back on this evolution silliness?

It only took me 6 days to put all this together. Almost fucked up by creating light first, so I had to create stars to give all you brainy know-it-alls a source to point to. Anyway, y'all've been very entertaining & all, but I'm gonna have to pull the plug pretty soon. Sometime in the next billion years or so. Think I might try a contracting universe this time. See ya in the funny papers...
~ Blasphemers Я us ~
I think most people's creative imagination is limited. God is defined in the Bible and other texts as creating the universe, But time for us, is measured in earth revolutions. How can we say, the universe was created in six earth days, when the unverse is billions of planets, and entities we know not yet of? One day for God, may be an age for us, (mankind). Six days, six ages, or what galaxy?

[robertlouis]

No thanks, not wasting my time. 52 years since Darwin published his "theory of evolution" and today it is still just that, a theory. That speaks for itself.


Ummm. Darwin published his theory in 1859. That's 152 years by my reckoning. Maybe you're still using Archbishop Usher's method for calculating time.

But I'm joshing. Have a good vacation Faldur, and come back ready for the fray. You're in a distinct minority on this particular issue, but I do like your persistence.

[Faldur]

Ummm. Darwin published his theory in 1859.

Yup, my bad I had googled it quickly and saw this, He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book, and read 1959.


Here’s what’s crazy. Taking your garden variety religion and adding on ludicrous doodads like the time-traveling Christ.

Your doodad is the theological belief of most biblical scholars. God the Father has never appeared to any man. Anytime in the old testament that "God" appears it is God the Son who is present. That seems to be a shock to you but its been the belief of the Christian Church since the beginning.

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4

John 1: 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Only Timothy had powers of time-travel, I thought everyone knew that.

And thanks for the kind comments, its much appreciated. Now, lets get back to, (what was it Trish said?), "A public spanking and a little humiliation".

[trish]

Sorry but an appearance of the Captain of the Lord is not necessarily an appearance of the Trinity, and you have yet to explicitly demonstrate that a majority of Christian scholars regard it as such. You could start with the Catholic Church if you want. Does the Pope think the Captain of the Lord is the indeed the Trinity?

BTW, I thought you were on vacation. Have you found an internet cafe in Venice somewhere. Or perhaps you're posting from Katmandu. Just curious.

Of course if you start with a logical inconsistency like 3=1 you can derive anything. For example. Start with 3=1. Subtract 1 from both sides to obtain, 2=0. Now multiply both sides by 5. You get 10=0. Now again subtract 1 from both sides. This time you get 9=-1. Take the principle square root of both sides (denoting the square root of -1 by the traditional i) and you obtain 3=i. So i=3 and 3=1, so i=3=1. In words, the Trinity is imaginary.

[Helvis2012]

It might be time for some people to start paying taxes again.

[Faldur]

Sorry but an appearance of the Captain of the Lord is not necessarily an appearance of the Trinity, and you have yet to explicitly demonstrate that a majority of Christian scholars regard it as such. You could start with the Catholic Church if you want. Does the Pope think the Captain of the Lord is the indeed the Trinity?

BTW, I thought you were on vacation. Have you found an internet cafe in Venice somewhere. Or perhaps you're posting from Katmandu. Just curious.

Of course if you start with a logical inconsistency like 3=1 you can derive anything. For example. Start with 3=1. Subtract 1 from both sides to obtain, 2=0. Now multiply both sides by 5. You get 10=0. Now again subtract 1 from both sides. This time you get 9=-1. Take the principle square root of both sides (denoting the square root of -1 by the traditional i) and you obtain 3=i. So i=3 and 3=1, so i=3=1. In words, the Trinity is imaginary.

God how I do love debating you. You forgot the 1 in the beginning, 1=3=1 and yes the Catholic Church, (for what it is), believes in the Trinity doctrine. If I'm not mistaken it was about 206 AD they adopted the following, and included the Apostles Creed adopted 390 AD.

New Advent, "The Blessed Trinity" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm)

To me Holiday is a short break, vacation is a week or longer. Took the little lady to a beautiful small city where her daughter lives, had a nice visit, and attended my best friends daughters wedding Saturday. So, back again.. refreshed and ready.. :)

[Faldur]

It might be time for some people to start paying taxes again.

Amen brother!

[trish]

... yes the Catholic Church, (for what it is), believes in the Trinity doctrine.Now I didn't ask you that, did I? My question is, "Does the Catholic Church teach that the Captain of the Lord who spoke to Joshua is Jesus Christ?" Stop prevaricating and answer.
[BTW, the equality relation is symmetric; i.e. a=b if and only if b=a].

[robertlouis]

Amen brother!

I presume you're meaning billionaires and global corporations? ;)

[Faldur]

Now I didn't ask you that, did I? My question is, "Does the Catholic Church teach that the Captain of the Lord who spoke to Joshua is Jesus Christ?" Stop prevaricating and answer.
[BTW, the equality relation is symmetric; i.e. a=b if and only if b=a].

Hmm.. "stop prevaricating the answer". To teach anything different would be biblically wrong. No angel would ever allow the worship of himself/herself, nor would they ever make a statement like "the ground you stand is holy". To do so would be to earn a starting position on the other team. Not sure what your after here Trish, if you have a point to share, then share it. Michael the Archangel would not allow a mortal to worship Him. It would mean his demise, and separation from Heaven.

To the best of my knowledge Catholicism supports my statements. But again your talking about the religion formed by the Roman Empire to appease all Christian's. It was not then nor now a religion in high standing. It wasn't until recently that the Catholics even acknowledged the book of Revelation.

[trish]

You still didn't answer the question. You're trying to side step it because to the best of your knowledge the answer is "No" isn't it? I wasn't going to stop my questioning with Catholicism. You presume too much. Next, how about the Anglican Church? Does the Anglican Church EXPLICITLY teach that the Captain of the Lord is Jesus Christ?

We might be able to speed things up. Was anyone here taught in Church or Sunday School that the Captain of the Lord IS Jesus Christ? Where you EXPLICITLY taught the Captain was the Lord Himself? If so to what denomination do you belong? or to what church are you a member?

[trish]

Does the notion of the Trinity justify taking any occurrence God in the Bible and replacing it with Jesus? Did Jesus create the first man? If Jesus is flesh isn’t he a man? And if Jesus was around before creation wasn’t Jesus the first man, not Adam? Can we say God the Father died on the cross? Did the Holy Spirit die on the cross? Did God ask whether He was forsaken by Jesus? Did God ask whether he was forsaken by the Holy Spirit? Does Trinity allow us to willy-nilly interchange these three manifestations of the Christian godhead? Answering all these questions positively merely trivializes the whole notion of the Trinity and at the same time renders scripture more incomprehensible than it already is. Why does Abraham call the “Jesus” in Genesis 18 “Lord” and why does Jesus name himself to Joshua “The Captain of the Lord” and not "The Lord", or "The Son of God"? Why would the King, or a Son, or a Spirit call himself a captain?

We’re told that to become flesh the Lord had to be born of Mary. But if He became flesh previously, as His alleged appearances in the Old Testament would require, were there other virgin births? And why aren’t any of those births celebrated in the Old Testament, or even noted? Who were the previous Virgin Mothers of Jesus? Or was the route through Mary entirely unnecessary and just a whim?

So why is any of this lunatic fantasy important? Why all of sudden in the early 21 century are there a handful of heretics talking about the previous appearances of Christ on Earth in the Old Testament? I don’t know but here’s a conjecture. The two thousand year old tradition of Christ the merciful, Christ giver of the Golden Rule, Christ who teaches to turn the other cheek, Christ the savior of the poor, the weak, the sick, the children. Christ who deplores war and vengeance. Christ the God of love is a big disappointment to some modern fundamentalist, conservative Christians. The good ol’ end-time Christians envision a Christ in armor, riding a white steed, wielding a sword and lopping off the heads unbelievers, blasphemers, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, witches, wizards sending them all to hell. They prefer an Old Testament God and the two millennium tradition of Christ the God of Love just wasn’t working for them. Christ needs a makeover. We need Christ, the Captain of the Lord who gives military advice to Joshua before the battle of Jericho. And so there he is. All you need is some mumbo jumbo about the Trinity, a herd of willing sheep (oh, I mean some really skeptical minds...you know...deep thinking skeptics about science, evolution, climate, energy...stuff like that) and a myth is born. The time traveling Jesus is now everywhere in the Old Testament.

[Nicole Dupre]

Does the notion of the Trinity justify taking any occurrence God in the Bible and replacing it with Jesus? Did Jesus create the first man? If Jesus is flesh isn’t he a man? And if Jesus was around before creation wasn’t Jesus the first man, not Adam? Can we say God the Father died on the cross? Did the Holy Spirit die on the cross? Did God ask whether He was forsaken by Jesus? Did God ask whether he was forsaken by the Holy Spirit? Does Trinity allow us to willy-nilly interchange these three manifestations of the Christian godhead? Answering all these questions positively merely trivializes the whole notion of the Trinity and at the same time renders scripture more incomprehensible than it already is. Why does Abraham call the “Jesus” in Genesis 18 “Lord” and why does Jesus name himself to Joshua “The Captain of the Lord” and not "The Lord", or "The Son of God"? Why would the King, or a Son, or a Spirit call himself a captain?

We’re told that to become flesh the Lord had to be born of Mary. But if He became flesh previously, as His alleged appearances in the Old Testament would require, were there other virgin births? And why aren’t any of those births celebrated in the Old Testament, or even noted? Who were the previous Virgin Mothers of Jesus? Or was the route through Mary entirely unnecessary and just a whim?

So why is any of this lunatic fantasy important? Why all of sudden in the early 21 century are there a handful of heretics talking about the previous appearances of Christ on Earth in the Old Testament? I don’t know but here’s a conjecture. The two thousand year old tradition of Christ the merciful, Christ giver of the Golden Rule, Christ who teaches to turn the other cheek, Christ the savior of the poor, the weak, the sick, the children. Christ who deplores war and vengeance. Christ the God of love is a big disappointment to some modern fundamentalist, conservative Christians. The good ol’ end-time Christians envision a Christ in armor, riding a white steed, wielding a sword and lopping off the heads unbelievers, blasphemers, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, witches, wizards sending them all to hell. They prefer an Old Testament God and the two millennium tradition of Christ the God of Love just wasn’t working for them. Christ needs a makeover. We need Christ, the Captain of the Lord who gives military advice to Joshua before the battle of Jericho. And so there he is. All you need is some mumbo jumbo about the Trinity, a herd of willing sheep (oh, I mean some really skeptical minds...you know...deep thinking skeptics about science, evolution, climate, energy...stuff like that) and a myth is born. The time traveling Jesus is now everywhere in the Old Testament.
Awesome post. lol Owned. lol

[hippifried]

Being raised Catholic; I've never heard any church dogma that has Jesus Christ appearing at any time other than the 33 years from his birth to ascension. I've never heard os any dogma of that nature from the Protestant idolators either. But then again, it's hard to keep up with all the new things that spring from those johnny-come-latelys. Even the gnostics don't make that claim. As far as I know, the only ones who claim a later appearance & teachings of Jesus Christ are the Mormons. Of course if they had any credence, that story would show up somewhere in the Native American lore. It doesn't. the closest story is of the Great Peacemaker Deganawida. Even he wasn't considered divine. Visual appearances in the Bible are usually angels. Appearances By God are usually just a voice or a direct thought, except for the burning bush.

[robertlouis]

Awesome post. lol Owned. lol

:iagree: Great post Trish. I've never been able to reconcile the core tenets of Christianity, as a lapsed Presbyterian, against the fire and brimstone old testament beliefs of so many fundamentalist Christians. There was always a huge contradiction there. Now I understand, thank you.

Just one small thing - you omitted to mention gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered in your list of those for whom the warrior Christ spells the end, unless of course there's a special corner of hell already reserved for them.

It strikes me that such people are slowly dragging their vision of America ever closer to the Christian equivalent of the militant Islamic states that they so affect to despise.

[Faldur]

You're trying to side step it because to the best of your knowledge the answer is "No" isn't it? Next, how about the Anglican Church? Does the Anglican Church EXPLICITLY teach that the Captain of the Lord is Jesus Christ?

We might be able to speed things up. Was anyone here taught in Church or Sunday School that the Captain of the Lord IS Jesus Christ? Where you EXPLICITLY taught the Captain was the Lord Himself? If so to what denomination do you belong? or to what church are you a member?

Wow, wake up to homework. Welcome to Monday. Trish I am not going to speak for the Catholic or Anglican church because I know very little of their doctrine. I will say as a young boy I was molested, errr.. raised in a Catholic church and I can tell you the study of Joshua never came up.

The link I posted previously was the Catholics view of the Trinity, and I believe it aligns closely with mine.



Does the notion of the Trinity justify taking any occurrence God in the Bible and replacing it with Jesus?

Yes


Did Jesus create the first man?

Yes


If Jesus is flesh isn’t he a man?

No, He chose to manifest himself in the flesh. He is God, He can also do some amazing card tricks. Even did a buffet lunch for about 75, "Then Moses and Aaron...and 70 elders..saw the God of Israel...they beheld God, and ate and drank." (Ex 24:9-11)


Can we say God the Father died on the cross? Did the Holy Spirit die on the cross?

No, Jesus the Son of God manifest in flesh died on the cross.


Does Trinity allow us to willy-nilly interchange these three manifestations of the Christian godhead?

No, they are one. "I and the Father are One". (John 10:30)


Answering all these questions positively merely trivializes the whole notion of the Trinity and at the same time renders scripture more incomprehensible than it already is.

Well I don't think all of the answers were positive, but the facts in the book can lead you to no other conclusion. To do so with be contradictory to the statements and quotes of the Bible.

The New Testament clearly teaches that no one has seen God the Father and also teaches that Jesus was with God from the beginning of creation. "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 2He was in the beginning with God.", and in 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." And as told in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

Has anyone seen God or not?
Exodus 24:9-11, Exodus 33:11, Exodus 6:2-3; and John 1:18

Has seen
(Gen. 17:1) – “Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless;
(Gen. 18:1) Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.”
(Exodus 6:2-3) – “God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; 3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.”
(Exodus 24:9-11) – “Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.”
(Num. 12:6-8) – “He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. 7"Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses ?"
(Acts 7:2), "And he [Stephen] said, 'Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran...'"

Has not seen
(Exodus 33:20) – “But He [God] said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !"
(John 1:18) – “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
(John 5:37) – “"And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.”
(John 6:46) - "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.”
(1 Tim. 6:15-16) – “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.”


Why does Abraham call the “Jesus” in Genesis 18 “Lord” and why does Jesus name himself to Joshua “The Captain of the Lord” and not "The Lord", or "The Son of God"? Why would the King, or a Son, or a Spirit call himself a captain?

Can't answer why the name choice Trish, there is no biblical text to support anything more than opinion. But I do know that no Angel would ever allow man to worship them, nor ask them to remove their shoes because the ground is holy just by the Angels presence. The only two possibilities would be it was God, and had to be God the Son, (If it were God the Father Joshua would have not survived the encounter), or it was Lucifer. Lucifer would be the only angel, (however fallen), that would allow man to worship him.


We’re told that to become flesh the Lord had to be born of Mary. But if He became flesh previously, as His alleged appearances in the Old Testament would require, were there other virgin births? And why aren’t any of those births celebrated in the Old Testament, or even noted? Who were the previous Virgin Mothers of Jesus? Or was the route through Mary entirely unnecessary and just a whim?

I don't think you will find anywhere in the Bible that states "to become flesh the Lord had to be born of Mary. There were no other virgin births that were recorded.


So why is any of this lunatic fantasy important? Why all of sudden in the early 21 century are there a handful of heretics talking about the previous appearances of Christ on Earth in the Old Testament?

I hate to burst your bubble, but its been basic theology taught in most bible colleges.


I don’t know but here’s a conjecture. The two thousand year old tradition of Christ the merciful, Christ giver of the Golden Rule, Christ who teaches to turn the other cheek, Christ the savior of the poor, the weak, the sick, the children. Christ who deplores war and vengeance. Christ the God of love is a big disappointment to some modern fundamentalist, conservative Christians.

Modern Churches, mega-churches in particular, have modified there teachings to make religion more palatable. To put "butts in the seats" as they say. Theology doesn't change, the facts of the Book are constant. What religions and churches choose to teach is they're choice.

Christ is everything you describe, even more. But you can't, (well I guess you can if you choose so), ignore God's wrath when men turn their backs on Him. They estimate 5 billion died in the flood. The day that Jericho fell an estimated 140,000 men, women and children were killed. So the warm fuzzy side of Jesus is a pretty amazing thing, lest not overlook the whole picture.


They prefer an Old Testament God and the two millennium tradition of Christ the God of Love just wasn’t working for them. Christ needs a makeover. We need Christ, the Captain of the Lord who gives military advice to Joshua before the battle of Jericho.

The doctrine of "Jesus came and now the Old Testament no longer applies" is a doctrine of wishful thinking. The book must be taken in context in its entirety.


If so to what denomination do you belong? or to what church are you a member?

I don't align myself with any denomination, I'm not really a big fan of religion. I believe in relationship not religion. I spent 12 years in a local community church, that was a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. I currently attend an Acts 29 church, (Acts 29 is an organization started by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church).

You are gifted with an exceptional mind Trish, I am envious. (Still not stupid, just a little out of my league)

[Silcc69]

Wow we went from debt to religion.

[Faldur]

Wow we went from debt to religion.

Ya, derailing my own thread. Ok, in the time it took me to make that last post we borrowed another $188 million from the Chinese.

[muh_muh]

can we just agree on that any form of mysticism christian or otherwise is complete hogwash?


Just one small thing - you omitted to mention gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered in your list of those for whom the warrior Christ spells the end, unless of course there's a special corner of hell already reserved for them.

good point
ive always wondered how being on this forum while being a fundmanetalist christian works

[hippifried]

Sorry spud, but you need to go & reread your own link on the trinity before you claim that your theology is mainstream.

You sleeping through Catechism is your own personal problem. Joshua's campaign, including the battle of Jerico (the oldest continuously occupied city in the world) was covered in detail. The destruction of the walls is a major miracle in the overall mythology of the old testiment, & catches attention of the young.


in the time it took me to make that last post we borrowed another $188 million from the Chinese.
We don't borrow money from the Chinese. We don't & never have borrowed money from another country. We sell bonds on the open market to whomever wants them. The Chinese buy US treasury notes because they know it's a good investment.

[trish]

Wow we went from debt to religion. Indeed. And we also went through a discussion of evolution and climate change. Here’s the point.

Faldur may get an erection when he reads theres a meteorology station somewhere in the world that recorded a drop in the mean temperature anomaly over a one year span. But that doesn’t mean he’s a climate skeptic. It means he has an ideological bias against the current findings of climate science. At any given time you can find one pundit or another, or a pseudo-scientist or another who has a boner about a new development that disproves climate change, or evolution or proves that homosexuals can be cured, or that contrary to what most economists say, now is the worst time in the world to impose austerity measures on our economy. Real skeptics, real scientists don’t get boners. Just look at the crazy quilt that is his most recent post on the time-traveling Christ. Is there any evidence there, any at all, that Faldur has a skeptical bone in his body? Does he ask any hard questions of the thesis at all? One? There isn’t a skeptical bone in your body, Faldur. What you have is an ideological bias. When tickled it swells, twitches and sputters non-sense. The Warrior Christ who’s into Old Testament vengeance tickles your fancy. You want it to be true. You ask no critical questions. You pose no tests. You make up silly responses to the questions others ask and simply choose to ignore other questions. Why? Because you need a Warrior Christ. (May I remind you that you first evoked the time-traveling Christ to us in the thread concerning capital punishment.) The Warrior Christ justifies behavior the Merciful Christ would not. Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Jesus starve? Easy questions for the Warrior Christ. Not so easy for the God of Love. So after posting that drivel, don’t ever tell us again that you’re skeptical about anything. You’re not skeptical. You don’t know how to be a skeptic. You simply go where your boner leads.

Hi hippiefried. Thanks for the confirmation. My Catholic friends also tell me that Captain of the Lord is never depicted within their tradition as being the Christ. I want to thanks others of you who responded the questions and confirm so far that no one was ever explicitly taught that the Captain of the Lord is Christ.

I spoke to four professors of religious studies today. All of them quite knowledgable, all of them specializing in one or another area of the Christian tradition, though all of them are quite fluent in world religions. One of them is Lutheran. One Lutheran, now unitarian. One Methodist. One Calvinist. Each of them say that in their tradition, the Captain of the Lord is never properly interpreted as Christ, though the Calvinist wasn't as vehement as the rest...the rest expressing the opinion that such an interpretation in any Christian context is simply wrong or at best misleading. None of them could think of a major Christian denomination which would teach that the Captain of the Lord is Christ or even consent that it was a correct interpretation.

Faldur if you want a warrior Christ you need look no further than Revelations, the book to which all lunatics eventually turn to to justify their ways to God. Oh and the allusion to Milton reminds me, the angel Satan would probably let you bow him. Certainly the anti-Christ would. Are you sure the Captain of the Lord isn’t an early appearance of the anti-Christ?

[Faldur]

Oh and the allusion to Milton reminds me, the angel Satan would probably let you bow him. Certainly the anti-Christ would. Are you sure the Captain of the Lord isn’t an early appearance of the anti-Christ?

I know there were a lot of words in my previous response but had you taken the time to read it you would have seen this, (faldur quote of previous response), "The only two possibilities would be it was God, and had to be God the Son, (If it were God the Father Joshua would have not survived the encounter), or it was Lucifer. Lucifer would be the only angel, (however fallen), that would allow man to worship him."

If you have access to these biblical scholars, ask each of them, (including the Calvanist), wether they agree that the Trinity was present at creation. Genesis 1:2, Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. If they deny that fact, your not talking to scholars.

Print out the "Has seen" and the "Has not seen" verses and go back to your scholars and ask them how they would explain the contradictions created if the "Captain (Commander) of the Lords Army" was not Jesus. Then let them know a construction worker without any college education knows more about biblical theology, and in-particular about Christophany, then 3 of 4 scholars.

And in regard to the comments posted about gays, or homosexuals. All mankind is condemned to sin, been that way since the garden. If homosexuals cannot be saved then no sinner can be saved. God doesn't differentiate between types of sin. The only sin listed as unforgivable is blasphemy of the Holy Sprit. He hates all sin, so much so he sent his Son to die on the cross so that all sinners may be saved. Yes that INCLUDES homosexuals, murderers and telemarketers.

[trish]

I'm not arguing the theological point with you, because I don't even grant the premises. My religious studies people merely confirmed the sociological point that your hypothesis is a doodad, an add-on, a baroque curlique that is not a recognized part of the theology of any major Christian denomination, thus refuting your claim that everybody believed it, even (to the best of your knowledge) Catholics. So much for the best of your knowledge. But hey, you're smarter than those scholars who have devoted their lives in pursuit of religious studies, just like you're smarter than those scientists who actually scour the data, construct models and test hypothesis.

[BluegrassCat]

That IS surprising. That someone with no higher education would know more about biology, climatology & religion than ALL of the experts & scholars in those fields. Kinda strains credulity. Maybe he's that Good Will Hunting dude.

[Faldur]

That IS surprising. That someone with no higher education would know more about biology, climatology & religion than ALL of the experts & scholars in those fields. Kinda strains credulity. Maybe he's that Good Will Hunting dude.

Really? I know nothing about biology, or climatology. Sorry studied religion most of my life so I am somewhat opinionated about it. You don't need a classroom to learn, there are these things called books. You ought to try reading some, you might learn something.

I am responsible for my own opinion and discernment. I read on things I do not know, like any responsible citizen I study the facts and come to my own conclusions. Its just hard for you to accept that someone can come up with an opinion other than yours. Get over it spud, I am an independent thinker. A liberal's worst nightmare.

[Bobby Domino]

You have to watch a doc called "Jesus Camp." It touches on that exact subject. Came out in 2006, I believe...


It strikes me that such people are slowly dragging their vision of America ever closer to the Christian equivalent of the militant Islamic states that they so affect to despise.

[yodajazz]

Indeed. And we also went through a discussion of evolution and climate change. Here’s the point.
....

Faldur if you want a warrior Christ you need look no further than Revelations, the book to which all lunatics eventually turn to to justify their ways to God. Oh and the allusion to Milton reminds me, the angel Satan would probably let you bow him. Certainly the anti-Christ would. Are you sure the Captain of the Lord isn’t an early appearance of the anti-Christ?

I had not heard of "the Captain of the Lord", before. But I am in agreement with Trish, about the role of Revelations in Christian theology. I have observed that those focused more on the 'end times', vision seem to lose the vision of Christ, who commanded us to love. With some of the emphasis in Revelations on chaos, wars, politics, it is if some of those types of believers practically delight in negative events. This negativity is suppose to signal the return of Chirst. Now we have groups, like the New Apostolic Reformation, and the International House of Prayer, who feel that they should be directly involved in politics, among other things. These were groups that were highly visible at an event that Gov Rick Perry, spoke at recently. I understand that these groups feel that much of the world is controlled by demons. High on thier list is the belief, that demons promote the acceptance of homosexuality.

I do want to make the point the I love Jesus, and consider his teachings as an essential part of my belief system. I believe that he lives in me and in everyone, who expresses a true (universal) love. So I dont need a Christ to return, and say "that we need smaller government, and less Wall Street regulation", in order to benefit from his time, here on earth. In fact, I believe that he would be very critical, of a world ruled by money, debt, and profit margins, as opposed to other human concerns.

I consider much of the book of Revelations to be anti Chirst, with its focus on war and beasts, for example. So when I hear a person, who quotes many ideas from it, and not other parts, I wonder about thier purpose in life. So many are steeped in negativity. One young man comes to mind. He put out a 13 part YouTube video series. His major premise, was that acceptance, or tolerance of homosexuals, was part Satan's plan to take over the earth. Not much at all was said about the world's financial system. Last I remember of him, he was starting a camp, with an emphasis on survival, (he spoke often of end times narratives). I suspect there were some military overtones, in his camp. By the way, there is a Bible verse, where Jesus told his followers to sell their cloaks, and purchase swords, but I believe that was related to a specific instance, because he knew he would be arrested, with 24 hours, his his followers could also suffer some persecution.

Part of my belief system, is that Christ is already here, through his life exmple of love supreme. So he does time travel, to some extent. But to some extent, we all live on after death to whatever legacy of love we leave behind. When we leave money, it is only as good as, to what good it produces, (further expressions of love). So in this view, love can be eternal, and certainly as long as evidence of human life on earth exists.

[yodajazz]

can we just agree on that any form of mysticism christian or otherwise is complete hogwash?



good point
ive always wondered how being on this forum while being a fundmanetalist christian works

I see mysticism as a pusuit to find deeper meaning, in anything and everything. One such example is to contemplate our individual knowledge, as an accumulation of human knowledge throughut the ages.

[BluegrassCat]

I know nothing about biology, or climatology.

Finally we agree on something.

[Faldur]

Finally we agree on something.

Wow, you can take comments out of context. Isn't that how we got global warming in the first place.. hmmm..

[muh_muh]

You don't need a classroom to learn, there are these things called books.

ok fine humour me
gimme a list of all the actual scientific books, papers and or journals (actual science not pop science) youve read on biology and climatology

[trish]

We dump 919 tons of fossilized carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every second. Can you imagine the volume of 919 tons of a gas? Every square meter of sunlit Earth receives 1.4 kilowatt-hours of energy per second. To maintain thermodynamic equilibrium the Earth must lose energy at the same rate; either that or heat up. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, slow the rate at which the Earth can radiate away the heat energy that it receives from the sun in the form of light energy at higher frequencies. We are releasing 919 TONS of fossilized carbon dioxide into the atmosphere EVERY SECOND. In the three minutes it took me to type this post we released one hundred and sixty five thousand tons of the stuff into the atmosphere.

I just thought it would be a good number to keep track of in this thread about keeping track of significant numbers. Oops, since I added this extra line to my post we added an extra fifty five thousand tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. That's 220000 tons since the beginning of this post.

[yodajazz]

:iagree: ...
It strikes me that such people are slowly dragging their vision of America ever closer to the Christian equivalent of the militant Islamic states that they so affect to despise.
Some words used to describe this is called "Dominion Theology", or "dominionism". Dominion Theology Dominion Theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology)
Here is a more in depth article:
Dominionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism)
But there is not complete agreement as to tactics and structure. Here is a harsh critic of one the main groups, behind the recent religious rally, called the "NAR", which Gov Rick Perry recently spoke, by a fellow 'conservative Christian' writer:
http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/damnable-heresies-invading-the-church


We dump 919 tons of fossilized carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every second. Can you imagine the volume of 919 tons of a gas? Every square meter of sunlit Earth receives 1.4 kilowatt-hours of energy per second. To maintain thermodynamic equilibrium the Earth must lose energy at the same rate; either that or heat up. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, slow the rate at which the Earth can radiate away the heat energy that it receives from the sun in the form of light energy at higher frequencies. We are releasing 919 TONS of fossilized carbon dioxide into the atmosphere EVERY SECOND. In the three minutes it took me to type this post we released one hundred and sixty five thousand tons of the stuff into the atmosphere.

I just thought it would be a good number to keep track of in this thread about keeping track of significant numbers. Oops, since I added this extra line to my post we added an extra fifty five thousand tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. That's 220000 tons since the beginning of this post.

This is related. Can anyone explain, how certain Christian groups appear to be against the concept of global warming? Would also add such things as small government? I ask because my understanding of the Bible leads me to different conclusions than conservatives. And in fact, I see many paralells, between conservatives and the pharisees, whom Jesus deeply criticized. See this for a reference:
http://www.bible-history.com/pharisees/PHARISEESJesus_and_the_Pharisees.htm

[robertlouis]

Following on from Yoda's post, what saddens me most is that the notion of Christian love, which I always thought to be the very heart of the faith, seems to be disregarded by an awful lot of people who call themselves Christians.

[BluegrassCat]

I know nothing about biology, or climatology.


Given the sheer absurdity of the things you've claimed about evolution & climate change, I can't imagine a more IN context statement.

[Yvonne183]

I don't remember what the topic of this thread is about but I got a strange observation about environmentalists in my area. I am sometimes preached to by people I meet at events about the horrors of climate change and they tell me what I should do to save the planet. Then they drive home in their SUV while I take the bus home.

[robertlouis]

Given the sheer absurdity of the things you've claimed about evolution & climate change, I can't imagine a more IN context statement.

LMAO. :iagree:

[yodajazz]

I don't remember what the topic of this thread is about but I got a strange observation about environmentalists in my area. I am sometimes preached to by people I meet at events about the horrors of climate change and they tell me what I should do to save the planet. Then they drive home in their SUV while I take the bus home.
No group of people is immune from having members who are hypocrites. The major debate is which hypocracy, is greater than another. It's wanting others to do things, you are not willing to do yourself. Does anyone see a contridiction in someone who believes in the rights of the unborn, but is against public education, or against teachers collective rights? Dont they have an essential function in society? And taking away a high school music or sports, is losing lifeline to youth, to find more positive identities. I remember a click of boys that hung out in the school auto shop. Having that outlet, gave them more positive view of the whole education, or at least themselves. So defining the "innocent" as the unborn, but not the resulting youth as same, is a big hypocracy, in my book.

[Faldur]

I don't remember what the topic of this thread is about but I got a strange observation about environmentalists in my area. I am sometimes preached to by people I meet at events about the horrors of climate change and they tell me what I should do to save the planet. Then they drive home in their SUV while I take the bus home.

Spot on, Copenhagen climate summit 1,200 limos and 140 private planes. Al Gore's personal residence uses 20x the national average of energy consumption. If these people are so sold that the end is near why don't they act like it?

[muh_muh]

gimme a list of all the actual scientific books, papers and or journals (actual science not pop science) youve read on biology and climatology

still waiting

[trish]

I never tell anyone what they should do about global warming. I don't really give a shit. But denying it exists and that a primary cause was and is the rapid release of nearly half the fossilized carbon on the planet is simply being an anti-science contrarian for the purpose of saving political face. Go ahead and drive and SUV. I don't care. But don't tell me you don't believe in the basic tenets of well accepted climate science because you're being scientific and skeptical. BTW... I, when I'm not walking, I drive a Prius.

It's been 23 hours since I last posted. That's an additional 152 billion pounds of fossilized carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere.

[Faldur]

still waiting

Don't hold your breath sport.. not wasting my time

[Yvonne183]

The problem I have, is with the people telling me how I should live my life. A lot of these people telling me how i should live are rich millionaire types who in no way follow the same lifestyle that is needed to save the planet. I don't want rich Hollywood people telling me how i should live while they ride limos, use a lot of fossil fuels making a movie especially when it comes to special effects like blowing things up, racing cars around and all those generators outside the trailers of the actors, spewing toxic gas into the air.

Let's say I agree, climate change is a danger to our lives, but the problem lies in that the people that seem to be preaching to me how to live, mainly the rich people, don't give a rats on how they pollute and destroy things. I may not know anything behind the science of climate change but I do know when I'm being hoodwinked by people. I know a scam when i see one, and to have filthy rich people preach to me how i should live and they live a very wasteful lifestyle, I won't believe anything they say. If there are people who truly believe the earth is in an eminent danger then it should be these people who are first to give up their polluting ways.

My opinion. The climate change people are just another form of imperialism. The rich and wealthy making sure the others are kept down. I feel this is especially true where Europeans tell the poor African countries what they can and can not do on their own lands. As in the use of DDT to save human lives. It's not up to the Europeans to dictate how Africans should live. Climate change defenders are no different than the religious zealots of times past, using their tool to keep the masses in their place. As I said,, climate change could very well be true, but by looking at the lifestyles of the rich who preach this danger to others, one can't help but be skeptical.

The rich tell us,,,, Do as I say not as I do.

[muh_muh]

Don't hold your breath sport.. not wasting my time

so as expected the answer is none

[trish]

I certainly empathize with anyone who rebels at being told what to do and how to behave. Especially by hypocrites. So against who, besides Al Gore, are you rebelling? I’m not up on which Hollywood stars are mouth pieces for environmental causes these days. There’s plenty of monied hypocrites telling you not to worry about global warming as well. They will tell you it’s not caused by burning fossil fuels or that it’s not happening. At the same time they know differently because their own company scientists tell them the numbers. There’s simply too much money to be made. It’s just like all those wealthy tobacco CEO’s who claimed smoking wasn’t a danger to your health in spite of all the in house evidence that it was. At the same time there were movie stars telling you that smoking was harmful to your health even though they smoked in public and private. The behavior of rich hypocrites cannot be used as evidence for or against the scientific hypothesis that they may or may not espouse. If there is any moral to be drawn, it’s simply don’t trust the rich.

So instead of looking at the people behind the ad campaigns for and against climate science, look at the people behind the science. They aren’t rich. They’re largely nerdy professors who make a reasonable but not an exorbitant salary teaching undergrads, helpfully directing the research of graduates and working on their own experiments, models and calculations. They [] formulate climate models and propose explanatory hypothesis. They run calculations, perform experiments and check their proposals against the data. There [are] two kinds of progress. Various hypothesis can be shown to be incorrect, while other hypothesis may gain more and more support. So what have they been finding. There is no increase in solar activity, cosmic ray activity, solar or extrasolar activity that can account for the discernible rise in the mean temperature anomaly observed since the industrial age. Such activity would have been detected by various monitoring satellites th[at] have been orbiting the Earth since the late sixties. One I’ll mention in particular is the SOHO satellite orbiting the libration point between the Earth and the Sun. It has been monitoring solar emissions in a wide range of spectral frequencies, as well as monitoring the solar particle ejecta and the solar wind for more than a dozen years. There is nothing there that accounts for the current rate of global warming. The hypothesis that volcanism might account for global warming has been eliminated. It’s true th[at] volcano[s] spew a vast amount of geologically sequestered carbon dioxide into the atmosphere: 0.3 billion tons per year in fact. But human beings dump 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The chemistry and thermodynamics are well understood. We can calculate the effect of dumping that much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and run climate models based on the calculations. The models so far quantitatively match the collected data up to the predicted confidence levels.

It is the consensus of climatologists around the world that we are living through an energy imbalance driven by in part by the burning of fossil fuels. Most of these nerds will practice conservation, conserve their energy consumption, drive hybrids, and even sometimes get a little preachy with their friends. But by and large they’re too busy to go around telling you how to live and what to drive. [Though they are sometimes consulted to supply the science that is to inform public conservation policies] There is a scientific consensus on global warming and its principle cause. There is no consensus on what to do about or if anything can be done [] to stop or reverse it. We have already taken a large portion (somewhere between 30% to 50%) of the carbon dioxide that was fossilized for millions of years in the Earth’s crust and released it into the atmosphere. There’s no known way to put that genie back in it’s bottle. So maybe Al Gore will tell you buy a hybrid. Maybe BP will encourage you to buy a fleet of SUV’s. I’m sure you can find peacocks in Hollywood who will suggest you put windmills in your backyard and other’s who will tell you put a fracking well in your back yard. I’m not telling you to do anything. Do what you want. I will suggest that you cannot judge the merits of a scientific claim on any grounds other than science. The perception that the corporate executives of big oil are as greedy as flesh eating bacteria and the perception that Al Gore is an overweight pompous hypocrite are both irrelevant. Don’t get hoodwinked either way.

[robertlouis]

Excellent post yet again, Trish. Read the academics, not the celebrities, to get to the salient facts.

And it isn't just the stars in their SUVs. It's everyone who owns a car that they either don't need or which is bigger than justified by their minimum requirements.

[Faldur]

Excellent post yet again, Trish. Read the academics, not the celebrities, to get to the salient facts.

And it isn't just the stars in their SUVs. It's everyone who owns a car that they either don't need or which is bigger than justified by their minimum requirements.

And so the leaders of this movement to save the earth flying around in there private jets and living in there lush mansions is just to be accepted. After all they are above us right? Here to save the planet, disregard there lifestyle choices. Right.. not buying into it.

[Yvonne183]

OK, I got a homework assignment for Trish and Robert and anyone else who wants to take the task.

I keep hearing that I should read the facts and that most scientist agree that climate change is either real or a hazard to life on the planet.

Here's my task, make a list of all the scientists in the world, then make a list of all the scientists that agree that climate change is either real or is a danger to life. And don't leave anyone out cause if you do then I would have to believe your facts as being false.

As I said aways back in another topic about climate change.I don't care, I don't care if the world explodes tomorrow.

As far as hollywood mouth pieces for the environment, Darryl Hannah was just arrested for protesting an oil pipeline, that Deprickio guy is always on with causes, I'm sure one of them is about the environment. so, go ahead now, make that list of scientists for me, I await the facts.

[trish]

The Keystone XL Pipeline is an relevant topic to discuss.

It would carry bitumen from one the largest carbon deposits in the entire world, the Tar Sands of Alberta all the way from Canada down to the coast of Texas where it will be refined and sold in overseas markets. Producing the segments, connectors, gaskets etc. and the actual construction and laying of the line would produce jobs galore. I’m guessing in the tens of thousands, in the U.S. and Canada. The $13 billion cost of the project whether they’re paid by TransCanada Corp., ConocoPhilips, or the Canadian and U.S. taxpayers will inject money into our economic systems; i.e. it’ll be a mini-stimulus. Those are the pros.

The cons are as the follows. The project promises to eventually release the fossilized carbon dioxide from one of the largest carbon deposits in the entire world. The pipeline will carry bitumen, which is acidic crude, over one of the largest aquifers in the North American continent, the Ogallala. The design of the XL doesn’t have a very good record. Similar piping has been known to spring leaks. I heard thirty miles of pipe sprung twelve leaks over a one year period. This line will be over 2000 miles long. Heineman, the republican governor of Nebraska opposes the project because it will endanger single most important source of fresh water for his state. People, crops and livestock all depend on the Ogallala aquifer.

So is the project worth the risks? I sure as hell don’t know. I can only tell you that if project is carried out it will contribute significantly to the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it will accelerate the growing climatic heat imbalance. It may or may not irreparably pollute a gargantuan fresh water aquifer. I can also tell you that if the project is stopped, it won’t be producing jobs, it won’t be generating money for the stock holders of TransCanada or for ConocoPhillips, nor will it be generating energy for a developing world that requires energy at an ever growing rate.

It’s an issue on which people can have differing opinions, and even Hollywood peacocks, the last time I checked the Constitution, are allowed to have opinions, and unless the particular peacock that concerns is shitting in freshwater ponds while telling you not to pollute, I wouldn’t necessarily count it among the hypocrites. In any case, I wouldn’t be forming my opinion on the Keystone XL Pipeline based on my perception of Leonardo DiCaprio’s level of hypocrisy. I’ll stick to the relevant issues. Likewise, I’m not going base my opinion on what to do, if anything, about the ongoing CO2 forced climate shift on whether or not some climate scientists stuck in a hotel miles from the convention center were shuttled to their seven a.m. registration and meeting by a hotel “limo.”

Nor do a I think a complete list of every single climate scientist in the world showing who supports the standard climate model, who doesn’t is extremely relevant. What is relevant is the theory and evidence that so many experts have found to be convincing. So I will decline the request to tabulate such a list. I will recommend that if someone is truly interested in coming to their own decision on whether climate change is occurring due to the release of fossilized greenhouse gases, then they may benefit by first acquiring some knowledge of elementary elementary atmospheric studies. Pick an elementary text like John Houghton’s The Physics of Atmospheres. It appealed to me because of my interest in astrophysics. It’s very general and it is non-committal about the issue of global warming on Earth...mainly because it’s an elementary text that saves those more complex issues for later courses. Once you have a background, once you understand what powers the Earth’s climate, the channels of energy flow, and what systems govern climatic variations about equilibria, then you won’t have to use observations of Leonardo DiCaprio’s, Al Gore’s and Tony Hayward’s behavior as indicators of scientific truth.

[Faldur]

Got a question for you, if the Keystone XL Pipeline was in China do you think there would be any consideration what to do?

[trish]

So we should risk poisoning our fresh water aquifer on the presumption that China would risk their fresh water? Is that what a "skeptic" calls a rational basis for making a decision?

[Faldur]

So we should risk poisoning our fresh water aquifer on the presumption that China would risk their fresh water? Is that what a "skeptic" calls a rational basis for making a decision?

Regulating yourself to death while a very large population continues unregulated, makes no sense what so ever. We used to manufacture things, and millions of Americans had good paying jobs that supported healthy families. Today regulatory costs have driven 80% of the manufacturing jobs elsewhere, where regulations don't drive the majority of your manufacturing costs. Without a level playing field, all your precious regulations are only going to create a dead country. Hmmm.. current economic growth at? 0%?

[trish]

Regulating yourself to death while a very large population continues unregulated, makes no sense what so ever. Is this a response to something I posted? Where did I suggest we should regulate ourselves to death? I think my position was that I didn't know whether the Keystone XL project was worth the risks or not.
We used to manufacture things, and millions of Americans had good paying jobs that supported healthy families.Indeed. That was the case during the Clinton administration. We had a ten year budgetary surplus then.
Today regulatory...restrictions are virtually non-existent. May I remind you that polluting our water supplies will...
only ... create a dead country.

[yodajazz]

Got a question for you, if the Keystone XL Pipeline was in China do you think there would be any consideration what to do?
Can anyone tell when China, formerly called Communist China in the press, became the ideal model, for setting US standards? For most of my long life I heard that Communist countries had no regard for the freedom, (and thus the well being) for the people in thier countries. Were those a pack of lies, back then? If not, then the other possibility is that many here now feel the same as the old communist leadership, that is meager existence for the general public, but lives of privilege for the ruling class.

[hippifried]

Can anyone tell when China, formerly called Communist China in the press, became the ideal model, for setting US standards? For most of my long life I heard that Communist countries had no regard for the freedom, (and thus the well being) for the people in thier countries. Were those a pack of lies, back then? If not, then the other possibility is that many here now feel the same as the old communist leadership, that is meager existence for the general public, but lives of privilege for the ruling class.
Communism? That's a description of feudalism.

[philddd]

Ugh, not to try and impose, but China is still not the front runner in anything except for social injustices. Yea they get chocies they would never get, but htey have to basically sit through slavery to get those chances... fucing ignore that shit, same with everying. Fuck these idiots who think that clai9ming a new republic will secure everyghing... theyre proposing a weak virtue of communism, ... a situation that wont work withtr anuyone who has brains,.... sadlyI(

[yodajazz]

Regulating yourself to death while a very large population continues unregulated, makes no sense what so ever. We used to manufacture things, and millions of Americans had good paying jobs that supported healthy families. Today regulatory costs have driven 80% of the manufacturing jobs elsewhere, where regulations don't drive the majority of your manufacturing costs. Without a level playing field, all your precious regulations are only going to create a dead country. Hmmm.. current economic growth at? 0%?

The deadliest disaster in New York city prior to 9/11 was a workplace fire in 1911. 146 workers, of which only 17 were men died. The youngest who died were age 14. So many died because the employer had locked exits to prevent theft. They had 6 day work weeks and worked 52 hours every week. Inronically the last 6 victims were identified, this year 2011. Lack of regulation can also mean death.
Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Image_of_Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire_on_ March_25_-_1911.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Image of Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire on March 25 - 1911.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Image_of_Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire_on_March _25_-_1911.jpg/287px-Image_of_Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire_on_March _25_-_1911.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/87/Image_of_Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire_on_March _25_-_1911.jpg/287px-Image_of_Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire_on_March _25_-_1911.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire)

[Ben]

Are we slaves to debt? The history of spending more than we have:

The debate over what to do about debt is nothing new, according to anthropologist David Graeber.
Alison Stewart talks with Graeber about our misconceptions about debt and why it plays such a large role in history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBeHwyVKJs