I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: MooseMom on November 08, 2012, 11:10:39 AM
-
I suspect that most of us have seen the clips of Bill O'Reilly saying that "It's not a traditional America anymore. The white establishment is now a minority."
I am not really sure what defines "traditional America" as this is, and always has been, such a diverse country in its ideas, philosophies and even origins. And I don't know what "the white establishment" is, either. I'm guessing that there is a lot of white people who don't feel like we're the establishment of anything.
So, to you, what exactly is "traditional America" and what is "the white establishment".
And do you want "stuff"?
-
MM, I haven’t seen the clip, but in my mind (remember, I am younger and female) the “white establishment” means old, white men that are stuck in a 1950’s mindset where women should be pregnant and in the kitchen. They know they are a dying breed but they cling to their own beliefs, right or wrong. They long for the old days, when everyone thought like them and looked like them and acted like them. Now, they see that the world is changing and they refuse or are unable to change.
Do I want “stuff”? Heck no. What I want is someone, anyone, to act like an adult and address the problems of our country head on. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be out for their own interest.
-
I watched the clip this morning and don't really know what to make of it. The fear, the paranoia - it was like watching the class bully returning to school after summer holiday to find that everyone was now a foot taller than him and had been lifting weights every day for months. He seemed to be shrieking "Jesus, what if they start treating us like we've been treating them?"
-
Nice one Cariad. Couldn't have said it any better than that.
:yahoo;
-
One of our local channels replays "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" dramas every night. These are from the mid-1950s and very well-written and directed. (Probably too slow for modern audiences but that's a different topic.) These dramas certainly have their stereotypes especially when dealing with minorities, though not as much as was the norm for the 50s. But the point is that these dramas depict pretty much what I think most people would consider "traditional" America. Not a "Leave It To Beaver" America, but rather a wide range of interaction that shows how much our culture has changed.
Now there seems to be no "filters" or "limits" on what used to just be considered polite behavior. It was called civility and even if behind the scenes (as demonstrated by the dramatists) all sorts of lust, theft, and murder lurked just beneath the facade at least it allowed for a tolerable level of discourse, especially among mere acquaintances and strangers.
Additionally, certainly in the Hitchcock series, women had a different social role than today, but they were often depicted to be much stronger and more in charge IN REALITY than modern cultural pretensions might indicate. I'm old enough to remember that most of the women in my life had more authority and power than young people now think they had. That power was just displayed in more subtle ways and I believe actually provided more security and emotional face-saving options to both sexes.
But I guess I'm just waxing nostalgic... :P
-
^
-
I feel traditional America means going to church and respecting what God put into place. The change of "up yours" started in the 60's and I am fine with equal rights for all but Marriage is between one man and one woman. Not one man and 3 woman, not one man and his cousin, and not same sex marriage. WA passed same sex marriage and I'm just heartsick. God will turn his back on this nation and it has probably started already. He won't turn His back on individuals but as a Nation the "up Yours" He has heard loud and clear. People of this nation have turned their back on God. No question. So, traditional America is gone.
I can't even pray for this country or its leaders because their hearts are hard. Just like ancient Israel and look what happened to them.
-
I feel traditional America means going to church and respecting what God put into place. The change of "up yours" started in the 60's and I am fine with equal rights for all but Marriage is between one man and one woman. Not one man and 3 woman, not one man and his cousin, and not same sex marriage. WA passed same sex marriage and I'm just heartsick. God will turn his back on this nation and it has probably started already. He won't turn His back on individuals but as a Nation the "up Yours" He has heard loud and clear. People of this nation have turned their back on God. No question. So, traditional America is gone.
I can't even pray for this country or its leaders because their hearts are hard. Just like ancient Israel and look what happened to them.
Dear Rerun,
Well said as if it is not a well known conclusion already. Sadly, we are moving from Leave it to Beaver going onto Sodom and Gomorrah just as the Bible stated it would 2000 years ago. That which is good will be called bad and God will no longer be at the heart of this nation. Rerun, as you know, we have known it was coming for a very long time, but to see it here is a very sad day indeed.
Perhaps we have failed to pray for our leaders and lost blessings from God for our own failures. The time to pray is even greater today. May God give you the strength to remember where we all are heading.
God bless, Rerun, keep the faith.
Peter
-
Thanks Peter and I do know what you mean. Others will be blind to it until it is revealed to them. You or I cannot do it. Thank you for your support.
I hear you brother~
-
Bill's comment about "traditional" America refers to a U.S. where the vast majority of citizens didn't look upon government to solve their problems from cradle to grave. A more independent populace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nj9e3JLGkA
Can you be more specific about how exactly the vast majority of citizens look upon government to solve their problems? Which problems? How are these problems solved by the government? Are you talking about farm subsidies or subsidies to oil companies, for instance? Or Medicare? Benefits to veterans? You've made a very sweeping statement, and I'd like to hear more specifics.
-
I feel traditional America means going to church and respecting what God put into place. God will turn his back on this nation and it has probably started already. He won't turn His back on individuals but as a Nation the "up Yours" He has heard loud and clear. People of this nation have turned their back on God. No question. So, traditional America is gone.
But this was exactly what slaveowners were saying after the Civil War. Those people claimed that God intended that black people not have a soul. They claimed to know what God intended, and they were struck down. The slaveowners and the abolitionists both claimed that God was on their side. Clearly that was not true.
Early European-Americans destroyed the Native American population and their entire civilization, but these were a people who were, by and large, God-fearing, yet they claimed that they were entitled to land that was not theirs because once again, they just knew that God was on their side and that the native population was "Godless" and therefore not entitled to life nor land.
We have a terrible history of labelling groups of people as "Godless" and then exterminating or demeaning them. Sadly, this seems to be a continuing trend of today.
-
"God will turn his back on this nation."??? How dare you state what God will do. You have no idea. My God is a loving, caring, forgiving God who gave us free will.
-
"God will turn his back on this nation."??? How dare you state what God will do. You have no idea. My God is a loving, caring, forgiving God who gave us free will.
If God hasn't turned His back on us by now, I would like to think He never will. I mean, we practically exterminated one civilization and enslaved another. Our Constitution certainly didn't give full rights to all of us. For the longest time, only white men who owned property could vote. We as a people have worked long and hard to ensure that all Americans have had their liberties expanded. I would hope that God would give us props for that.
-
I feel traditional America means going to church and respecting what God put into place. The change of "up yours" started in the 60's and I am fine with equal rights for all but Marriage is between one man and one woman. Not one man and 3 woman, not one man and his cousin, and not same sex marriage. WA passed same sex marriage and I'm just heartsick.
That's freedom. People are supposed to be free to live as they like. There are countries which don't value freedom at all which enforce religious ideology. I'll take freedom over that option.
Sadly, we are moving from Leave it to Beaver going onto Sodom and Gomorrah just as the Bible stated it would 2000 years ago.
America was never like Leave it to Beaver. That time in 50s that some look back on with nostalgia as an innocent time never actually existed. It certainly wasn't a better time for any minorities or women.
That which is good will be called bad and God will no longer be at the heart of this nation.
Part of living in a free country is accepting that everyone gets to make your own decisions about how they live. You may consider certain behaviors "bad," but we don't legislate morality.
Both Republicans and Democrats try to legislate morality. Liberals, for example, have in various states pushed through smoking bans. Yes, smoking is bad, but why should the government tell me what I can and can't do? Second hand smoke? No problem, I can exercise my freedom and stay away from smoking establishments like restaurants and stay away from people who smoke.
Freedom actually works.
But this was exactly what slaveowners were saying after the Civil War. Those people claimed that God intended that black people not have a soul.
Not only that, but the Bible sanctions slavery.
-
Somehow I think that there are many Americans that wouldn't like to go back to "Leave it to Beaver" times, those being the people who had to sit in the back of the bus.
-
All this talk of government and God in the same thread just makes me wonder what happened to separation of church and state? Laws should be based on things other than Religion. We shouldn't have to make marriage laws - if 2 people want to marry, they should be allowed to. The government saying they cannot is bringing religious beliefs into the picture. I could be wrong on this, its been years since I've studied government, but I do not believe the constitution states that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. So why is the government sticking it's nose in now saying who CAN'T get married and trying to define it NOW? Goes against the separation of church and state. And also, why is God judging the country? If one believes in God, then one should live his or her own life in the manner which they believe God wants, and leave it at that. If everyone else wants to go against those beliefs, that's their deal - it's not the governments job nor place to tell them they are wrong or make laws to outlaw or ban whatever that belief or action is, not withstanding criminal things like murder etc. And if the government were to make marriage between a man and a man illegal, we are right back where we started infringing on the separation of church and state thing again. It's a fine line to walk, but if we want to be true to the constitution and the basic principles this country was founded on, then we have to do it.
As for "traditional America" - that is going to change with time as people evolve and change. We couldn't even go back to "Leave it to Beaver" times now if we wanted to. If we did, could we all be having this discussion right now as we are? Heck no, we'd have to travel over to June Cleavers house or wherever sit down and talk, and since that's geographically impossible for most of us, it would never be discussed.
So many things have changed with time. In the past the government helped free the slaves and give women rights. Now we have government trying to say who can marry who and whether or not I can have birth control or access to abortion. But do you know what these things all have in common? They all have religious backings.
I don't think we are a "godless" country, I just think we now have a lot of different views of God, and traditional America where most folks where white and Christan are gone, and this is leading to many questioning some of the things that we have in place, or don't have in place.
Do we want to go back to "traditional America"? I for one, do not. I am the educated working breadwinner in my house, and also a mother. Something June Cleaver would never be. I have rights, a voice, an opinion and am 100% capable of doing everything a man could do, and possibly do it better. Do we really want to step away from that to get back to "traditional America"? Do we really want to start spreading hate and inequality again? I don't think anyone except those few "traditional America" hold outs really want to, but I don't even think they fully understand what that would imply for them.
Just my 2 cents. :) I try to stay out of political debate, for fear I'll be called a Godless liberal etc. But I am not, I am truly 100% independent and make every political decision based on reason, not emotion or religion. And I honestly think if everyone elected did the same, more things would get done.
-
My friends at the Heritage Foundation recently put out this video:
http://heritageaction.com/
8)
-
Bill's comment about "traditional" America refers to a U.S. where the vast majority of citizens didn't look upon government to solve their problems from cradle to grave. A more independent populace.
Where is your proof that the "vast majority of citizens" now look to government to solve their problems, as opposed to previous generations?
And, until the last 10-15 years, America was 70% Caucasian. Nothing racist about that - just fact.
No, there is nothing racist about giving out accurate demographic information. The racist part is when you complain about what a load of lazy moochers Americans have become and then casually follow it up with "you know what else has changed? Fewer white people!"
Bill O'Reilly is just so subtle - whatever could he be implying??
-
Nice one Cariad. Couldn't have said it any better than that.
:yahoo;
Thanks, Cas! :beer1;
-
Traditional America. What is that? Could it possibly mean going back to some time we recall as having a certain amount of fun? I do not want to go back to that America; That was when there was overt racial discrimination and women were treated as second class citizens, and comic books were believed to be bad, after all, they contributed to juvenile delinquency. You know, reefer madness, crappy tasting beer, and Howdy Doody on the tube.
In politics, the traditional America means a reactionary right-wing.
The goals we set for ourselves and their accomplishment is one way to gain the sense of well being. Perhaps that is a tradition of sorts. Perhaps settling down and getting into that house you can call home, with roasted turkey and candles on the dinner table is more of the traditional America you are looking back on. That type of tradition is a personal things.
The realist sees America changing. Sometimes to adapt, or compete, or just because we need to know how to do everything better. The recipe for mediocrity is “Don’t fix if it isn’t broke.” In times of prosperity there is less of this nostalgia or tradition.
gl
-
So tell me why a man cannot have 3 wives or the other way around. Why can't you marry your cousin? It is none of the government's beeswax.... right? Why is child pornography against the law.... it doesn't hurt anyone to look. Why can't we smoke pot legally.... oh forgot.. we can and same sex marriage.... who created Marriage? Man or God....
I hope we all get what we believe. If someone robs your house don't be mad they probably needed those things more than you did and you can go to work and get it again. Right?
Just leave God out of it there is no right or wrong except murder of course.... when human life begins
-
My friends at the Heritage Foundation recently put out this video:
http://heritageaction.com/
8)
Nice video Zach. So, Zach, tell us how Obama did during the Sandy disaster? :beer1;
-
Grateful Dead Throwing Stones Lyrics
Songwriters: OWEN, MARK ANTHONY / MCDONALD, MILTON / DONALD, HOWARD PAUL / ORANGE, JASON THOMAS / BARLOW, GARY
Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
Dizzy with eternity.
Paint it with a skin of sky, brush in some clouds and sea
Call it home for you and me.
A peaceful place or so it looks from space
A closer look reveals the human race.
Full of hope, full of grace, is the human face.
But afraid, we may our home to waste.
Theres a fear down here we cant forget hasnt got a name just yet
Always awake, always around singing ashes to ashes all fall down.
Now watch as the ball revolves and the nighttime calls
And again the hunt begins and again the bloodwind calls
By and by again, the morning sun will rise
But the darkness never goes from some mens eyes.
It strolls the sidewalks and it rolls the streets
Stalking turf, dividing up meat.
Nightmare spook, piece of heat, you and me, you and me.
Click, flashblade in ghetto night. rudies looking for a fight.
Rat cat alley roll them bones. need that cash to feed that jones
And the politicians throwing stones
Singing ashes, ashes all fall down.
Commissars and pin-striped bosses role the dice
Any way they fall guess who gets to pay the price.
Money green or proletarian gray, selling guns instead of food today.
So the kids they dance, they shake their bones
While the politicians throwing stones
Singing ashes, ashes all fall down.
Heartless powers try to tell us what to think
If the spirits sleeping, then the flesh is ink.
Historys page, it is thusly carved in stone
The futures here, we are it, we are on our own.
If the game is lost then were all the same
No one left to place or take the blame.
We will leave this place an empty stone
Or this shinning ball of blue we can call our home
So the kids they dance, they shake their bones
While the politicians are throwing stones
Singing ashes, ashes all fall down.
Shipping powders back and forth
Singing black goes south while white comes north
And the whole world full of petty wars
Singing I got mine and you got yours.
And the current fashions set the pace.
Lose your step, fall out of grace.
And the radical he rant and rage, singing someone got to turn the page
And the rich man in his summer home,
Singing just leave well enough alone
But his pants are down, his covers blown
And the politicians are throwing stones
So the kids they dance they shake their bones
Cause its all too clear were on our own
Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
Its dizzying, the possibilities. ashes, ashes all fall down.
-
So tell me why a man cannot have 3 wives or the other way around. Why can't you marry your cousin? It is none of the government's beeswax.... right? Why is child pornography against the law.... it doesn't hurt anyone to look. Why can't we smoke pot legally.... oh forgot.. we can and same sex marriage.... who created Marriage? Man or God....
I hope we all get what we believe. If someone robs your house don't be mad they probably needed those things more than you did and you can go to work and get it again. Right?
Just leave God out of it there is no right or wrong except murder of course.... when human life begins
Actually, marriage in the USA is more of a legal contract than a religious one. A man cannot have three wives in this country because no one would insure them, for instance, and they would be devoid of many legal rights and benefits that come from legal marriage. If a man and woman become married only in the eyes of God and without legal recognition, they are not legally married. On the other hand, if a man and woman are married by a judge but not in a church and have no mention of God in the procedings, they are considered legally married and therefore entitled to all legal rights and benefits.
Marriage is very much the government's/state's business because it affects property rights, taxation, insurance etc.
People have been paired in recognized unions across place and time way before there was a belief in a Christian God, so I'm not sure it is historically accurate to say that marriage was created "by God". I think it may be more accurate to say that marriage was created by organized society, indeed, by Man.
The reason that the Catholic Church decided that priests should not marry is because they did not want their property to be shared with wives and any resulting children. That's the basis of their demand for celibacy. It's not rooted in anything other than the wish to retain property. God has nothing to do with it. So, even the Church recognized that God is secondary in marriage to legal rights, ie, Man.
You know why child porn is illegal; it damages the children.
I don't know how theft got into this discussion. It's illegal because it hurts people. Theft is considered wrong in just about all societies where there is the concept of personal ownership. There are societies, though, where this concept does not exist.
-
A man can have three wives - just not legally. Just ask the fundamentalist Mormons. Marriage is a legal issue, so you can be recognized by the government as a couple for property and tax purposes. You have to get a license from the state to get married. It's a legally binding contract. The only thing the church official has to do with it is sign it as a witness. Period. One of the local preachers writes a column for my hometown paper. He thinks that priests and preachers should no longer be able to sign marriage licenses. To him, it seems wrong to have a religious figure responsible for state paperwork. If you want the ceremony in your church, go for it, but leave the legal issues to the state to sign off on. Whether of not a church recognizes a marriage is up to the members.
Given how many people I know who have sent off on the internet for the info that makes them "ordained", I think it's lost all value anyhow. I know a guy who runs a lawn care business who regularly does weddings. Another friend who works on a ferry line has gotten one as well, because he friends didn't want to pay a preacher. I don't see any difference between what they do as an ordained minister than what I do as a notary public. I spent less than $100 to get a bond and a stamp made and filled out paperwork that I sent to the state. Poof, I'm a notary.
-
I've taken the notary class and you can end up in jail of you notarize something without looking at the identifications or actually know the person presenting paperwork. So take it seriously.
Good, it actually makes me feel better that Marriage is no big deal, just a legal contract. The gay ladies that moved in across from me won't be signing a contract because the one packed up and left. They were domestic partners and signed on the house together. Hmmm
-
I'm going strictly from memory, but if I remember correctly the idea of licensing marriages was a very late development and not a requirement in some states as late as the 1930s. The trend to license marriages had begun here and in England in colonial times in a few jurisdictions and it was always more of a taxation scheme than a cultural move. The real momentum for marriage licensing began after the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era as part of the many miscegenation laws passed to prevent "mixing of the races." Though that original purpose is long gone, no governmental agency is going to be willing to give up the income they derive from marriage licensing no matter how insignificant. Rather, they see same-sex marriages as a way of increasing the tax base incrementally. (Yes, I'm a cynic when it comes to government bureaucracies!)
Personally, I'd say do away with marriage licensing altogether and simply devise a system of civil union contracts that would allow ANY combination of adults to form a "family" for legal purposes. I do believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and anything else is not really marriage. But that is a religious point-of-view and men and women who want to get married can do so in whatever religious institution they wish without the need for government sanction.
-
Good, it actually makes me feel better that Marriage is no big deal, just a legal contract. The gay ladies that moved in across from me won't be signing a contract because the one packed up and left. They were domestic partners and signed on the house together. Hmmm
I've never said that marriage is no big deal. Actually, I believe it is a VERY big deal and is a very desireable societal institution. THAT's why even gay people WANT to get married! Marriage is important to them, too, you see. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that don't bother getting married but still get into financial and legal trouble when they separate. But at least THEY get the option to marry. To THEM, marriage is no big deal. The same can't be said for same-sex couples that WANT to marry.
-
Good, it actually makes me feel better that Marriage is no big deal, just a legal contract.
It's as big or small a deal as you make it. How big a deal it is has to do with the singular unique experience you and your spouse share, not the view of the supporting social institution which exists outside the union and is entirely secondary. And what others do doesn't "redefine" that singular experience. If the love of a couple is entirely dependent upon the shape of the social structure out of which the marriage was ritually recognized, then that love wasn't really all that strong in the first place.
-
I've taken the notary class and you can end up in jail of you notarize something without looking at the identifications or actually know the person presenting paperwork. So take it seriously.
Good, it actually makes me feel better that Marriage is no big deal, just a legal contract. The gay ladies that moved in across from me won't be signing a contract because the one packed up and left. They were domestic partners and signed on the house together. Hmmm
I do check id's and sigs, and know what I'm signing. I'm working with lawyers - it makes me overly cautious about lawsuits. :)
The point I'm trying to make is that the marriage the religious right are fighting against is really only a legal contract. No one is forcing them or their churches to perform any particular kind of marriage under their steeples.
-
I feel traditional America means going to church and respecting what God put into place. The change of "up yours" started in the 60's and I am fine with equal rights for all but Marriage is between one man and one woman. Not one man and 3 woman, not one man and his cousin, and not same sex marriage. WA passed same sex marriage and I'm just heartsick.
That's freedom. People are supposed to be free to live as they like. There are countries which don't value freedom at all which enforce religious ideology. I'll take freedom over that option.
Sadly, we are moving from Leave it to Beaver going onto Sodom and Gomorrah just as the Bible stated it would 2000 years ago.
America was never like Leave it to Beaver. That time in 50s that some look back on with nostalgia as an innocent time never actually existed. It certainly wasn't a better time for any minorities or women.
That which is good will be called bad and God will no longer be at the heart of this nation.
Part of living in a free country is accepting that everyone gets to make your own decisions about how they live. You may consider certain behaviors "bad," but we don't legislate morality.
Both Republicans and Democrats try to legislate morality. Liberals, for example, have in various states pushed through smoking bans. Yes, smoking is bad, but why should the government tell me what I can and can't do? Second hand smoke? No problem, I can exercise my freedom and stay away from smoking establishments like restaurants and stay away from people who smoke.
Freedom actually works.
But this was exactly what slaveowners were saying after the Civil War. Those people claimed that God intended that black people not have a soul.
Not only that, but the Bible sanctions slavery.
Actually Hober, conservative American politics in many ways is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. The fact that 51% of folks rejected a conservative administration in many ways is the same old story of man rebelling against God's laws since the garden of Eden.
You are certainly free to have your own opinions about what God is or isn't, but God Himself does not change. So be it, the hours of darkness are rapidly approaching this nation and this world and the most important comforts for me is God's unchanging nature. Simply because you and others have an opinion about how God should or shouldn't act in no matter affects His eternal, unchanging nature. But you will have the opportunity to stand before Him in person and make your complaints against him at your liking. I wish you luck on that day.
-
Actually Hober, conservative American politics in many ways is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. The fact that 51% of folks rejected a conservative administration in many ways is the same old story of man rebelling against God's laws since the garden of Eden.
Hemodoc, you know that I've always respected you and your opinions, even when I might not agree with you, but to say that to "reject a conservative administration" is to rebel against God's laws is shocking. Such a sweeping characterization of 51% of the American electorate is indefensible. Liberal American politics, it can be argued, in many ways is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics, too, such as the desire to help people in need, to feed the hungry and lift up the downtrodden. I don't see a lot in the Bible about, say, the right to carry or "self-deportation".
(BTW, how have you been? I regularly check your blog for new entries, and I haven't seen any for a month or so. Are you doing OK these days?)
-
Actually Hober, conservative American politics in many ways is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. The fact that 51% of folks rejected a conservative administration in many ways is the same old story of man rebelling against God's laws since the garden of Eden.
Hemodoc, you know that I've always respected you and your opinions, even when I might not agree with you, but to say that to "reject a conservative administration" is to rebel against God's laws is shocking. Such a sweeping characterization of 51% of the American electorate is indefensible. Liberal American politics, it can be argued, in many ways is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics, too, such as the desire to help people in need, to feed the hungry and lift up the downtrodden. I don't see a lot in the Bible about, say, the right to carry or "self-deportation".
(BTW, how have you been? I regularly check your blog for new entries, and I haven't seen any for a month or so. Are you doing OK these days?)
Dear Moosemom,
I will simply agree to disagree. Liberal politics are NOT based on Judeo-Christian roots. That is patently false.
Here is a short summary from Wiki on the association of conservative American politics and the Judeo-Christian ethics. What you are failing to acknowledge is that there is a huge ideological gulf in America today.
Political conservatives
By the 1950s American conservatives were emphasizing the Judeo-Christian roots of their values.[21] As economist Elgin Groseclose explained in 1958, it was ideas "drawn from Judeo-Christian Scriptures that have made possible the economic strength and industrial power of this country."[22] Senator Barry Goldwater noted that Conservatives "believed the communist projection of man as a producing, consuming animal to be used and discarded was antithetical to all the Judeo-Christian understandings which are the foundations upon which the Republic stands."[23] Ronald Reagan frequently emphasized Judeo-Christian values as necessary ingredients in the fight against Communism. He argued that the Bible contains "all the answers to the problems that face us."[24] Belief in the superiority of Western Judeo-Christian traditions led Conservatives to downplay the aspirations of the non-Capitalist Third World to free themselves from colonial rule and to repudiate the value of foreign aid.[25][26]
The emergence of the "Christian right" as a political force and part of the Conservative coalition dates from the 1970s. As Wilcox and Robinson conclude:
The Christian Right is an attempt to restore Judeo-Christian values to a country that is in deep moral decline. …[They] believe that society suffers from the lack of a firm basis of Judeo-Christian values and they seek to write laws that embody those values.[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian
At this point, you folks won, go govern, rule and do your thing. You have the power in your hand to do what has been promised, although I don't recall much as far as promises for a new Obama administration, just trying to destroy a rationale, conservative approach to our financial difficulties. The ball is in your court, you folks go and solve what 51% of the American electorate rejected. Sadly, they rejected the only way out of this mess. That being said, instead of continuing attacks against conservative politics, go and govern, it is your game, your outcome at your own hand. Please, go solve our problems with the liberal approach.
-
A college professor of mine wrote a book called "the way we never were" which basically says that we have had this ideal about america circa the 1950s as being a kinder, gentler, more family centric and wealthier time. But as someone else pointed out just beineath that well polished veneer was domestic violence, pill popping mommies with mothers little helper, alcoholism, child abuse etc. Never mind how we treated minorities and women back in the day.
The 30 percent of americans that are white men of middle age or older that constituted 85 percent of romney's votes are running angry and scared. They used to run and own this country and could abuse women and minority what ever way they chose. Now its in some ways similar to the end of Aparthied in south Africa. The demographics have sihfited not in their favor. They will try to hang onto their privilege and they have the resources to attempt to do it so it will remain to be seen as to what actually happens in the next 4 years.
at least for now we have health care reform ready to be fully enacted in the next 14 months
-
A college professor of mine wrote a book called "the way we never were" which basically says that we have had this ideal about america circa the 1950s as being a kinder, gentler, more family centric and wealthier time. But as someone else pointed out just beineath that well polished veneer was domestic violence, pill popping mommies with mothers little helper, alcoholism, child abuse etc. Never mind how we treated minorities and women back in the day.
The 30 percent of americans that are white men of middle age or older that constituted 85 percent of romney's votes are running angry and scared. They used to run and own this country and could abuse women and minority what ever way they chose. Now its in some ways similar to the end of Aparthied in south Africa. The demographics have sihfited not in their favor. They will try to hang onto their privilege and they have the resources to attempt to do it so it will remain to be seen as to what actually happens in the next 4 years.
at least for now we have health care reform ready to be fully enacted in the next 14 months
Sorry, that is a ridiculous and insulting and factually bereft, ignorant statement. I am a white male and I have NEVER ONCE abused any women at any time. You folks are absurd. YOU WON THE ELECTION. Get busy solving the problems, you own them now. I am not the least bit scared, I am quite secure thank you, but I am saddened.
I invite you to come back in four years and gloat once again after America has felt the full impact of Obama's regulations and laws. Today, I paid $373.00 to put my snow tires on my truck. They were already mounted and really all it was was a tire rotation. But due to a new Obama regulation, I had to install tire pressure sensors that by themselves was over $270.00. Sorry, I know how to check my own tire pressure without a government regulation making it mandatory. Just one more regulation in the face of many more to come that will cost us more and more money with what benefit? I check my tires on a regular basis, Obama doesn't help me do what I already do myself.
Yes, yes, yes, sore winners you are indeed, but time is on our side. Our best friend for 2016 is the full impact of Obama on this nation in the next four years. That is, what ever will be left of it in four years. So please, take your moment and gloat all you want, but seriously, I am not angry nor am I scared. I am quite sad knowing where we are heading. Good luck folks, you own this country for the next four years. Let's see what you leave by 2016. I have very little hope that the hope and change going forward will produce the results you folks state it will.
-
Hemodoc, I ask this with all good will and with a true heart. I am worried about you. Are you OK?
-
My friends at the Heritage Foundation recently put out this video:
http://heritageaction.com/
8)
Nice video Zach. So, Zach, tell us how Obama did during the Sandy disaster? :beer1;
Well, I got a tee shirt.
:beer1;
-
This is an interesting article written by the late William F. Buckley:
June 29, 2004, 12:07 p.m.
Free Weeds
The marijuana debate.
http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200406291207.asp
8)
-
This is an interesting article written by the late William F. Buckley:
June 29, 2004, 12:07 p.m.
Free Weeds
The marijuana debate.
http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200406291207.asp
8)
Dear Zach,
Since I am opposed to any chemical dependencies in my personal life, I would not and will not vote for such a measure. Sadly, Zach, what is the problem with having moral values and holding to them? If the nation wishes to go to pot, so be it, I cannot prevent such an issue, but I do and will oppose that myself. Because the majority of folks now wish to go in that direction, must I also go along and approve behavior I oppose? If that means the GOP dies out as a political group, so be it, I have a higher authority I report to and will give an account of everything I have done in my body whether good or bad. Our choices in this life do matter.
-
Zach, tell us how Obama did in NY with Sandy. Can't believe FOX news who keep showing people with still no power, or food or clean warm clothes.
-
I think that Bill O'Reilly's comment about "traditional" America refers to a U.S. where the vast majority of citizens had real values, and didn't look upon our government to solve problems for us from cradle to grave. I was watching a you tube video today from election day, where college students in South Boston were asked questions about who they were voting for and why, and how many congressman/senators we had, the amendments to the constitution, etc. These young adults, and I use that term loosely, were absolutely ignorant! I know I was self-centered at that age, but I was educated! I understand why they want the government to look after them...they certainly can't do it themselves! Just disgraceful!
Ricki
-
I think that Bill O'Reilly's comment about "traditional" America refers to a U.S. where the vast majority of citizens had real values, and didn't look upon our government to solve problems for us from cradle to grave. I was watching a you tube video today from election day, where college students in South Boston were asked questions about who they were voting for and why, and how many congressman/senators we had, the amendments to the constitution, etc. These young adults, and I use that term loosely, were absolutely ignorant! I know I was self-centered at that age, but I was educated! I understand why they want the government to look after them...they certainly can't do it themselves! Just disgraceful!
Ricki
But if they had answered the questions correctly, would they have made it on the net? Leno does the same thing, and has been focused on the elections and political things lately. I doubt any of the people who knew the answers made it on TV.
And then there's the thought that if you think the next generation are idiots - you need to take a look at who raised them....
-
I think that Bill O'Reilly's comment about "traditional" America refers to a U.S. where the vast majority of citizens had real values, and didn't look upon our government to solve problems for us from cradle to grave. I was watching a you tube video today from election day, where college students in South Boston were asked questions about who they were voting for and why, and how many congressman/senators we had, the amendments to the constitution, etc. These young adults, and I use that term loosely, were absolutely ignorant! I know I was self-centered at that age, but I was educated! I understand why they want the government to look after them...they certainly can't do it themselves! Just disgraceful!
Ricki
Well said Rickster. I ask my 16 yo grand son questions for which he has no clue about issues that he should. Their social media and public schools no longer teach what we were taught. I will take it one step further noting how my own children look to us even though they are in their 30's for so many things. I never expected to have my parents financially responsible for me my entire life. In such, I worked as hard as I could when I was in college to be able to provide for my own family. I have spoken with some of my friends who have the same experience. The lottery mentality and welfare mentality is widespread. Self reliance and standing on your own two feet truly are obsolete traditions here in the US any longer.
-
I'm sorry Hemodoc, but what jbeany says is true. Those grandchildren, and students of 'today' are raised, and educated by the 'traditional' 50s generation.
And don't worry, that 'mentality' is spotted by a lot of the 'traditional' 50s generation in the developed world. I dare say that your own grandfather thought those same thoughts about the now 50s generation?
-
I am at the end of my 30's, do not have a college degree, have ESRD that is currently being treated by a transplant, am a liberal daughter of very conservative parents. I have never depended on or asked my parents for any money, even when I was unemployed for a few months back in 2007. I now have a job where I make a very good wage, better than some out there who have college degrees. I have no credit card debt, own my car free and clear, and have only an upside-down mortgage to pay.
All that being said, if my company decides they don't want to pay my dept to be in WA anymore, and cut us all off or force us to move, I will be up a creek that looks muddy. Will that be my fault?? I will then be a non-degreed individual with ESRD that is currently being treated by a transplant that was injured during a biopsy, most likely permanently, which has left me with a creatinine of 3.3-3.6 and a GFR of 15. Was that my fault??? How do I go about being hired when I have that baggage to carry around? The job I have now is a union job, and with that union protection, and the support of my management team, I am able to work FT and they work with me on my schedule to let me go to needed dr and lab appts. My FMLA tapped out earlier this year due to the emergency surgery I had to have a few days after that biopsy. Thank God they were willing to work with me after I came back from being out for a month. I had weekly dr appts, and for a while in Sept, I had twice-weekly appts at the Tx Center due to neutropenia. Thankfully, that has been resolved.
My dept is unique in what it does for my company, and we have a Dept Manager who moved his life from RI to here in WA just to run our department. I know he has a lot at stake in keeping our department here in WA, and people in the company like him and listen to him. His goal is to work here in our dept for the rest of his career until he retires, and he says he isn't retiring until he's 70! So, in his spirit, I look forward to continuing to work at my job, for my company for many years to come. It is a good job to have when having a condition like ESRD. I sit at a desk, and we're open long enough each day to where I can have a flexible schedule as needed for dr's appointments.
All that to say, if the horrible happens, yes, I need a system in place to help me. I've worked and payed into the system since the age of 18. I have consistently moved up in the kinds of jobs I've held. I am good at showing up on time, rarely call in, and stay for my entire shift. I am a good employee, who happens to have the bad luck of having bum kidneys, and a transplanted kidney that was badly injured as a result of a biopsy. This is NOT my fault!!!
KarenInWA
-
*
-
I'm sorry Hemodoc, but what jbeany says is true. Those grandchildren, and students of 'today' are raised, and educated by the 'traditional' 50s generation.
And don't worry, that 'mentality' is spotted by a lot of the 'traditional' 50s generation in the developed world. I dare say that your own grandfather thought those same thoughts about the now 50s generation?
Actually, you are dismissing the entire cultural aspects of this generation starting with the public education system which is markedly different than when I went to school.
As far as my grandparents, I painted their entire house by myself when I was 19 during the summer. No, they appreciated the work I did for them free of charge and they encouraged hard work. I did no less with my own children. I also did the garden work for my aunt across the street more often than not simply accepting sauerbraten and hot popover rolls right out of the oven as my reward. She had a very large yard to mow that took about 45 minutes to finish. My aunt also loved the fish we caught and the occasional eel. We spear fished with mask and goggles with a poll and sharp tongs. Flounder is abundant on Cape Cod and the occasional eel. Once again, I have always worked hard and played hard. I am glad I didn't grow up instead with video games as the chief entertainment. It is a very different time in only one generation. I grew up in much the same fashion as my parents, my kids grew up in a totally different world.
I started working as a paper boy when I was 11 years old. My wife went to work at 11 as well as a live in housekeeper in the Philippines. Even today, hard work doesn't bother us at all. Truly, I have much more in common with my grandfather's and father's generation than I do with my kids. In general, there is a much different work ethic evident. Just the way it is. I see that with my own grand children and their friends at our church.
I took my grandson swimming in our pool with one of his friends a couple of months ago. They swam for about 5-10 minutes and then went and sat in the hot tub for about an hour. Since I had to be at the pool with my guests, I got tired of watching them sit in the hot tub and said let's go after one hour. Sorry, not the way we did it when we were kids. 10 mile bike rides or more were nothing at the same age. Chopping wood just for fun and other outdoor activities filled many of our days. We played hard as kids and that translated into working hard as adults. Sorry, I don't see that today in many of the kids I know. Just the way it is.
-
Zach, tell us how Obama did in NY with Sandy. Can't believe FOX news who keep showing people with still no power, or food or clean warm clothes.
He did fine. He was able to fly away on Air Force One.
But many folks in NY & NJ are still having problems.
The beach communities in both states were the hardest hit.
Outside of our region, many people have forgotten about us and have moved on to the next story.
The NYTimes has and continues to cover the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/nyregion/index.html
-
Thanks Zach. That is what I thought. Fox had it right.
Cape Cod? My father was born in 1919 and had to ride his horse to a one room school house 8 miles in 5 feet of snow or at least that is what he told us as we ran to the bus in rural Washington State. I'll take the 60's.
When he was a boy he helped his father with a team of horses plant and harvest 180 acres of wheat in the rolling hills of the Palouse. Sunrise to Sunset.... they also had a dairy.
We are all spoiled today and kids talk worse than ever before "F this and F that" It is horrible .... and they Vote!
I learned to type on a manual typewriter and now kids just talk to their IPad.
That said we still need a balanced budget. Obama says to tax the rich and Boehoner (sp) says to close loop holes of the special interest groups. I say compromise and do both.
-
Karen, I'm so sorry about the botched biopsy. I'd be so pissed. They can find a lot through blood work. Don't ever let them do that again. Geez!!
If you lose your job we can get married and I'll put you on my insurance. Separate bedrooms.
:cuddle;
-
Thanks Zach. That is what I thought. Fox had it right.
Cape Cod? My father was born in 1919 and had to ride his horse to a one room school house 8 miles in 5 feet of snow or at least that is what he told us as we ran to the bus in rural Washington State. I'll take the 60's.
When he was a boy he helped his father with a team of horses plant and harvest 180 acres of wheat in the rolling hills of the Palouse. Sunrise to Sunset.... they also had a dairy.
We are all spoiled today and kids talk worse than ever before "F this and F that" It is horrible .... and they Vote!
I learned to type on a manual typewriter and now kids just talk to their IPad.
That said we still need a balanced budget. Obama says to tax the rich and Boehoner (sp) says to close loop holes of the special interest groups. I say compromise and do both.
Actually, I grew up in Alaska for the first 10 years then in Maine for the next 8. We drove up and down the AlCan highway at least three times in those ten years.
I didn't spend much time on Cape Cod until I was 19 but we did get there from time to time. My great grandfather was a meat cutter with his own shop where my aunt ended up living across the street. The first time I saw Cape Cod was when I was three. My great grandfather was a meat cutter with his own shop where my aunt ended up living across the street from my grandmother's house. The bay was less than a 1/4 mile from the house and you could see the ocean from our second floor.
i agree, the 60's in many ways were America's greatest days. The craziness of the Viet Nam war didn't reach us in Alaska and it wasn't until we moved to the lower 48 that those issues intruded. You could buy a McDonalds' burger for 10 cents. Gas was only 35 cents a gallon when I first started driving. In my senior year of high school, I bought a 1968 GTO convertible. My brother had a 1968 Dodge Super Bee with a .383 cubic inch engine. My friends raced at New England dragway and one of them kept that hobby later setting a world record for super stock about 10 years ago. We were just kids, but we were playing with 440 cubic inch engines.
The things we took for granted, I just don't see any of the kids I know now in high school doing. None of them has worked outside of home yet. When I was 15 or 16, I bought a shot gun. I walked in, picked it out and payed for. No questions asked. The kids today don't have that type of freedom and responsibility as we did at an early age.
It just seems that they all have different goals and desires than we did. They certainly appear to lack many of the freedoms and opportunities we had at their same age. Is that just nostalgia, no, I don't think so. Things have objectively changed and in my opinion, not for the better.
-
I invite you to come back in four years and gloat once again after America has felt the full impact of Obama's regulations and laws. Today, I paid $373.00 to put my snow tires on my truck. They were already mounted and really all it was was a tire rotation. But due to a new Obama regulation, I had to install tire pressure sensors that by themselves was over $270.00. Sorry, I know how to check my own tire pressure without a government regulation making it mandatory. Just one more regulation in the face of many more to come that will cost us more and more money with what benefit? I check my tires on a regular basis, Obama doesn't help me do what I already do myself.
This is why Gwyn and I nod in somber agreement when Bill Maher refers to the Republican party as "One hundred percent Fact Free!"
The TREAD Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, was phased in starting in 2006 and manufacturers had to be in full compliance by 2008. 2008, Peter. Who was President for all but a few weeks of that time? Not to mention that Congress passes these regulations, not the President. To call this a "new Obama regulation" shows that you are uninformed and desperately looking to blame the President for anything and everything, regardless of easily verifiable history. According to Gwyn, with his 25+ years inside the automotive industry, new NHTSA regulations are not enforced on the consumer level and only apply to vehicles built after the regulation goes into effect.
It's good news that you can afford to throw hundreds of dollars away, though, seeing as that is what you've just done.
-
Karen, I'm so sorry about the botched biopsy. I'd be so pissed. They can find a lot through blood work. Don't ever let them do that again. Geez!!
If you lose your job we can get married and I'll put you on my insurance. Separate bedrooms.
:cuddle;
I know this is a joke, but knowing how much same-sex marriage truly bothers you, Rerun, I have to say there is something so unbelievably gracious and sweet about this reply. (It's funny, too!)
I am also so sorry to hear that you have to pay the price for the mistakes of others, Karen. It's all so unfair. Move to England - no more health insurance worries. We have all the rain of Seattle, plus a bit extra for the true rain enthusiast.
-
Karen, I'm so sorry about the botched biopsy. I'd be so pissed. They can find a lot through blood work. Don't ever let them do that again. Geez!!
If you lose your job we can get married and I'll put you on my insurance. Separate bedrooms.
:cuddle;
I know this is a joke, but knowing how much same-sex marriage truly bothers you, Rerun, I have to say there is something so unbelievably gracious and sweet about this reply. (It's funny, too!)
I am also so sorry to hear that you have to pay the price for the mistakes of others, Karen. It's all so unfair. Move to England - no more health insurance worries. We have all the rain of Seattle, plus a bit extra for the true rain enthusiast.
Rerun, I thank you for your offer! I hear that having separate bedrooms can actually be good for a lasting marriage, so I can totally go with that requirement! :rofl;
Yes, it is almost a year after my transplant ,and I am trying to come to terms that this will be as good as it gets, lab wise. I don't know how to feel about it Here, my donor went through the sacrifice of surgery, giving up one of her healthy kidneys to give to me, and I never even talked to her about my CKD before! I always felt that the best way to receive a live donor kidney was from someone who approached me about it, on their own, and that is exactly what happened. There is still a chance that it might recover more. One can hope.
KarenInWA
-
Karen, I'm so sorry about the botched biopsy. I'd be so pissed. They can find a lot through blood work. Don't ever let them do that again. Geez!!
If you lose your job we can get married and I'll put you on my insurance. Separate bedrooms.
:cuddle;
I know this is a joke, but knowing how much same-sex marriage truly bothers you, Rerun, I have to say there is something so unbelievably gracious and sweet about this reply. (It's funny, too!)
I am also so sorry to hear that you have to pay the price for the mistakes of others, Karen. It's all so unfair. Move to England - no more health insurance worries. We have all the rain of Seattle, plus a bit extra for the true rain enthusiast.
Rerun, I thank you for your offer! I hear that having separate bedrooms can actually be good for a lasting marriage, so I can totally go with that requirement! :rofl;
Yes, it is almost a year after my transplant ,and I am trying to come to terms that this will be as good as it gets, lab wise. I don't know how to feel about it Here, my donor went through the sacrifice of surgery, giving up one of her healthy kidneys to give to me, and I never even talked to her about my CKD before! I always felt that the best way to receive a live donor kidney was from someone who approached me about it, on their own, and that is exactly what happened. There is still a chance that it might recover more. One can hope.
KarenInWA
Well, here is what America is supposed to be all about. We can have differing opinions and philosphies, but we support each other in times of need. We all have a common bond, struggling with a hideous disease, and our support for the members of our community far outweigh any political differences.
This is how God blesses America.
-
I invite you to come back in four years and gloat once again after America has felt the full impact of Obama's regulations and laws. Today, I paid $373.00 to put my snow tires on my truck. They were already mounted and really all it was was a tire rotation. But due to a new Obama regulation, I had to install tire pressure sensors that by themselves was over $270.00. Sorry, I know how to check my own tire pressure without a government regulation making it mandatory. Just one more regulation in the face of many more to come that will cost us more and more money with what benefit? I check my tires on a regular basis, Obama doesn't help me do what I already do myself.
This is why Gwyn and I nod in somber agreement when Bill Maher refers to the Republican party as "One hundred percent Fact Free!"
The TREAD Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, was phased in starting in 2006 and manufacturers had to be in full compliance by 2008. 2008, Peter. Who was President for all but a few weeks of that time? Not to mention that Congress passes these regulations, not the President. To call this a "new Obama regulation" shows that you are uninformed and desperately looking to blame the President for anything and everything, regardless of easily verifiable history. According to Gwyn, with his 25+ years inside the automotive industry, new NHTSA regulations are not enforced on the consumer level and only apply to vehicles built after the regulation goes into effect.
It's good news that you can afford to throw hundreds of dollars away, though, seeing as that is what you've just done.
Dear Cariad,
As you know, regulations in place for years are often interpreted and enforced in different manners by different administrations. This is also the case with the tire pressure monitoring systems. I was told by my Toyota dealer rep that in November of 2011, Obama admin enforced the TPMS for snow tires as well. Thank you for the information on the NHTSA and TPMS, but you will need to update your data base. It turns out that the Obama regulators are now forcing snow tires to be TPMS compliant on all cars and trucks with that system.
I was not taken as your friend Gwyn remarked, it is now the law of the land to enforce compliance with all TPMS enabled cars when placing snow tires. So who is it that is uninformed my friend? The information I was given by the Toyota folks is real and they even got the date right, November 2011.
Thank you for your kind words nevertheless.
http://www.tireindustry.org/uploadedFiles/news/Press_Releases/2011/NHTSA%20Response%20to%20TIA%20TPMS%20Questions%2011-22-11.pdf
-
Karen, I'm so sorry about the botched biopsy. I'd be so pissed. They can find a lot through blood work. Don't ever let them do that again. Geez!!
If you lose your job we can get married and I'll put you on my insurance. Separate bedrooms.
:cuddle;
I know this is a joke, but knowing how much same-sex marriage truly bothers you, Rerun, I have to say there is something so unbelievably gracious and sweet about this reply. (It's funny, too!)
I am also so sorry to hear that you have to pay the price for the mistakes of others, Karen. It's all so unfair. Move to England - no more health insurance worries. We have all the rain of Seattle, plus a bit extra for the true rain enthusiast.
Rerun, I thank you for your offer! I hear that having separate bedrooms can actually be good for a lasting marriage, so I can totally go with that requirement! :rofl;
Yes, it is almost a year after my transplant ,and I am trying to come to terms that this will be as good as it gets, lab wise. I don't know how to feel about it Here, my donor went through the sacrifice of surgery, giving up one of her healthy kidneys to give to me, and I never even talked to her about my CKD before! I always felt that the best way to receive a live donor kidney was from someone who approached me about it, on their own, and that is exactly what happened. There is still a chance that it might recover more. One can hope.
KarenInWA
Well, here is what America is supposed to be all about. We can have differing opinions and philosphies, but we support each other in times of need. We all have a common bond, struggling with a hideous disease, and our support for the members of our community far outweigh any political differences.
This is how God blesses America.
I don't believe we have a common bond at all any longer Moosemom. God does not bless a nation by having a common bond, God blesses a nation in so much as that nation accepts His will and follows His commandments. The fact that America is embracing gay marriage, pot smoking, etc which are all antithetical to the Bible's teachings precludes His blessings. If this nation wants the blessings of God, it is quite simple as God spoke to Solomon three thousand years ago:
II Chronicles 7:12 ¶ And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for an house of sacrifice.
13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;
14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
With the recent vote, it does not at all appear that the people of America are seeking God's face and turning from their wicked ways let alone humbling themselves before our Holy God. No, I don't see the blessings of America from God at all with our current generation. If God continues to bless America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. That is not going to happen.
-
Here is the response from the Tire Industry Association to the new Obama NHTSA regulations and interpretations of the final 2006 rule on TPMS. Obama will not likely have a lot of new legislative initiatives. Instead, he will modify and rule through existing legislation and reinterpretation of regulations. This is just one such example. I stand firm on what I originally stated, this is a newly enforced Obama tire regulation as of November 2011.
For Immediate Release: Press Contacts: Mark Cook, Roy Littlefield
November 23, 2011 301-430-7280
TIA Gets NHTSA Response on TPMS Questions
The Tire Industry Association (TIA) announced today that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has responded to a letter written earlier this year regarding questions related to the servicing of tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS). The letter outlines four different TPMS scenarios that tire retailers regularly face and how the “make inoperative” provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 USC 30122(b)) applies to each situation. The provision “prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.”
In the first scenario, TIA asked if a retailer can replace an inoperative TPMS valve stem sensor with a standard rubber snap-in valve stem and still comply with the “make inoperative” provision. NHTSA’s response was that as long as the TPMS part was inoperative before the customer brings the vehicle to the repair business, “a motor vehicle repair business would not be violating 49 USC 30122(b) by removing an inoperative or damaged TPMS sensor and replacing it with a standard snap-in rubber valve stem…However, a motor vehicle repair business that goes on to make any other element of the TPMS system inoperative, for example, by disabling the malfunction indicator lamp, would violate the “make inoperative” provision.”
“This is exactly why our training programs have always stressed the importance of checking the status of the TPMS prior to service,” said Kevin Rohlwing, TIA Senior Vice President of Training. “If a valve stem sensor is not functioning prior to servicing the tires and wheels, then the retailer cannot violate the “make inoperative” provision because the system was already inoperative. This increases the importance of documenting an inoperable TPMS prior to any work being performed on the vehicle, especially now that the batteries in the sensors are starting to die.”
The second scenario focused on the purchase of aftermarket winter tires and wheels and the customer’s refusal to purchase new TPMS sensors or pay for the labor to transfer the original sensors to the aftermarket wheels. NHTSA responded that if the TPMS is functioning at the time of the aftermarket tire and wheel purchase, “a service provider would violate the “make inoperative” prohibition of 49 USC 30122(b) by installing new tires and wheels that do not have a functioning TPMS system. To avoid a “make inoperative” violation, the service provider would need to decline to install the new tires and rims, use the TPMS sensors from the original wheels (if they are compatible), or convince the motorist to purchase new TPMS sensors and ensure that the sensors are properly integrated with the vehicle’s TPMS system.”
“We are admittedly surprised by NHTSA’s response that aftermarket tire and wheels must include TPMS sensors,” remarked Roy Littlefield, TIA Executive Vice President. “Based on the language in the April 2005 Final Rule, we believed that the presence of the malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) would notify the driver that the TPMS was not operable as a result of their decision to decline new sensors or pay for the additional labor to install the original sensors in the aftermarket tire and wheel assemblies. While we have some genuine concerns regarding consumer backlash, it is clear that the Federal government is requiring retailers to make sure the TPMS continues to function following the purchase of aftermarket tires and wheels.”
In the third scenario, TIA asked if a service provider violates the “make inoperative” provision if they inadvertently break a non-defective sensor and are unable to locate an immediate replacement but allow the vehicle to return to service because arrangements were made to obtain and install the replacement part at a future date. NHTSA’s response was, “as a general matter, a violation of the “make inoperative” prohibition does not occur until a repair business allows or intends a vehicle to be returned to use…this would be true regardless of whether arrangements have been made for future repair.”
“While there will be some debate over the circumstances related to inadvertent damage, there are no questions regarding the release of the vehicle,” said Rohlwing. “If the actions of the service provider made a functioning TPMS inoperable, then it cannot be returned to service until the problem is solved.”
The fourth and final scenario describes a situation where a vehicle is released to the consumer without an illuminated MIL and then it illuminates after the vehicle has been driven. According to NHTSA, “The mere illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp after the vehicle has been released by a motor vehicle repair business to the driver would not itself be a violation of the “make inoperative” provision.”
“Based on NHTSA’s response, we are advising tire retailers to document the status of the TPMS before and after any tire or wheel service,” concluded Rohlwing. “If the electronic TPMS relearn or diagnostic tool includes the functionality to produce a print-out on the status of the system, we recommend that retailers give a copy to the consumer and retain a copy for their own records following service.”
A copy of the letter is available on the Association’s website, www.tireindustry.org. Retailers with questions, concerns or comments regarding the NHTSA TPMS letter can send an email to info@tireindustry.org.
About TIA:
The Tire Industry Association, with a 90 year history representing all segments of the national and international tire industry, is the leading advocate, as well as, instructor in technical training of tire service technicians. For more information, visit www.tireindustry.org or call 800-876-8372.
# # #
-
I invite you to come back in four years and gloat once again after America has felt the full impact of Obama's regulations and laws. Today, I paid $373.00 to put my snow tires on my truck. They were already mounted and really all it was was a tire rotation. But due to a new Obama regulation, I had to install tire pressure sensors that by themselves was over $270.00. Sorry, I know how to check my own tire pressure without a government regulation making it mandatory. Just one more regulation in the face of many more to come that will cost us more and more money with what benefit? I check my tires on a regular basis, Obama doesn't help me do what I already do myself.
This is why Gwyn and I nod in somber agreement when Bill Maher refers to the Republican party as "One hundred percent Fact Free!"
The TREAD Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, was phased in starting in 2006 and manufacturers had to be in full compliance by 2008. 2008, Peter. Who was President for all but a few weeks of that time? Not to mention that Congress passes these regulations, not the President. To call this a "new Obama regulation" shows that you are uninformed and desperately looking to blame the President for anything and everything, regardless of easily verifiable history. According to Gwyn, with his 25+ years inside the automotive industry, new NHTSA regulations are not enforced on the consumer level and only apply to vehicles built after the regulation goes into effect.
It's good news that you can afford to throw hundreds of dollars away, though, seeing as that is what you've just done.
Dear Cariad,
As you know, regulations in place for years are often interpreted and enforced in different manners by different administrations. This is also the case with the tire pressure monitoring systems. I was told by my Toyota dealer rep that in November of 2011, Obama admin enforced the TPMS for snow tires as well. Thank you for the information on the NHTSA and TPMS, but you will need to update your data base. It turns out that the Obama regulators are now forcing snow tires to be TPMS compliant on all cars and trucks with that system.
I was not taken as your friend Gwyn remarked, it is now the law of the land to enforce compliance with all TPMS enabled cars when placing snow tires. So who is it that is uninformed my friend? The information I was given by the Toyota folks is real and they even got the date right, November 2011.
Thank you for your kind words nevertheless.
http://www.tireindustry.org/uploadedFiles/news/Press_Releases/2011/NHTSA%20Response%20to%20TIA%20TPMS%20Questions%2011-22-11.pdf
The notion that members of NHTSA are 'Obama regulators' is ludicrous. Nothing that NHTSA dictates to dealers, manufacturers or other businesses forces the consumer to do anything. You chose to go to a dealer rather than do it yourself and they charged you a ridiculous amount for their labor. NHTSA does not have the authority to dictate anything to individual drivers. Obama was not involved in this at all, but if it makes you feel better to blame him, be my guest.
Perhaps if you did not spend hours hovering over IHD political threads, you'd have more time for other pursuits. Just a thought.
-
That's fine, Hemodoc, that you choose to believe we here at IHD have no common bond. If you want to exclude yourself from a group of people who care about each other, you are free to do so. We are all free to form whichever bonds we choose, and I choose to form bonds with the people here who have devoted their time and energy in creating a community that supports and comforts, informs and entertains each other. If this is not evidence of God's grace, I'll accept that. What I won't accept is the idea that bonds formed by us ourselves here on IHD are somehow invalid if there are members who may not share the same religious beliefs that you do.
You really are a wet weekend, Hemodoc! :P Is there any joy in your life at all?
My two oldest friends both happen to be gay. I've known them since high school, but it wasn't until several years after graduation that they told me they are gay. (They are not partners and never were. Neither are married.) I've had many talks with them about their sexuality, and as a result of those conversations, I've come to the conclusion that people are just born with their sexual preferences. It's like being born left-handed. I don't know anyone who has made a conscious decision to be gay. So if you believe that each of us is created by God, it makes me wonder why God created gay people? What is His purpose?
What are two gay people supposed to do if they want to enter a committed relationship? Do you support civil unions but not marriage for these couples? What is acceptable to you? And what is acceptable to God? If God created gay people, what kind of relationship does God envisage for these people that He has made in His image? Does He require that they be lonely?
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
Are you seriously saying that the only way that this country could have sought the face of God was to vote for Romney? That campaign was financed by a non-Christian who is also a casino owner, and isn't gambling supposed to be "wicked"? Romney's campaign was flooded with money from corporate interests, gamblers and who knows what other kind of sinners, and you are seriously saying that a vote for Romney was a vote for God but a vote for Obama was a vote for, well, not God? Seriously, this is what you are telling us?
And you really think you have some deep understanding of the current generation in its entirety? That doesn't strike you as arrogant? We have members here on IHD who are of a generation younger than you and I, and you post on here that all of them are undeserving of the blessings of God because they are all marching toward Sodom by way of Gomorrah? I'm astonished that you have condemned them all, like you know them all so well.
Our generation witnessed the Jim Crow laws in full effect. The Beavers of the world didn't live in every area of the Deep South where dogs were set upon people and black girls were burned. God has seen the USA commit far worse atrocities upon living human beings that He created, yet somehow you seem to believe that through it all, this was a blessed country. We have killed, destroyed, enslaved and debased in the name of God, but you see gay marriage and smoking the dried leaves of a plant to be more offensive to God than slavery and the ensuing debasement of whole races of people? Is this the American for which you are so nostalgic?
-
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
In the Holy Bible
Book of Genesis:
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good…
-
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
In the Holy Bible
Book of Genesis:
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good…
Well quoted, Marc!
-
That's fine, Hemodoc, that you choose to believe we here at IHD have no common bond. If you want to exclude yourself from a group of people who care about each other, you are free to do so. We are all free to form whichever bonds we choose, and I choose to form bonds with the people here who have devoted their time and energy in creating a community that supports and comforts, informs and entertains each other. If this is not evidence of God's grace, I'll accept that. What I won't accept is the idea that bonds formed by us ourselves here on IHD are somehow invalid if there are members who may not share the same religious beliefs that you do.
You really are a wet weekend, Hemodoc! :P Is there any joy in your life at all?
My two oldest friends both happen to be gay. I've known them since high school, but it wasn't until several years after graduation that they told me they are gay. (They are not partners and never were. Neither are married.) I've had many talks with them about their sexuality, and as a result of those conversations, I've come to the conclusion that people are just born with their sexual preferences. It's like being born left-handed. I don't know anyone who has made a conscious decision to be gay. So if you believe that each of us is created by God, it makes me wonder why God created gay people? What is His purpose?
What are two gay people supposed to do if they want to enter a committed relationship? Do you support civil unions but not marriage for these couples? What is acceptable to you? And what is acceptable to God? If God created gay people, what kind of relationship does God envisage for these people that He has made in His image? Does He require that they be lonely?
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
Are you seriously saying that the only way that this country could have sought the face of God was to vote for Romney? That campaign was financed by a non-Christian who is also a casino owner, and isn't gambling supposed to be "wicked"? Romney's campaign was flooded with money from corporate interests, gamblers and who knows what other kind of sinners, and you are seriously saying that a vote for Romney was a vote for God but a vote for Obama was a vote for, well, not God? Seriously, this is what you are telling us?
And you really think you have some deep understanding of the current generation in its entirety? That doesn't strike you as arrogant? We have members here on IHD who are of a generation younger than you and I, and you post on here that all of them are undeserving of the blessings of God because they are all marching toward Sodom by way of Gomorrah? I'm astonished that you have condemned them all, like you know them all so well.
Our generation witnessed the Jim Crow laws in full effect. The Beavers of the world didn't live in every area of the Deep South where dogs were set upon people and black girls were burned. God has seen the USA commit far worse atrocities upon living human beings that He created, yet somehow you seem to believe that through it all, this was a blessed country. We have killed, destroyed, enslaved and debased in the name of God, but you see gay marriage and smoking the dried leaves of a plant to be more offensive to God than slavery and the ensuing debasement of whole races of people? Is this the American for which you are so nostalgic?
No problem Moosemom, but if you want God to bless America, perhaps you should actually read what God states are His requirements. Have a great day.
Peter
-
I thought what you said about the bonds on IHD transcending politics was lovely, MM. I don't see it from a religious perspective, as you know, but I take the spirit of what you said and fully agree with you - it is special in a way that few things are. :grouphug;
-
I invite you to come back in four years and gloat once again after America has felt the full impact of Obama's regulations and laws. Today, I paid $373.00 to put my snow tires on my truck. They were already mounted and really all it was was a tire rotation. But due to a new Obama regulation, I had to install tire pressure sensors that by themselves was over $270.00. Sorry, I know how to check my own tire pressure without a government regulation making it mandatory. Just one more regulation in the face of many more to come that will cost us more and more money with what benefit? I check my tires on a regular basis, Obama doesn't help me do what I already do myself.
This is why Gwyn and I nod in somber agreement when Bill Maher refers to the Republican party as "One hundred percent Fact Free!"
The TREAD Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, was phased in starting in 2006 and manufacturers had to be in full compliance by 2008. 2008, Peter. Who was President for all but a few weeks of that time? Not to mention that Congress passes these regulations, not the President. To call this a "new Obama regulation" shows that you are uninformed and desperately looking to blame the President for anything and everything, regardless of easily verifiable history. According to Gwyn, with his 25+ years inside the automotive industry, new NHTSA regulations are not enforced on the consumer level and only apply to vehicles built after the regulation goes into effect.
It's good news that you can afford to throw hundreds of dollars away, though, seeing as that is what you've just done.
Dear Cariad,
As you know, regulations in place for years are often interpreted and enforced in different manners by different administrations. This is also the case with the tire pressure monitoring systems. I was told by my Toyota dealer rep that in November of 2011, Obama admin enforced the TPMS for snow tires as well. Thank you for the information on the NHTSA and TPMS, but you will need to update your data base. It turns out that the Obama regulators are now forcing snow tires to be TPMS compliant on all cars and trucks with that system.
I was not taken as your friend Gwyn remarked, it is now the law of the land to enforce compliance with all TPMS enabled cars when placing snow tires. So who is it that is uninformed my friend? The information I was given by the Toyota folks is real and they even got the date right, November 2011.
Thank you for your kind words nevertheless.
http://www.tireindustry.org/uploadedFiles/news/Press_Releases/2011/NHTSA%20Response%20to%20TIA%20TPMS%20Questions%2011-22-11.pdf
The notion that members of NHTSA are 'Obama regulators' is ludicrous. Nothing that NHTSA dictates to dealers, manufacturers or other businesses forces the consumer to do anything. You chose to go to a dealer rather than do it yourself and they charged you a ridiculous amount for their labor. NHTSA does not have the authority to dictate anything to individual drivers. Obama was not involved in this at all, but if it makes you feel better to blame him, be my guest.
Perhaps if you did not spend hours hovering over IHD political threads, you'd have more time for other pursuits. Just a thought.
Actually I haven't been dealing with IHD's political threads for months and I am about done with these. Thank you for suggesting alternative endeavors. There is snow in the mountains and more to come. I am grateful for God's blessings and about to head out into God's great creation. Thank the Lord for Idaho and good old fashioned old folks just like me up here.
Have a great day Cariad. By the way, doesn't Obama appoint people to rule each cabinet and regulatory post? The idea that presidents don't dictate policy through regulators is a rather naive assessment.
In any case,
Have a great day Cariad.
-
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
In the Holy Bible
Book of Genesis:
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good…
Yes, all was good until man messed it up. You need to read the entire story to get it right. You forgot the curse my friend. In any case, glad you read the Bible, hopefully you will understand the true story of salvation for all mankind God gave us.
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
-
I invite you to come back in four years and gloat once again after America has felt the full impact of Obama's regulations and laws. Today, I paid $373.00 to put my snow tires on my truck. They were already mounted and really all it was was a tire rotation. But due to a new Obama regulation, I had to install tire pressure sensors that by themselves was over $270.00. Sorry, I know how to check my own tire pressure without a government regulation making it mandatory. Just one more regulation in the face of many more to come that will cost us more and more money with what benefit? I check my tires on a regular basis, Obama doesn't help me do what I already do myself.
This is why Gwyn and I nod in somber agreement when Bill Maher refers to the Republican party as "One hundred percent Fact Free!"
The TREAD Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, was phased in starting in 2006 and manufacturers had to be in full compliance by 2008. 2008, Peter. Who was President for all but a few weeks of that time? Not to mention that Congress passes these regulations, not the President. To call this a "new Obama regulation" shows that you are uninformed and desperately looking to blame the President for anything and everything, regardless of easily verifiable history. According to Gwyn, with his 25+ years inside the automotive industry, new NHTSA regulations are not enforced on the consumer level and only apply to vehicles built after the regulation goes into effect.
It's good news that you can afford to throw hundreds of dollars away, though, seeing as that is what you've just done.
Dear Cariad,
As you know, regulations in place for years are often interpreted and enforced in different manners by different administrations. This is also the case with the tire pressure monitoring systems. I was told by my Toyota dealer rep that in November of 2011, Obama admin enforced the TPMS for snow tires as well. Thank you for the information on the NHTSA and TPMS, but you will need to update your data base. It turns out that the Obama regulators are now forcing snow tires to be TPMS compliant on all cars and trucks with that system.
I was not taken as your friend Gwyn remarked, it is now the law of the land to enforce compliance with all TPMS enabled cars when placing snow tires. So who is it that is uninformed my friend? The information I was given by the Toyota folks is real and they even got the date right, November 2011.
Thank you for your kind words nevertheless.
http://www.tireindustry.org/uploadedFiles/news/Press_Releases/2011/NHTSA%20Response%20to%20TIA%20TPMS%20Questions%2011-22-11.pdf
The notion that members of NHTSA are 'Obama regulators' is ludicrous. Nothing that NHTSA dictates to dealers, manufacturers or other businesses forces the consumer to do anything. You chose to go to a dealer rather than do it yourself and they charged you a ridiculous amount for their labor. NHTSA does not have the authority to dictate anything to individual drivers. Obama was not involved in this at all, but if it makes you feel better to blame him, be my guest.
Perhaps if you did not spend hours hovering over IHD political threads, you'd have more time for other pursuits. Just a thought.
Actually I haven't been dealing with IHD's political threads for months and I am about done with these. Thank you for suggesting alternative endeavors. There is snow in the mountains and more to come. I am grateful for God's blessings and about to head out into God's great creation. Thank the Lord for Idaho and good old fashioned old folks just like me up here.
Have a great day Cariad. By the way, doesn't Obama appoint people to rule each cabinet and regulatory post? The idea that presidents don't dictate policy through regulators is a rather naive assessment.
In any case,
Have a great day Cariad.
I've had a lovely day - it's late evening here.
You seem fixated on the word 'rule' and telling us to go out and do it (not sure what you think that entails) but the word 'lead' is more appropriate. Yes, Obama appoints his cabinet, and NHTSA would fall under the umbrella of one of the Departments, but the idea that Obama hand-picks each regulator and micro-manages each regulation is a risible notion.
-
Actually I haven't been dealing with IHD's political threads for months and I am about done with these.
Okay, see you in 2 years. Love ya man.
Take care,
Marc ;)
-
I invite you to come back in four years and gloat once again after America has felt the full impact of Obama's regulations and laws. Today, I paid $373.00 to put my snow tires on my truck. They were already mounted and really all it was was a tire rotation. But due to a new Obama regulation, I had to install tire pressure sensors that by themselves was over $270.00. Sorry, I know how to check my own tire pressure without a government regulation making it mandatory. Just one more regulation in the face of many more to come that will cost us more and more money with what benefit? I check my tires on a regular basis, Obama doesn't help me do what I already do myself.
This is why Gwyn and I nod in somber agreement when Bill Maher refers to the Republican party as "One hundred percent Fact Free!"
The TREAD Act was enacted on November 1, 2000, was phased in starting in 2006 and manufacturers had to be in full compliance by 2008. 2008, Peter. Who was President for all but a few weeks of that time? Not to mention that Congress passes these regulations, not the President. To call this a "new Obama regulation" shows that you are uninformed and desperately looking to blame the President for anything and everything, regardless of easily verifiable history. According to Gwyn, with his 25+ years inside the automotive industry, new NHTSA regulations are not enforced on the consumer level and only apply to vehicles built after the regulation goes into effect.
It's good news that you can afford to throw hundreds of dollars away, though, seeing as that is what you've just done.
Dear Cariad,
As you know, regulations in place for years are often interpreted and enforced in different manners by different administrations. This is also the case with the tire pressure monitoring systems. I was told by my Toyota dealer rep that in November of 2011, Obama admin enforced the TPMS for snow tires as well. Thank you for the information on the NHTSA and TPMS, but you will need to update your data base. It turns out that the Obama regulators are now forcing snow tires to be TPMS compliant on all cars and trucks with that system.
I was not taken as your friend Gwyn remarked, it is now the law of the land to enforce compliance with all TPMS enabled cars when placing snow tires. So who is it that is uninformed my friend? The information I was given by the Toyota folks is real and they even got the date right, November 2011.
Thank you for your kind words nevertheless.
http://www.tireindustry.org/uploadedFiles/news/Press_Releases/2011/NHTSA%20Response%20to%20TIA%20TPMS%20Questions%2011-22-11.pdf
The notion that members of NHTSA are 'Obama regulators' is ludicrous. Nothing that NHTSA dictates to dealers, manufacturers or other businesses forces the consumer to do anything. You chose to go to a dealer rather than do it yourself and they charged you a ridiculous amount for their labor. NHTSA does not have the authority to dictate anything to individual drivers. Obama was not involved in this at all, but if it makes you feel better to blame him, be my guest.
Perhaps if you did not spend hours hovering over IHD political threads, you'd have more time for other pursuits. Just a thought.
Actually I haven't been dealing with IHD's political threads for months and I am about done with these. Thank you for suggesting alternative endeavors. There is snow in the mountains and more to come. I am grateful for God's blessings and about to head out into God's great creation. Thank the Lord for Idaho and good old fashioned old folks just like me up here.
Have a great day Cariad. By the way, doesn't Obama appoint people to rule each cabinet and regulatory post? The idea that presidents don't dictate policy through regulators is a rather naive assessment.
In any case,
Have a great day Cariad.
I've had a lovely day - it's late evening here.
You seem fixated on the word 'rule' and telling us to go out and do it (not sure what you think that entails) but the word 'lead' is more appropriate. Yes, Obama appoints his cabinet, and NHTSA would fall under the umbrella of one of the Departments, but the idea that Obama hand-picks each regulator and micro-manages each regulation is a risible notion.
Actually, not my fixation at all, but instead Obama and his advisors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo
So, go rule. I am getting on with my life and will cope with the political climate whoever is in charge.
-
So, go rule. I am getting on with my life and will cope with the political climate whoever is in charge.
You've said this easily a dozen times with no indication that you are in fact getting on with your life. I am not even in America anymore and so sadly can take no credit for any of Obama's successes over the next four years.
-
So, go rule. I am getting on with my life and will cope with the political climate whoever is in charge.
You've said this easily a dozen times with no indication that you are in fact getting on with your life. I am not even in America anymore and so sadly can take no credit for any of Obama's successes over the next four years.
You are comical Cariad. I come and comment for a few days on a couple of threads after not going on IHD for months aand all of a sudden you pronounce my life as stagnant. :yahoo; :rofl; :clap;
In any case, if you don't want to rule with Obama, there should be plenty of room to lead from behind with him.
Take care, thanks for the chuckles.
-
I don't think it's stagnant, Hemodoc - I just think you enjoy the political banter! You posted all of once in August, after not being with us since April. Then in the last 5 days, you've had 26 posts, all in the politics section. ;D
Hey, if you are heading back to whatever you do the rest of the time, don't wait 4 years to come back and check in, okay? I think we need more discussion on the issues all the time, not just in November every 4 years, which is when most of Traditional America actually pays attention!
-
Who said the sixties were great? I agree. I was a teenager back then. I'd come home from school, grab my surfboard, and hit the waves. Usually it was just me and the sea. I loved those days.
-
MM you have so many questions. I wish you could come to church with me. Today was so awesome.
Peter stay in Cd'A it is safe there. Maybe we could meet at Cabela's for some lunch one day. They serve wild game there. I'll stick with the beef. Cabela's is still in Idaho.
-
MM you have so many questions. I wish you could come to church with me. Today was so awesome.
Peter stay in Cd'A it is safe there. Maybe we could meet at Cabela's for some lunch one day. They serve wild game there. I'll stick with the beef. Cabela's is still in Idaho.
Sounds good to me Rerun. Are you seeing Dr. O on the 26th? CDA is great. My wife and I ate at the Cabelas cafe a couple of months ago with our granddaughter. Not bad at all. Had some of their wild rice soup. Beef is just fine as well.
Stay in touch, God bless,
Peter
-
I don't think it's stagnant, Hemodoc - I just think you enjoy the political banter! You posted all of once in August, after not being with us since April. Then in the last 5 days, you've had 26 posts, all in the politics section. ;D
Hey, if you are heading back to whatever you do the rest of the time, don't wait 4 years to come back and check in, okay? I think we need more discussion on the issues all the time, not just in November every 4 years, which is when most of Traditional America actually pays attention!
Wow, big brother is here indeed. Sorry, that is a little over the top to look at my stats like that, but I guess that is the times we live in.
No, not much joy in political banter today. Most folks nowadays engage in ad hominem attacks which is not a substitute for true political banter in the style of William F. Buckley Jr. No wonder when you consider the type of political discourse of the latest campaign. No, the gap is wide and broad and growing larger all the time between our political entities. Political discourse, that would be fun, but it is very rare in its pure form any longer. Perhaps that is why I don't participate much at all in the last few months as you have provided to review.
-
So, go rule. I am getting on with my life and will cope with the political climate whoever is in charge.
You've said this easily a dozen times with no indication that you are in fact getting on with your life. I am not even in America anymore and so sadly can take no credit for any of Obama's successes over the next four years.
You are comical Cariad. I come and comment for a few days on a couple of threads after not going on IHD for months aand all of a sudden you pronounce my life as stagnant. :yahoo; :rofl; :clap;
In any case, if you don't want to rule with Obama, there should be plenty of room to lead from behind with him.
Take care, thanks for the chuckles.
I never pronounced your life stagnant, though this conversation has certainly stagnated. You are adding nothing new to the discussion, just bitterly and relentlessly repeating yourself, which would suggest that you have not got over the results of the election as every other conservative on this site seems to have been able to do by now. I would be happy to work with Obama - he has only to ask. I don't take orders from you, though, and I do not appreciate you trying to speak for me by putting words in my mouth and telling me what I do and do not want. You can repeat 'go rule' thousands more times and it won't stop me from expressing myself. You seem to expect (and want) progressives to fear the future because *you* think it will be catastrophic. If you are waiting around for me to say that I am unhappy in any way with the results of the Presidential election, you are wasting your time. I look forward to seeing Obama have the chance to finish what he's started, and I couldn't care less how much conservatives wail and moan about it. (It is actually quite funny truth be told, especially the Fox News pearl clutching.)
I enjoy political debates - sometimes merely reading, sometimes participating. I try not to offend the members here, and, perhaps more importantly, I try not to look for reasons to take offense. However, I do not apologise for my political views nor do I expect anyone here to apologise for theirs so long as all of these views are stated respectfully.
-
Well spoken Caried, I was about to post the same content, but you spoke for a lot.
-
That's fine, Hemodoc, that you choose to believe we here at IHD have no common bond. If you want to exclude yourself from a group of people who care about each other, you are free to do so. We are all free to form whichever bonds we choose, and I choose to form bonds with the people here who have devoted their time and energy in creating a community that supports and comforts, informs and entertains each other. If this is not evidence of God's grace, I'll accept that. What I won't accept is the idea that bonds formed by us ourselves here on IHD are somehow invalid if there are members who may not share the same religious beliefs that you do.
You really are a wet weekend, Hemodoc! :P Is there any joy in your life at all?
My two oldest friends both happen to be gay. I've known them since high school, but it wasn't until several years after graduation that they told me they are gay. (They are not partners and never were. Neither are married.) I've had many talks with them about their sexuality, and as a result of those conversations, I've come to the conclusion that people are just born with their sexual preferences. It's like being born left-handed. I don't know anyone who has made a conscious decision to be gay. So if you believe that each of us is created by God, it makes me wonder why God created gay people? What is His purpose?
What are two gay people supposed to do if they want to enter a committed relationship? Do you support civil unions but not marriage for these couples? What is acceptable to you? And what is acceptable to God? If God created gay people, what kind of relationship does God envisage for these people that He has made in His image? Does He require that they be lonely?
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
Are you seriously saying that the only way that this country could have sought the face of God was to vote for Romney? That campaign was financed by a non-Christian who is also a casino owner, and isn't gambling supposed to be "wicked"? Romney's campaign was flooded with money from corporate interests, gamblers and who knows what other kind of sinners, and you are seriously saying that a vote for Romney was a vote for God but a vote for Obama was a vote for, well, not God? Seriously, this is what you are telling us?
And you really think you have some deep understanding of the current generation in its entirety? That doesn't strike you as arrogant? We have members here on IHD who are of a generation younger than you and I, and you post on here that all of them are undeserving of the blessings of God because they are all marching toward Sodom by way of Gomorrah? I'm astonished that you have condemned them all, like you know them all so well.
Our generation witnessed the Jim Crow laws in full effect. The Beavers of the world didn't live in every area of the Deep South where dogs were set upon people and black girls were burned. God has seen the USA commit far worse atrocities upon living human beings that He created, yet somehow you seem to believe that through it all, this was a blessed country. We have killed, destroyed, enslaved and debased in the name of God, but you see gay marriage and smoking the dried leaves of a plant to be more offensive to God than slavery and the ensuing debasement of whole races of people? Is this the American for which you are so nostalgic?
No problem Moosemom, but if you want God to bless America, perhaps you should actually read what God states are His requirements. Have a great day.
Peter
Very well punted. You didn't even try.
-
Wow, big brother is here indeed. Sorry, that is a little over the top to look at my stats like that, but I guess that is the times we live in.
No, not much joy in political banter today. Most folks nowadays engage in ad hominem attacks which is not a substitute for true political banter in the style of William F. Buckley Jr. No wonder when you consider the type of political discourse of the latest campaign. No, the gap is wide and broad and growing larger all the time between our political entities. Political discourse, that would be fun, but it is very rare in its pure form any longer. Perhaps that is why I don't participate much at all in the last few months as you have provided to review.
I don't mean to dictate how you should use this board, Hemodoc, but you have a lot of very valuable experience, and I am sure you are a good man. I rarely see you on this board except in these political threads, and it would be nice to have a truly Godly man such as yourself offer some support to the new members who come here scared and confused and hoping for an outstretched hand. It has been a very long time since I've seen you post a kind word; I know you have it in you. This is why I have asked you how you are doing. I am hoping that you are not unwell or that there is not some other problem in your life. I am sure you have things to do, such as enjoy Idaho and all of God's creation, rather than spend time on a computer, but I am sure that there are people on IHD who would benefit from the occasional supportive comment from you.
I am not really sure what political discourse "in its pure form" looks like, so maybe you could show us. But when political discourse starts bumping up against religious doctrine, things start getting dicey. I confess to not knowing a great deal about William Buckley's style of discourse; did it often wander into the realm of quoting Scripture? If so, then I'm at a disadvantage because I am not very good at quoting Scripture. Nor am I very good at quoting federal regulations, like stuff about tires.
-
MM you have so many questions. I wish you could come to church with me. Today was so awesome.
Yes, I do have a lot of questions! LOL! And I would LOVE to come to church with you, I really would. When I was in college, I sang in the church choir every Sunday for over three years. Our pastor was a wonderful man, and I loved his sermons. My relationship with organized religion is complicated for reasons that are unclear to me, but it has to do with my parents, I think. My father was Catholic, but his first wife asked for a divorce (my father earned his living as a jazz trumpeter and was on the road a lot, so I'm sure she felt lonely, and I don't blame her). They divorced, and he was thereby excommunicated. My mother was raised strict southern Baptist, and I suspect their marriage created problems with her own parents. I don't know that for sure, but when I was growing up, my mother encouraged me to go to church although she and my dad refused to go. I remember her dropping me off at the local Baptist church, but she never accompanied me. Often I would go to church with my two best friends, one being Mormon and the other being Methodist. So until we moved away when I was 13, I went to church most Sundays. The riddle was to which church would it be?
Be careful what you wish for. I've never been to WA, and you might one Sunday find me on your doorstep. Don't think I'm kidding. LOL!
-
MM, I would welcome that. I do understand your confusing growing up days. My Mom and Dad dropped me off at church too. Probably to get a few hours off. Then I was sent to vacation Bible School .... until a boy kissed me there and Mom never sent me again! Then I was dating an Assembly of God boy and Mom and Dad smiled..... Then I went to church with him and they went into speaking in tongues and it scared me. But, now I do understand all that. I just knew as a young girl there were answers to my questions and I picked up the bible and it was all there for me. I guess it was easy for me.
-
So, go rule. I am getting on with my life and will cope with the political climate whoever is in charge.
You've said this easily a dozen times with no indication that you are in fact getting on with your life. I am not even in America anymore and so sadly can take no credit for any of Obama's successes over the next four years.
You are comical Cariad. I come and comment for a few days on a couple of threads after not going on IHD for months aand all of a sudden you pronounce my life as stagnant. :yahoo; :rofl; :clap;
In any case, if you don't want to rule with Obama, there should be plenty of room to lead from behind with him.
Take care, thanks for the chuckles.
I never pronounced your life stagnant, though this conversation has certainly stagnated. You are adding nothing new to the discussion, just bitterly and relentlessly repeating yourself, which would suggest that you have not got over the results of the election as every other conservative on this site seems to have been able to do by now. I would be happy to work with Obama - he has only to ask. I don't take orders from you, though, and I do not appreciate you trying to speak for me by putting words in my mouth and telling me what I do and do not want. You can repeat 'go rule' thousands more times and it won't stop me from expressing myself. You seem to expect (and want) progressives to fear the future because *you* think it will be catastrophic. If you are waiting around for me to say that I am unhappy in any way with the results of the Presidential election, you are wasting your time. I look forward to seeing Obama have the chance to finish what he's started, and I couldn't care less how much conservatives wail and moan about it. (It is actually quite funny truth be told, especially the Fox News pearl clutching.)
I enjoy political debates - sometimes merely reading, sometimes participating. I try not to offend the members here, and, perhaps more importantly, I try not to look for reasons to take offense. However, I do not apologise for my political views nor do I expect anyone here to apologise for theirs so long as all of these views are stated respectfully.
Yes, yes, yes, Cariad, just more and more ad hominem attacks. That is not political discourse at all. But, have a great day.
Peter
-
Wow, big brother is here indeed. Sorry, that is a little over the top to look at my stats like that, but I guess that is the times we live in.
No, not much joy in political banter today. Most folks nowadays engage in ad hominem attacks which is not a substitute for true political banter in the style of William F. Buckley Jr. No wonder when you consider the type of political discourse of the latest campaign. No, the gap is wide and broad and growing larger all the time between our political entities. Political discourse, that would be fun, but it is very rare in its pure form any longer. Perhaps that is why I don't participate much at all in the last few months as you have provided to review.
I don't mean to dictate how you should use this board, Hemodoc, but you have a lot of very valuable experience, and I am sure you are a good man. I rarely see you on this board except in these political threads, and it would be nice to have a truly Godly man such as yourself offer some support to the new members who come here scared and confused and hoping for an outstretched hand. It has been a very long time since I've seen you post a kind word; I know you have it in you. This is why I have asked you how you are doing. I am hoping that you are not unwell or that there is not some other problem in your life. I am sure you have things to do, such as enjoy Idaho and all of God's creation, rather than spend time on a computer, but I am sure that there are people on IHD who would benefit from the occasional supportive comment from you.
I am not really sure what political discourse "in its pure form" looks like, so maybe you could show us. But when political discourse starts bumping up against religious doctrine, things start getting dicey. I confess to not knowing a great deal about William Buckley's style of discourse; did it often wander into the realm of quoting Scripture? If so, then I'm at a disadvantage because I am not very good at quoting Scripture. Nor am I very good at quoting federal regulations, like stuff about tires.
Dear Moosemom,
There was a point in time not that many years ago where I could and did discuss politics and religion with people of other persuasion without the ad hominem attacks in nearly every sentence that some folks believe is political discourse. Instead, they are simply falling into the Alinsky rules for radicals of mocking and ridiculing your opponent.
As far as quoting scriptures and looking for the blessings of America, that is a guaranteed right in our constitution which I choose to freely exercise while we still have this right.
You ask that God bless this nation, but at the same time support actions completely counter to God's Holy Word. The Obama administration provokes God's anger specifically by its actions against Israel. God promises to bless those that bless Israel and to curse those that curse Israel. Although I greatly understand that the GOP and Romney iin my opinion were the lesser of two evils, Obama on the other hand told the French President he couldn't stand dealing with the head of Israel.
“I cannot bear Netanyahu. He’s a liar,” Nicolas Sarkozy said to President Obama, not realizing the mikes in front of them had been turned on before a news conference at the G-20 summit in Cannes last week.
“You’re fed up with him, what about me?” Obama replied. “I have to deal with him every day.”
Read more: http://world.time.com/2011/11/09/sarkozy-to-obama-i-cannot-bear-netanyahu-hes-a-liar/#ixzz2C2NPELA2
He further shunned him this year at the UN meetings. If you want the blessings of God for America, then you should have a president that blesses the people of Israel instead of bowing down to the enemies of Israel as Obama has done over and over.
If you want the blessings of God in America, then once again, the place to start is:
14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
The choice is America's. Sadly, I don't see any repentance in this nation, only moving more and more away from God, and in doing so America is moving further and further away from God's blessings that He bestowed upon this nation in great abundance. So be it, God gave us all free will. So be it, but elections and choices have consequences.
-
Good Grief Charlie Brown...I'm just curious about one thing. Do biblical references to Israel mean that all American politicians have an obligation to condone modern Israel's every stance, without criticism, as a matter of biblical solidarity? :shy; Really?
-
More than that..... 45 million innocent lives have been taken by abortion in this land. People live together before marriage and now same sex marriage is allowed. Judgment will fall.
That is not to say individuals cannot keep walking down the narrow road.
-
Hemodoc, you certainly have the right to quote Scripture whenever you feel it is appropriate to do so, but surely you must realize that once you do that, other people may not see this as pure political discourse. Sometimes you have to know your audience and amend your comments accordingly if what you really want is to explore other people's ideas. But I did specifically ask you if William Buckley quoted Scripture as he was engaging in the type of political discourse you define as pure, and you did not answer. I believe that I have asked you several specific questions, but you do not answer.
Could you tell me exactly which actions against Israel engaged in by the Obama Administration you are referring to? Is believing that Netanyahu is a liar an "action against Israel"? Perhaps he really is a liar; I am not in the position to know. But maybe Mr. Sarkozy was right. Is merely disliking Mr. Netanyahu an "action against Israel"? That's a bit hyperbolic. There are many people inside of Israel itself that oppose him; that's why there are opposition parties. Perhaps the man deserves to be shunned. Jewish Americans are not monolithically enamoured of the man, either.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/some_jewish_takeaways_from_the_2012_election
-
In the debates Obama said he would stand behind Israel no matter what. So, we shall see.
God is in control. He is never up for reelection. :cheer:
-
Good Grief Charlie Brown...I'm just curious about one thing. Do biblical references to Israel mean that all American politicians have an obligation to condone modern Israel's every stance, without criticism, as a matter of biblical solidarity? :shy; Really?
Dear Monrein,
Moosemom started this thread on "traditional America." If I may be so bold as to take this back to our founding fathers and our historical Judeo-Christian beliefs, then how America approaches Israel is important. In such, "modern Israel" as you call it is mentioned in Bible prophecy. If you believe the Bible which is a tradition of the majority of American people up until the last few years, then we know and understand God's plan for Israel and the world.
Since, once again we are talking about "traditional America," this is a related topic. Unfortunately, a larger and larger number of people are rejecting the teachings of the Bible. However, since Moosemom is proposing ways to have God bless America, understanding what God's criteria on this subject is once again related to the topic "traditional America." In our increasingly secular nation, the relationship between America and Israel is transforming. Nevertheless, I have no doubt of the truth of God's promise to Israel, I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you.
Atheists do not believe in God, but the real issue is that God does not believe in atheists. We shall all stand before Jesus and give account of all that we have done, whether good or bad. Sadly, the majority of people in America don't believe that any longer. So be it, God gave us free will. But yes, to answer your question, as many folks that hate Israel today around the world will not ever be able to drive them out of the promised land ever again and America needs to choose which side that they will be on, God's side or the worlds. The choice is ours, but their are consequences for our choices.
-
More than that..... 45 million innocent lives have been taken by abortion in this land. People live together before marriage and now same sex marriage is allowed. Judgment will fall.
That is not to say individuals cannot keep walking down the narrow road.
This is true. While it might be legal to have an abortion in this country, individuals can still exercise their own free will and choose not to have one. No one is requiring that a woman have an abortion.
-
Hemodoc, I am not sure that it is right to equate Mr. Netanyahu with God's plan for Israel. Being the head of the Israeli government does not make Mr. Netanyahu's policies shine in the eyes of God. It is entirely possible that Mr. Netanyahu is a detriment to Israel at this point in time. I'm sure you know that many Israeli's are opposed to his policies. Are those people doomed in the eyes of God? I don't understand why anyone would believe that all of his policies are for the eternal good of Israel.
I don't think anyone in the Obama Administration doubts Israel's right to exist. There might be disagreements on how best to keep Israel safe, but that has always been the case. We spend a LOT of taxpayer's money in supporting that nation economically and militarily. Oooh, that begs the question...if we DO fall off this fiscal cliff, would that affect the amount of taxpayer's money we spend on Israel? Anyone know?
-
Hemodoc, you certainly have the right to quote Scripture whenever you feel it is appropriate to do so, but surely you must realize that once you do that, other people may not see this as pure political discourse. Sometimes you have to know your audience and amend your comments accordingly if what you really want is to explore other people's ideas. But I did specifically ask you if William Buckley quoted Scripture as he was engaging in the type of political discourse you define as pure, and you did not answer. I believe that I have asked you several specific questions, but you do not answer.
Could you tell me exactly which actions against Israel engaged in by the Obama Administration you are referring to? Is believing that Netanyahu is a liar an "action against Israel"? Perhaps he really is a liar; I am not in the position to know. But maybe Mr. Sarkozy was right. Is merely disliking Mr. Netanyahu an "action against Israel"? That's a bit hyperbolic. There are many people inside of Israel itself that oppose him; that's why there are opposition parties. Perhaps the man deserves to be shunned. Jewish Americans are not monolithically enamoured of the man, either.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/some_jewish_takeaways_from_the_2012_election
Dear Moosemom, that would be a good project for you to research for your own interest. It is not at all an unknown fact that the relationship of Obama and Israel is best described as "chilly" in most news accounts on Obama and Israel. Way too many stories and sources for that to cite. One example will suffice, the 2009 "apology" tour Obama took to the mideast included all major middle east allies except one. Israel. In any case, just do a google search on this issue, and you will have dozens of stories to review at your leisure.
If you wish to understand "traditional America," you will need to understand the evangelical support of Israel and where that comes from.
-
Hemodoc, I am not sure that it is right to equate Mr. Netanyahu with God's plan for Israel. Being the head of the Israeli government does not make Mr. Netanyahu's policies shine in the eyes of God. It is entirely possible that Mr. Netanyahu is a detriment to Israel at this point in time. I'm sure you know that many Israeli's are opposed to his policies. Are those people doomed in the eyes of God? I don't understand why anyone would believe that all of his policies are for the eternal good of Israel.
I don't think anyone in the Obama Administration doubts Israel's right to exist. There might be disagreements on how best to keep Israel safe, but that has always been the case. We spend a LOT of taxpayer's money in supporting that nation economically and militarily. Oooh, that begs the question...if we DO fall off this fiscal cliff, would that affect the amount of taxpayer's money we spend on Israel? Anyone know?
And what objective evidence do you base that opinion? Sounds to me like you are just speculating without really understanding all of the issues.
-
Hemodoc, I'm not stating an opinion. I'm trying not to draw a false equivalency like you seem to have done. Mr. Netanyahu is not perfect, nor does he have a crystal ball with which he can see into the future. He has his own opinions and life experiences that form his world view, and this world view is the foundation of his policies. There are many inside of Israel (and here in America who support Israel) who do not agree with those policies. What makes him right and them wrong? Can you tell me? I'm asking you a straightforward question.
Do you think that the Obama Administration doubts Israel's right to exist? If so, can YOU give us some objective evidence on which to base that opinion?
Let me offer you more specific, direct questions, just to make it easier...
1. Which of Mr. Netanyahu's policies do you feel offer the best chance to ensure Israel's security?
2. Which of the Obama administration's policies do you feel most endanger Israel's security?
3. Which specific evidence can you offer that shows that the Obama Administration does not believe in Israel's right to exist?
4. Will falling off the fiscal cliff reduce the American taxpayers' financial support of Israel? If so, by how much?
(BTW, let's follow the progress of H.R. 4133/S. 2165, "The United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act 2012". It is bilaterally co-sponsored in the House and by what I can tell, has passed the Senate. This indicates to me that we are bolstering our level of cooperation with Israel! Isn't this what we have "traditionally" done?)
-
HemoDoc seems to know what God is thinking. ESP among humans would be a phenomena, but ESP with God?
Uh, HemoDoc, the Founding Fathers had a variety of religious faiths and none of them were especially religious. Example: Ben Franklin was an atheist.
America has Israel’s back. Bronco Bama has said that many times, all of which you seem to have ignored. To think otherwise is disingenuous.
-
I think that Bill O'Reilly's comment about "traditional" America refers to a U.S. where the vast majority of citizens had real values, and didn't look upon our government to solve problems for us from cradle to grave. I was watching a you tube video today from election day, where college students in South Boston were asked questions about who they were voting for and why, and how many congressman/senators we had, the amendments to the constitution, etc. These young adults, and I use that term loosely, were absolutely ignorant! I know I was self-centered at that age, but I was educated! I understand why they want the government to look after them...they certainly can't do it themselves! Just disgraceful!
Ricki
Well said Rickster. I ask my 16 yo grand son questions for which he has no clue about issues that he should. Their social media and public schools no longer teach what we were taught. I will take it one step further noting how my own children look to us even though they are in their 30's for so many things. I never expected to have my parents financially responsible for me my entire life. In such, I worked as hard as I could when I was in college to be able to provide for my own family. I have spoken with some of my friends who have the same experience. The lottery mentality and welfare mentality is widespread. Self reliance and standing on your own two feet truly are obsolete traditions here in the US any longer.
Hemodoc,
I agree with you! My parents were what would be termed as lower middle class these days. There was no money for me or my siblings to go to college. I worked for the phone co. for several years until my 1st marriage broke up, and then went into the navy. The navy paid for my undergraduate degree, Bellsouth paid for my masters. I worked full time, went to school full time, and was a single parent. I cannot understand the handout mentality...it was hard for me to even file for medicare, and disability, even though they are not handouts. I am afraid for the country my children and grandchildren will have left to them.
Ricki
-
So, go rule. I am getting on with my life and will cope with the political climate whoever is in charge.
You've said this easily a dozen times with no indication that you are in fact getting on with your life. I am not even in America anymore and so sadly can take no credit for any of Obama's successes over the next four years.
You are comical Cariad. I come and comment for a few days on a couple of threads after not going on IHD for months aand all of a sudden you pronounce my life as stagnant. :yahoo; :rofl; :clap;
In any case, if you don't want to rule with Obama, there should be plenty of room to lead from behind with him.
Take care, thanks for the chuckles.
I never pronounced your life stagnant, though this conversation has certainly stagnated. You are adding nothing new to the discussion, just bitterly and relentlessly repeating yourself, which would suggest that you have not got over the results of the election as every other conservative on this site seems to have been able to do by now. I would be happy to work with Obama - he has only to ask. I don't take orders from you, though, and I do not appreciate you trying to speak for me by putting words in my mouth and telling me what I do and do not want. You can repeat 'go rule' thousands more times and it won't stop me from expressing myself. You seem to expect (and want) progressives to fear the future because *you* think it will be catastrophic. If you are waiting around for me to say that I am unhappy in any way with the results of the Presidential election, you are wasting your time. I look forward to seeing Obama have the chance to finish what he's started, and I couldn't care less how much conservatives wail and moan about it. (It is actually quite funny truth be told, especially the Fox News pearl clutching.)
I enjoy political debates - sometimes merely reading, sometimes participating. I try not to offend the members here, and, perhaps more importantly, I try not to look for reasons to take offense. However, I do not apologise for my political views nor do I expect anyone here to apologise for theirs so long as all of these views are stated respectfully.
Yes, yes, yes, Cariad, just more and more ad hominem attacks. That is not political discourse at all. But, have a great day.
Peter
I agree, this is not political discourse at all. Repeating the same words ad infinitum and perpetually trying to claim victim status is no substitute for the intelligent exchange of ideas. Yes, yes, yes, Hemodoc.
Do explain exactly where I have engaged in an ad hominem attack against you. You have made what I consider to be a serious accusation, and I know from experience that you will just ignore this question because you have no response. If you consider what I've written to be an ad hominem attack, then perhaps you don't belong in these debates - note Karol's warning in the section title. I look forward to your non-answer.
I further would like to invite anyone on the forum to point me to any ad hominem attack against Hemodoc that I have made. I feel I have a right to know what I am being accused of and why.
-
Good Grief Charlie Brown...I'm just curious about one thing. Do biblical references to Israel mean that all American politicians have an obligation to condone modern Israel's every stance, without criticism, as a matter of biblical solidarity? :shy; Really?
Dear Monrein,
Moosemom started this thread on "traditional America." If I may be so bold as to take this back to our founding fathers and our historical Judeo-Christian beliefs, then how America approaches Israel is important. In such, "modern Israel" as you call it is mentioned in Bible prophecy. If you believe the Bible which is a tradition of the majority of American people up until the last few years, then we know and understand God's plan for Israel and the world.
Since, once again we are talking about "traditional America," this is a related topic. Unfortunately, a larger and larger number of people are rejecting the teachings of the Bible. However, since Moosemom is proposing ways to have God bless America, understanding what God's criteria on this subject is once again related to the topic "traditional America." In our increasingly secular nation, the relationship between America and Israel is transforming. Nevertheless, I have no doubt of the truth of God's promise to Israel, I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you.
Atheists do not believe in God, but the real issue is that God does not believe in atheists. We shall all stand before Jesus and give account of all that we have done, whether good or bad. Sadly, the majority of people in America don't believe that any longer. So be it, God gave us free will. But yes, to answer your question, as many folks that hate Israel today around the world will not ever be able to drive them out of the promised land ever again and America needs to choose which side that they will be on, God's side or the worlds. The choice is ours, but their are consequences for our choices.
I find it very strange to equate criticism of particular Israeli policies or politicians or points of policy to a "hatred" of Israel or a "cursing". Certainly the folks at the Jewish Voice for Peace or H'aaretz would not agree with you on this. Will Jews also "stand before Jesus" and give an account? Now I really am confused and I'm guessing this is news to them also. Perhaps the Jews for Jesus but that's another matter all together. Of course the fundamental Islamists seem pretty clear about Allah's will for the world as well so I guess there really is not much hope in the end. Politics and democracy require examination, criticism and accountability for proposals and for actions it seems to me, so blind faith seems misplaced in this context although it might be requisite in a religious context. Anyhow, I'm pulling back now from this discussion because it all seems so murky to me but I've always been struck by life's astounding complexity and can never quite grasp how it can be reduced to absolute certainties.
-
Good Grief Charlie Brown...I'm just curious about one thing. Do biblical references to Israel mean that all American politicians have an obligation to condone modern Israel's every stance, without criticism, as a matter of biblical solidarity? :shy; Really?
Dear Monrein,
Moosemom started this thread on "traditional America." If I may be so bold as to take this back to our founding fathers and our historical Judeo-Christian beliefs, then how America approaches Israel is important. In such, "modern Israel" as you call it is mentioned in Bible prophecy. If you believe the Bible which is a tradition of the majority of American people up until the last few years, then we know and understand God's plan for Israel and the world.
Since, once again we are talking about "traditional America," this is a related topic. Unfortunately, a larger and larger number of people are rejecting the teachings of the Bible. However, since Moosemom is proposing ways to have God bless America, understanding what God's criteria on this subject is once again related to the topic "traditional America." In our increasingly secular nation, the relationship between America and Israel is transforming. Nevertheless, I have no doubt of the truth of God's promise to Israel, I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you.
Atheists do not believe in God, but the real issue is that God does not believe in atheists. We shall all stand before Jesus and give account of all that we have done, whether good or bad. Sadly, the majority of people in America don't believe that any longer. So be it, God gave us free will. But yes, to answer your question, as many folks that hate Israel today around the world will not ever be able to drive them out of the promised land ever again and America needs to choose which side that they will be on, God's side or the worlds. The choice is ours, but their are consequences for our choices.
I find it very strange to equate criticism of particular Israeli policies or politicians or points of policy to a "hatred" of Israel or a "cursing". Certainly the folks at the Jewish Voice for Peace or H'aaretz would not agree with you on this. Will Jews also "stand before Jesus" and give an account? Now I really am confused and I'm guessing this is news to them also. Perhaps the Jews for Jesus but that's another matter all together. Of course the fundamental Islamists seem pretty clear about Allah's will for the world as well so I guess there really is not much hope in the end. Politics and democracy require examination, criticism and accountability for proposals and for actions it seems to me, so blind faith seems misplaced in this context although it might be requisite in a religious context. Anyhow, I'm pulling back now from this discussion because it all seems so murky to me but I've always been struck by life's astounding complexity and can never quite grasp how it can be reduced to absolute certainties.
Monrein,
Obama has bent over backwards appeasing the Muslims throughout the mideast and negated the relationship between the US and Israel. To date, he has given lukewarm assurances of protection for Israel, but there is no doubt that Obama leans towards the enemies of Israel. Should he and the US cross that line, then those that bless will be blessed, those that curse will be cursed. Romney gave better assurances of support than what the Obama record provides.
If you don't believe that God is real or that the Bible is true, then of course, all of this will sound as complete nonsense. So be it, just remember, God doesn't believe in atheists either. Once again, Moosemom brought up this topic in conjunction with "traditional America" and God blessing America. If you really want God to bless America, then perhaps learning what God expects should be the first place to start as individuals and as a nation. Once again, if people want unlimited abortions, free sex, homosexual sex, lack of support for Israel, substance abuse, etc, then it truly is a waste of time to expect God to bless America. You truly cannot be double minded when it comes to asking God for His blessings. That was the topic and context to my comments.
-
Bronco Bama :rofl; :rofl;
I don't even know what "hominem" is but I'll look it up and get back to you.
-
HemoDoc seems to know what God is thinking. ESP among humans would be a phenomena, but ESP with God?
Uh, HemoDoc, the Founding Fathers had a variety of religious faiths and none of them were especially religious. Example: Ben Franklin was an atheist.
America has Israel’s back. Bronco Bama has said that many times, all of which you seem to have ignored. To think otherwise is disingenuous.
Dear Gerald,
I won't bother describing the born again believer's relationship with God, but in fact, everyone can know the mind of God simply by knowing what He has spoken and written in the Bible. Not a great mystery at all my friend and certainly not some sort of voodoo ESP nonsense.
In any case, have a great day. BTW, Obama publicly is noted for his "chilly" relationship with Israel. To date, he has done the minimum needed to keep Israel's back, but many of the things he has done and not done place Israel in a more dangerous situation. Obama has four years to put actions to his words. So far, not so good my friend.
-
Bronco Bama :rofl; :rofl;
I don't even know what "hominem" is but I'll look it up and get back to you.
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.
Yea, you guys do this to Peter. >:(
-
I have truly enjoyed reading everyone post. Hemodoc even though we don't share the same views, I enjoyed reading your post. May God continue to bless everyone. Great discussions everyone. Happy holidays.
-
Dear HemoDoc;
I know the bible, my eight great grandfather, Edward Lively, was one of the Chief translators of the King James Bible. Look it up. For me, I have a Catholic education.
Conclusion: you are nuts and there is no God. One third of the Bible is the word of Edward.
-
Dear HemoDoc;
I know the bible, my eight great grandfather, Edward Lively, was one of the Chief translators of the King James Bible. Look it up. For me, I have a Catholic education.
Conclusion: you are nuts and there is no God. One third of the Bible is the word of Edward.
All right, easy on calling people nuts, Gerald. You're welcome to claim there is no God all you want, but you don't get to call Hemodoc nuts for believing in one. Site rules - no personal attacks. I know this is the political board, and we tend to give everyone a lot more leeway over here, but try to be a bit less blatant with the "ad hominems" you ALL are tossing around on here.
jbeany, Moderator
-
Bronco Bama :rofl; :rofl;
I don't even know what "hominem" is but I'll look it up and get back to you.
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.
Yea, you guys do this to Peter. >:(
I have just reread every single post that I have made on this thread, and I do not see one single instance in which I attacked Peter personally in order to invalidate his arguments. Well, I did suggest that he was being rather a wet weekend, but that was more a comment on his apocalyptic tone than on any specific point he was trying to make. :P Far from attacking him, I have asked him MANY specific questions for which I'd really like to hear a well-thought out reply, and at the same tiime, I've asked him to clarify and give evidence for several sweeping statements that he has made. I get tired of the whole "apology tour" and "appeasing Muslims" meme because it reeks of hyperbole and negates the possibility of any reasonable discussion on the topic. Such sweeping and hysterical statements do not strike me as being illustrative of the "pure political discourse" that Hemodoc claims to desire.
-
That's fine, Hemodoc, that you choose to believe we here at IHD have no common bond. If you want to exclude yourself from a group of people who care about each other, you are free to do so. We are all free to form whichever bonds we choose, and I choose to form bonds with the people here who have devoted their time and energy in creating a community that supports and comforts, informs and entertains each other. If this is not evidence of God's grace, I'll accept that. What I won't accept is the idea that bonds formed by us ourselves here on IHD are somehow invalid if there are members who may not share the same religious beliefs that you do.
You really are a wet weekend, Hemodoc! :P Is there any joy in your life at all?
My two oldest friends both happen to be gay. I've known them since high school, but it wasn't until several years after graduation that they told me they are gay. (They are not partners and never were. Neither are married.) I've had many talks with them about their sexuality, and as a result of those conversations, I've come to the conclusion that people are just born with their sexual preferences. It's like being born left-handed. I don't know anyone who has made a conscious decision to be gay. So if you believe that each of us is created by God, it makes me wonder why God created gay people? What is His purpose?
What are two gay people supposed to do if they want to enter a committed relationship? Do you support civil unions but not marriage for these couples? What is acceptable to you? And what is acceptable to God? If God created gay people, what kind of relationship does God envisage for these people that He has made in His image? Does He require that they be lonely?
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
Are you seriously saying that the only way that this country could have sought the face of God was to vote for Romney? That campaign was financed by a non-Christian who is also a casino owner, and isn't gambling supposed to be "wicked"? Romney's campaign was flooded with money from corporate interests, gamblers and who knows what other kind of sinners, and you are seriously saying that a vote for Romney was a vote for God but a vote for Obama was a vote for, well, not God? Seriously, this is what you are telling us?
And you really think you have some deep understanding of the current generation in its entirety? That doesn't strike you as arrogant? We have members here on IHD who are of a generation younger than you and I, and you post on here that all of them are undeserving of the blessings of God because they are all marching toward Sodom by way of Gomorrah? I'm astonished that you have condemned them all, like you know them all so well.
Our generation witnessed the Jim Crow laws in full effect. The Beavers of the world didn't live in every area of the Deep South where dogs were set upon people and black girls were burned. God has seen the USA commit far worse atrocities upon living human beings that He created, yet somehow you seem to believe that through it all, this was a blessed country. We have killed, destroyed, enslaved and debased in the name of God, but you see gay marriage and smoking the dried leaves of a plant to be more offensive to God than slavery and the ensuing debasement of whole races of people? Is this the American for which you are so nostalgic?
No problem Moosemom, but if you want God to bless America, perhaps you should actually read what God states are His requirements. Have a great day.
Peter
Very well punted. You didn't even try.
These are the questions I'd really like to hear your answers to, Hemodoc. I am really sorry, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where God tells us why he created gay people and how he wants them to live their lives. I am not interested in changing your opinion. What I AM interested in is some guidance on why gay people exist and why they are so reviled if it is true that God has created all of us in His image.
If anyone else has an answer or can point me to Scripture that would enlighten me, I'd be grateful. I have had this question in my mind for literally decades. I've seen the anguish my gay friends have felt as they've struggled with the implications of their sexuality. So many people say that God has a plan for everyone and that He does everything for a reason, so what is His reason for creating gay people?
-
That's fine, Hemodoc, that you choose to believe we here at IHD have no common bond. If you want to exclude yourself from a group of people who care about each other, you are free to do so. We are all free to form whichever bonds we choose, and I choose to form bonds with the people here who have devoted their time and energy in creating a community that supports and comforts, informs and entertains each other. If this is not evidence of God's grace, I'll accept that. What I won't accept is the idea that bonds formed by us ourselves here on IHD are somehow invalid if there are members who may not share the same religious beliefs that you do.
You really are a wet weekend, Hemodoc! :P Is there any joy in your life at all?
My two oldest friends both happen to be gay. I've known them since high school, but it wasn't until several years after graduation that they told me they are gay. (They are not partners and never were. Neither are married.) I've had many talks with them about their sexuality, and as a result of those conversations, I've come to the conclusion that people are just born with their sexual preferences. It's like being born left-handed. I don't know anyone who has made a conscious decision to be gay. So if you believe that each of us is created by God, it makes me wonder why God created gay people? What is His purpose?
What are two gay people supposed to do if they want to enter a committed relationship? Do you support civil unions but not marriage for these couples? What is acceptable to you? And what is acceptable to God? If God created gay people, what kind of relationship does God envisage for these people that He has made in His image? Does He require that they be lonely?
What had God said about marijuana? Where does the Bible say that pot is "wicked". Why is pot wicked but morphine and opiates OK? How does the Bible address this question?
Are you seriously saying that the only way that this country could have sought the face of God was to vote for Romney? That campaign was financed by a non-Christian who is also a casino owner, and isn't gambling supposed to be "wicked"? Romney's campaign was flooded with money from corporate interests, gamblers and who knows what other kind of sinners, and you are seriously saying that a vote for Romney was a vote for God but a vote for Obama was a vote for, well, not God? Seriously, this is what you are telling us?
And you really think you have some deep understanding of the current generation in its entirety? That doesn't strike you as arrogant? We have members here on IHD who are of a generation younger than you and I, and you post on here that all of them are undeserving of the blessings of God because they are all marching toward Sodom by way of Gomorrah? I'm astonished that you have condemned them all, like you know them all so well.
Our generation witnessed the Jim Crow laws in full effect. The Beavers of the world didn't live in every area of the Deep South where dogs were set upon people and black girls were burned. God has seen the USA commit far worse atrocities upon living human beings that He created, yet somehow you seem to believe that through it all, this was a blessed country. We have killed, destroyed, enslaved and debased in the name of God, but you see gay marriage and smoking the dried leaves of a plant to be more offensive to God than slavery and the ensuing debasement of whole races of people? Is this the American for which you are so nostalgic?
No problem Moosemom, but if you want God to bless America, perhaps you should actually read what God states are His requirements. Have a great day.
Peter
Very well punted. You didn't even try.
These are the questions I'd really like to hear your answers to, Hemodoc. I am really sorry, but I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where God tells us why he created gay people and how he wants them to live their lives. I am not interested in changing your opinion. What I AM interested in is some guidance on why gay people exist and why they are so reviled if it is true that God has created all of us in His image.
If anyone else has an answer or can point me to Scripture that would enlighten me, I'd be grateful. I have had this question in my mind for literally decades. I've seen the anguish my gay friends have felt as they've struggled with the implications of their sexuality. So many people say that God has a plan for everyone and that He does everything for a reason, so what is His reason for creating gay people?
Sorry, I don't buy into the notion that God creates any person to sin, no matter what the sin is. You are implying that God created them gay, I don't buy that.
What verse, well, you won't like it, but here it is, and it covers many more sins than simply the sin of homosexuality. God did create all men with free will. What you do with it is your choice.
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-
Thanks for that, Hemodoc. Whether or not I "like it" isn't the point. I'm not looking for answers I "like". I'm looking for answers that will make me a more informed person. Plus, I like hearing what others think, and why.
I honestly don't know if God created certain people to be gay. But I am pretty convinced that gay people have not chosen to be gay just as others have not chosen to be straight. There are one or two hypotheses in evolutionary biology that offer some clues as to why some men are homosexual, but that's all they are...hypotheses.
So now I've read the Scripture you've posted. What I'd like to know is how YOU think gay people should live their lives. Do you think that gay people can be made to be straight? Should they pretend to be straight and strive to form heterosexual relationships and even marry and have children? Do you think that it is OK to set up a household with your gay partner but refrain from having homosexual relations?
I get it that God says that homosexuality is a sin. What I can't quite suss out is what God wants gay people to do about their sexuality. Can you provide Scripture that addresses these questions? Thanks!
(Important update: I'm going to bed now; I've just started a new book, and I'm eager to get on with it. So, you have all night to answer my questions! LOL! Have you picked up your socks this evening? Cleanliness is next to Godliness, you know! :hug)
-
Dear HemoDoc;
I know the bible, my eight great grandfather, Edward Lively, was one of the Chief translators of the King James Bible. Look it up. For me, I have a Catholic education.
Conclusion: you are nuts and there is no God. One third of the Bible is the word of Edward.
Sounds good Gerald, just keep saying that to yourself, Hemodoc is nuts, Hemodoc is nuts. Kind of rhymes don't you think. To each his, but Gerald, choices do have consequences.
-
My friend from 4th grade Dean then became my boyfriend in high school. We went to all the dances and such and then he broke up with me. All we ever did was kiss. He moved to San Diego after high school and finally came out of the closet. He lived the gay lifestile. He was not too promiscuous had one or two relationships. He said during those years he was running from God. He was stuck in lust and in sin. He finally was walking the fence and told God he was going to jump to Him and He had better catch him. God did. Dean moved back to Spokane. Dean and I are still good friends and go to dinner about twice a month. He works full-time at the Union Gospel Mission here in town helping the homeless. He keeps unto himself and is not in a sexual relationship ..... because he is not married yet.... (Dha)
I've been to several ex-gay seminars in support of my friend Dean. Men and woman get up to give their testimony and just weep in joy to be out of the lifestyle. They all have said they were not born that way. Some boys were never close to their fathers and thus always craved same sex acceptance. Some girls felt shunned by their mothers and just could not get enough of same sex attention. Once they gave their life to Christ and knew he loved them no matter what. It changed their lives. It is still not easy because the enemy is always trying to drag them back. Dean says he doesn't feel anything when he looks at a hot babe in a bikini nor does he feel anything when he sees a man in a Speedo. The bible tells us not to marry because it is a hard road but to marry if you burn with lust. He is talking about Marriage... not lying with same sex. Man has created same sex marriage which will be forgotten by the next generation. Dean says he is like Peter (not Hemodoc) who lived with a thorn in his side reminding him to stay close to God.
Hemodoc did not site all the scripture where God abhors homosexuality and sex with animals.
God did not create gays no more than he created whores. Sexual sin is sexual sin. Dean says in his testimony that he was about 8 years old when he was swimming and some man pulled off his swim trunks and made him swim to shore naked. Something in Dean's little brain changed that day. Sin. Dean's father is the nicest man and a Godly man but not very macho. He never wrestled with Dean or played catch with Dean. Dean loves sports and was MVP in football his senior year. Dean says he wasn't like the other dads. To hear this kills Dean's father. He feels like he failed his son in some way. (I think his dad should have kicked his ass a few more times myself)
I'm glad I don't have those struggles. But, I'm here to help my friend and his many friends who have chosen the side of God.
I've said this before Adultors were not born that way.... it is a lust of the flesh that keeps in their thoughts. And thoughts grow.
Hope this helps you understand.
-
Bronco Bama :rofl; :rofl;
I don't even know what "hominem" is but I'll look it up and get back to you.
Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.
Yea, you guys do this to Peter. >:(
Well, I only asked about myself as mine is the only behaviour I can control. Rerun, I would like to know just what it is I wrote that could be considered an ad hominem attack against Peter. I have not, for example, called him 'comical' or any other of the names he has flung at me. Would you agree that those are ad hominem statements? I think it's poor form to accuse someone of attacking and then refuse to answer simple questions about where precisely that attack is.
I also am incredibly uncomfortable with homosexuals being labeled as sinners or worse on this forum. I am not homosexual myself, but there are absolutely members who do identify as homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual on IHD. They can hear you when you say these things about them! How can we be a welcoming community with these sorts of hostile statements being put forward? I would really like to know how we as a community can negotiate these tricky situations. Any ideas?
I have just reread every single post that I have made on this thread, and I do not see one single instance in which I attacked Peter personally in order to invalidate his arguments. Well, I did suggest that he was being rather a wet weekend, but that was more a comment on his apocalyptic tone than on any specific point he was trying to make. :P Far from attacking him, I have asked him MANY specific questions for which I'd really like to hear a well-thought out reply, and at the same tiime, I've asked him to clarify and give evidence for several sweeping statements that he has made. I get tired of the whole "apology tour" and "appeasing Muslims" meme because it reeks of hyperbole and negates the possibility of any reasonable discussion on the topic. Such sweeping and hysterical statements do not strike me as being illustrative of the "pure political discourse" that Hemodoc claims to desire.
Yes, same here! Except I never said anyone was a wet weekend! I too have requested clarification for sweeping statements and did not receive the courtesy of a reply. I have no idea what 'go rule' is supposed to mean in this context. I asked and asked why Saul Alinsky was so dangerous to America and only received coy deflection and repetition in response. This is not the way to foster stimulating conversation. It takes two (or more) people to create an interesting dialogue and I've come to learn which members I can actually exchange ideas with and which seem to enjoy making provocative remarks and then ignoring any follow up questions.
-
People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here. It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it.
I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.
You can say that to me or others too. "see how ya are"??
:waving;
-
People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here. It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it.
I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.
You can say that to me or others too. "see how ya are"??
:waving;
Rerun, hun, I think you know that I am not asking you to change your morals. I don't believe in book-banning, not of the bible nor any other important work, and I certainly don't believe in stopping people from respectfully expressing their views. See how I am? :) Too liberal for my own good. Your story about Dean was interesting and moving. There is a wealth of scientic evidence showing that homosexuality is biological, but your friend seems to have found what works best for him, so that's good.
I like the Rerun-approved statement and will have to find reasons to use it.
-
People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here. It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it.
I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.
You can say that to me or others too. "see how ya are"??
:waving;
Rerun, hun, I think you know that I am not asking you to change your morals. I don't believe in book-banning, not of the bible nor any other important work, and I certainly don't believe in stopping people from respectfully expressing their views. See how I am? :) Too liberal for my own good. Your story about Dean was interesting and moving. There is a wealth of scientic evidence showing that homosexuality is biological, but your friend seems to have found what works best for him, so that's good.
I like the Rerun-approved statement and will have to find reasons to use it.
Sorry, but the gay gene hypothesis truly lacks evidence, nor is it upheld in twin studies as well. If a gay gene existed, then why are 50% of identical twins with exactly the same genetic make up heterosexual when one is homosexual? In fraternal twins, it is only a 20% association. Nurture vs nature sides on the social makeup of a a household much more than any alleged genetic effect. In addition, gays reproduce at a much lower rate than heterosexual people thus defying evolutionary constraints. To date, the gay gene hypothesis is built on speculation instead of absolute science. Many chromosomal loci have been postulated yet on further examination each drops out of contention. To state categorically that homosexuality is biologic and genetic lacks evidence at this time.
-
For an American in the 21st century to cling rigidly to a set of rules and values based on cosmology dating from the third millennium B.C. and a book written over two millenia ago by Semitic tribes about life on the other side of the planet -- life which bears virtually no resemblence to our lives today -- is, frankly, silly.
Human beings think in categories. All words are categorized in the brain and are references to concepts which we normally encounter in our everyday lives. But there is a truth beyond categories of thought, beyond the limitations of our brains, where words can't penetrate, namely the very ground of our being. What is life? What is existence? What's beyond existence? No one knows. No one can know for sure, because our brains are limited in what we are capable of understanding. Naturally, our brains evolved to deal with the problems of the visible world, bounded by three dimensions of space and one of time. This is all our brains ever needed to think about.
That is, until we came up with the word God. Or any word in any language which means God in our language. God is a word, a metaphor, whose reference transcends all categories of thought. It's a symbol which allows us to transcend our own limitations in thought and refer to something which is beyond thought.
The problem arises when we take the symbol literally. When we do that, we cut ourselves off from a real experience of God. We think of God not as transcendent, but as a literal old man somewhere in the clouds. Then we point to someone else's symbol of God, which dsoesn't match our image, and call that image false. We, in essense, have created God in our image rather than the other way around.
To take one's symbols literally is akin to going into a restaurant and eating the paper menu instead of realizing the menu items are symbols for something else. (And, of course, the atheist denies there's any food in the restaurant at all.)
Religion is not literal history, nor should it be. Taking it as such cuts you off from any religious experience whatever. If one takes Jesus' parables literally, one misses the point entirely. The same can be said for any religious text.
History and science have to do with the literal world. Religion, myth, and literature have to do with mankind's spiritual development. And no religion which refuses to accept the science of the day can thrive and live in the hearts of people. Religion is supposed to put one in accord with the world and his/her society. A religion which pits itself against nature and society is dead. Two-thousand years ago, the Bible was in perfect accord with the world as people knew it back then. Not so today. In order for Christianity to continue and to thrive -- as I hope it does -- is for people to look beyond the literal interpretations and discover the truth waiting there behind the symbols.
There. Said my piece. Or my peace. I've never been clear on which word is correct. But it doesn't matter. Like I said before, it's not the word that's important, it's the reference. :)
Love you all.
-
Yes everyone, Peter Laird (Hemodoc) is NUTS!!! He is NUTS for JESUS, and Im NUTS right with Him! Let us all get NUTTY together, there is plenty of room for another NUT!!!!
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
For an American in the 21st century to cling rigidly to a set of rules and values based on cosmology dating from the third millennium B.C. and a book written over two millenia ago by Semitic tribes about life on the other side of the planet -- life which bears virtually no resemblence to our lives today -- is, frankly, silly.
Human beings think in categories. All words are categorized in the brain and are references to concepts which we normally encounter in our everyday lives. But there is a truth beyond categories of thought, beyond the limitations of our brains, where words can't penetrate, namely the very ground of our being. What is life? What is existence? What's beyond existence? No one knows. No one can know for sure, because our brains are limited in what we are capable of understanding. Naturally, our brains evolved to deal with the problems of the visible world, bounded by three dimensions of space and one of time. This is all our brains ever needed to think about.
That is, until we came up with the word God. Or any word in any language which means God in our language. God is a word, a metaphor, whose reference transcends all categories of thought. It's a symbol which allows us to transcend our own limitations in thought and refer to something which is beyond thought.
The problem arises when we take the symbol literally. When we do that, we cut ourselves off from a real experience of God. We think of God not as transcendent, but as a literal old man somewhere in the clouds. Then we point to someone else's symbol of God, which dsoesn't match our image, and call that image false. We, in essense, have created God in our image rather than the other way around.
To take one's symbols literally is akin to going into a restaurant and eating the paper menu instead of realizing the menu items are symbols for something else. (And, of course, the atheist denies there's any food in the restaurant at all.)
Religion is not literal history, nor should it be. Taking it as such cuts you off from any religious experience whatever. If one takes Jesus' parables literally, one misses the point entirely. The same can be said for any religious text.
History and science have to do with the literal world. Religion, myth, and literature have to do with mankind's spiritual development. And no religion which refuses to accept the science of the day can thrive and live in the hearts of people. Religion is supposed to put one in accord with the world and his/her society. A religion which pits itself against nature and society is dead. Two-thousand years ago, the Bible was in perfect accord with the world as people knew it back then. Not so today. In order for Christianity to continue and to thrive -- as I hope it does -- is for people to look beyond the literal interpretations and discover the truth waiting there behind the symbols.
There. Said my piece. Or my peace. I've never been clear on which word is correct. But it doesn't matter. Like I said before, it's not the word that's important, it's the reference. :)
Love you all.
Dear Hober,
I am a medical doctor who became a born again believer through the literal truth of the Bible AFTER I graduated from medical school, and internal medicine residency and had started my practice. I have a degree in biology with minors in math and chemistry. I understand quite well the theory, or rather the theories of evolution and the so called science behind those claims. I must confess that your views of the Bible are clearly not at all accurate.
The Bible contains many pages of literal history. Every time someone tried to disprove that literal history in the Bible, new evidence surfaced showing it is indeed accurate. In addition, God is not an old man sitting in the clouds but instead, we worship Him in spirit and truth because God the Father is a spirit. Being born again is to be born of the water (our physical birth) and of the spirit. For those of us who have been born of the spirit of God, it is not some sort of nebulous affair but instead a true and literal event in our lives.
If you wish to know more, please ask, but I have no doubts of the literal truth of the Bible. I hope and pray that you as well shall know here and now the true, literal Bible that is our source of who God truly is. Once again, I take great issue with our incorrect characterization of God, His Holy Word and my relationship with the creator of the universe.
-
People are warned before coming on here to be thick skinned. Sorry, but I'm not going to change my morals on here. It says it in the Bible and until the Bible is banned in this land I have the right to quote it.
I won't go back and try to find the ad hominems but in the future I'll just say "see how ya are" and that will show you.
You can say that to me or others too. "see how ya are"??
:waving;
Rerun, hun, I think you know that I am not asking you to change your morals. I don't believe in book-banning, not of the bible nor any other important work, and I certainly don't believe in stopping people from respectfully expressing their views. See how I am? :) Too liberal for my own good. Your story about Dean was interesting and moving. There is a wealth of scientic evidence showing that homosexuality is biological, but your friend seems to have found what works best for him, so that's good.
I like the Rerun-approved statement and will have to find reasons to use it.
Sorry, but the gay gene hypothesis truly lacks evidence, nor is it upheld in twin studies as well. If a gay gene existed, then why are 50% of identical twins with exactly the same genetic make up heterosexual when one is homosexual? In fraternal twins, it is only a 20% association. Nurture vs nature sides on the social makeup of a a household much more than any alleged genetic effect. In addition, gays reproduce at a much lower rate than heterosexual people thus defying evolutionary constraints. To date, the gay gene hypothesis is built on speculation instead of absolute science. Many chromosomal loci have been postulated yet on further examination each drops out of contention. To state categorically that homosexuality is biologic and genetic lacks evidence at this time.
Where did I state ("categorically" no less) that homosexuality is genetic? Would you stop trying to put words in my mouth PLEASE, Peter? There's more to biology than just genetics. Also, those stats do not rule out a genetic component - I have to admit I'm very surprised that you did not know this.
I don't really have time to get into the whole science of homosexuality right now, and I don't think it's particularly on-topic in this thread anyway.
-
My friend from 4th grade Dean then became my boyfriend in high school. We went to all the dances and such and then he broke up with me. All we ever did was kiss. He moved to San Diego after high school and finally came out of the closet. He lived the gay lifestile. He was not too promiscuous had one or two relationships. He said during those years he was running from God. He was stuck in lust and in sin. He finally was walking the fence and told God he was going to jump to Him and He had better catch him. God did. Dean moved back to Spokane. Dean and I are still good friends and go to dinner about twice a month. He works full-time at the Union Gospel Mission here in town helping the homeless. He keeps unto himself and is not in a sexual relationship ..... because he is not married yet.... (Dha)
I've been to several ex-gay seminars in support of my friend Dean. Men and woman get up to give their testimony and just weep in joy to be out of the lifestyle. They all have said they were not born that way. Some boys were never close to their fathers and thus always craved same sex acceptance. Some girls felt shunned by their mothers and just could not get enough of same sex attention. Once they gave their life to Christ and knew he loved them no matter what. It changed their lives. It is still not easy because the enemy is always trying to drag them back. Dean says he doesn't feel anything when he looks at a hot babe in a bikini nor does he feel anything when he sees a man in a Speedo. The bible tells us not to marry because it is a hard road but to marry if you burn with lust. He is talking about Marriage... not lying with same sex. Man has created same sex marriage which will be forgotten by the next generation. Dean says he is like Peter (not Hemodoc) who lived with a thorn in his side reminding him to stay close to God.
Hemodoc did not site all the scripture where God abhors homosexuality and sex with animals.
God did not create gays no more than he created whores. Sexual sin is sexual sin. Dean says in his testimony that he was about 8 years old when he was swimming and some man pulled off his swim trunks and made him swim to shore naked. Something in Dean's little brain changed that day. Sin. Dean's father is the nicest man and a Godly man but not very macho. He never wrestled with Dean or played catch with Dean. Dean loves sports and was MVP in football his senior year. Dean says he wasn't like the other dads. To hear this kills Dean's father. He feels like he failed his son in some way. (I think his dad should have kicked his ass a few more times myself)
I'm glad I don't have those struggles. But, I'm here to help my friend and his many friends who have chosen the side of God.
I've said this before Adultors were not born that way.... it is a lust of the flesh that keeps in their thoughts. And thoughts grow.
Hope this helps you understand.
First of all, I am very glad that you have not used your faith as a weapon of mass condemnation but, rather, have used it to support someone you care about. You don't just talk the talk.
Secondly, I am not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that Dean's father is to blame for his homosexuality? Oh my...that is a terrible burden to place upon a parent. If I read your post correctly, the implication is that his homosexuality was caused by the incident with the man who took off his shorts and by a father who was "not very macho". Is this correct?
I happen to be very interested in the causes of things. Please forgive me for drawing an analogy between homosexuality and autism. As you know, my son is autistic, and no one knows what causes it. I personally don't think there is one cause. I suspect that in some individuals, there IS an "autism gene" or there IS a specific environmental cause (although that environment may be biologic in nature) because you often see more than one autistic child in a family. However, it is more often the case that a family will have only one autistic child. On top of that, you see families where one child is autistic and another may have something like ADHD or some other developmental abnormality.
I also suspect that in some susceptible individuals, the MMR may have played a role.
In my son's case, his autism just seemed to develop over time in his early childhood. It began to slowly erase his verbal abilities. It used to be that autism was blamed on "refrigerator mothers". Imagine being blamed for causing such a horrific malady in your child! That's why Rerun's suspicion that Dean's father caused Dean's homosexuality really hit home to me. This seems so cruel. If Dean's father really believes this, his life must be a horror. My husband's brother had a very high fever when he was very young that eventually lead to brain damage; he is now non-verbal and autistic. His mother was blamed for not getting him to the hospital on time. She is now so psychologically damaged that it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with her. She was told that this was her punishment for marrying a Catholic. Yes, the truly religious and Godly strike again.
So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science, it is equally unscientific to believe that homosexuality is a "choice". Of course it is true that homosexuals can choose NOT to ever have homosexual sex, but I don't think that someone's underlying sexuality is purely and only a matter of choice. Have any of us reached a point where we've said to ourselves, "OK, hmmm....I think I am going to choose to be heterosexual." No, I don't think so.
Rerun, how do you see Dean's future? Do you think he will ever find a life partner? Or do you think he will eventually shut himself off from intimate relationships because he lives in fear of sin?
Do you think he is lonely?
-
So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science
This is not true at all. There is plenty of "real" scientific evidence for genetics playing a role in homosexuality, 20 + years of it.
-
I've also read some studies that are looking into the environment in the womb. It may be an imbalance of testosterone that helps cause homosexuality - too much for girls, too little for boys. My paper just had an article about a new study out that believes there might be a link between autism and pregnant women with fevers or the flu. This makes perfect sense to me - we're already well aware of what exposure to drugs and alcohol do to a developing fetus, so why wouldn't all kinds of other factors that affect the growing infant have consequences as well?
I also don't believe we're going to be able to pinpoint a single genetic cause easily, either. The best theory they have right now for Type 1 diabetes is a combination of a genetic predisposition and a chance exposure to a virus. It's not just a single thing that you can find and use to predict the future. But while I'm musing....if they ever do find a way to predict it while a child is still in the womb - will the fundamentalist pro-life Christians who believe ihomosexuality is a sin still want to carry the child to term?
And the idea that homosexuality can be caused by the emotional environment provided by the parents was based on old gender studies have been debunked. Dr. Money, the leading researcher who claimed that gender and sex roles were based on how the kids were raised and not their genetics is no longer considered credible at all. He did a lot of damage with his crock-pot theories before the truth came out, though.
I think those who undergo some religious "cure" and renounce their homosexual life style may have been more bisexual than gay. I don't think it would as difficult, given the religious and societal pressure in some communities and families, to decide to only act on half of your natural sexual attractions. I have a bi-sexual friend who is happily married. She loves her husband, and has no problem giving up her lesbian affairs - because she's given up all sex with ANYONE except her spouse.
And as for those who believe it is a choice - when did you choose to be straight? My gay friends say they were aware of their sexuality as children - long before anyone even explained what sex was. How do you make a choice at that age of who to sleep with when you don't even know what it is?
-
I've also read some studies that are looking into the environment in the womb. It may be an imbalance of testosterone that helps cause homosexuality - too much for girls, too little for boys. My paper just had an article about a new study out that believes there might be a link between autism and pregnant women with fevers or the flu. This makes perfect sense to me - we're already well aware of what exposure to drugs and alcohol do to a developing fetus, so why wouldn't all kinds of other factors that affect the growing infant have consequences as well?
I also don't believe we're going to be able to pinpoint a single genetic cause easily, either. The best theory they have right now for Type 1 diabetes is a combination of a genetic predisposition and a chance exposure to a virus. It's not just a single thing that you can find and use to predict the future. But while I'm musing....if they ever do find a way to predict it while a child is still in the womb - will the fundamentalist pro-life Christians who believe ihomosexuality is a sin still want to carry the child to term?
And the idea that homosexuality can be caused by the emotional environment provided by the parents was based on old gender studies have been debunked. Dr. Money, the leading researcher who claimed that gender and sex roles were based on how the kids were raised and not their genetics is no longer considered credible at all. He did a lot of damage with his crock-pot theories before the truth came out, though.
I think those who undergo some religious "cure" and renounce their homosexual life style may have been more bisexual than gay. I don't think it would as difficult, given the religious and societal pressure in some communities and families, to decide to only act on half of your natural sexual attractions. I have a bi-sexual friend who is happily married. She loves her husband, and has no problem giving up her lesbian affairs - because she's given up all sex with ANYONE except her spouse.
And as for those who believe it is a choice - when did you choose to be straight? My gay friends say they were aware of their sexuality as children - long before anyone even explained what sex was. How do you make a choice at that age of who to sleep with when you don't even know what it is?
Dear Jbeany,
We are discussing traditional America which many construe as following the Judeo-Christian set of ethics and the nontraditional "family" values of today which include acceptance of homosexuality. The mantra comes back all the time that these folks were "born that way." Yet to date, all of the theories of a gay gene or other biologic component have fallen into disfavor despite widespread media reports to the contrary.
Interestingly, many in the "gay" community are themselves debunking the biological, born gay hypothesis and stating openly that they should have the right to choose this lifestyle without condemnation. Interesting article from NYT a few months back talking about someone stating that her homosexuality is her "choice." They consider it a civil right according to this article to choose homosexuality. With the very shaky "evidence" to date of "born gay" it appears that they may be moving away from that mantra within the community itself. Not sure if this represents a minority view of this minority nontraditional lifestyle folks or not, but it appears that there are some within the community that don't adhere to the "biology of homosexuality." Interesting take on this that I believe is a lot closer to the truth of the issue.
For 15 years, until 2003, she was in a relationship with a man. They had two children together. She then formed a new family with a woman, to whom she’s engaged. And she told The Times’s Alex Witchel that homosexuality for her “is a choice.”
“For many people it’s not,” she conceded, but added that they “don’t get to define my gayness for me.”
. . . What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?
Our laws safeguard religious freedom, and that’s not because there’s a Presbyterian, Buddhist or Mormon gene. There’s only a tradition and theology that you elect or decline to follow. But this country has deemed worshiping in a way that feels consonant with who you are to be essential to a person’s humanity. So it’s protected.
Our laws also safeguard the right to bear arms: not exactly a biological imperative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/opinion/sunday/bruni-gay-wont-go-away-genetic-or-not.html?_r=0
-
So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science
This is not true at all. There is plenty of "real" scientific evidence for genetics playing a role in homosexuality, 20 + years of it.
Sorry, that is not the consensus of scientists who have studied this issue for years:
What causes a person to
have a particular sexual
orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or
lesbian orientation. Although much research
has examined the possible genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social, and cultural influences
on sexual orientation, no findings have
emerged that permit scientists to conclude
that sexual orientation is determined by any
particular factor or factors. Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf
-
So, @Hemodoc, while it is true that the whole "gay gene" hypothesis has no real evidence in science
This is not true at all. There is plenty of "real" scientific evidence for genetics playing a role in homosexuality, 20 + years of it.
Sorry, that is not the consensus of scientists who have studied this issue for years:
What causes a person to
have a particular sexual
orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or
lesbian orientation. Although much research
has examined the possible genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social, and cultural influences
on sexual orientation, no findings have
emerged that permit scientists to conclude
that sexual orientation is determined by any
particular factor or factors. Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf
Uh, how does this contradict what I just said? There is plenty of evidence for biological (including genetic) components to sexuality - lack of consensus does not equal lack of compelling evidence. It has not fallen into disfavor - this is studied frequently and I challenge anyone to get through all of the scientific journal articles about this. Biology and environment, as jbeany just explained very well, probably work in conjunction with one another, which is consistent with a complex gene. Schizophrenia has almost identical statistics to homosexuality when it comes to fraternal and identical twins, and the search for a genetic component to that has continued at a pace. There is also evidence that homosexuality is sex-linked, same suspicion for autism, since more men are homosexual than women and more boys are diagnosed autistic than girls.
I agree with the second half of the final statement that you quoted. Indeed, living in San Francisco, I never heard a single person say they chose homosexuality, though I can agree that it is not at all outside the realm of possibility. Absolutes when it comes to human behaviour almost never hold.
-
And now Hamas has gone and declared war on Israel. Why do I doubt that Obama will offer one iota of help to our strongest ally in the Middle East?
Ricki
-
@ cariad, I didn't mean to say that there was no evidence of a biological reason for homosexuality. I just meant that to my knowledge, a specific "gay gene" has not yet been found, just as an "autism gene" has not yet been identified.
@jbeany, I know that there are some studies that have been done on the environment in the womb while a male fetus is developing. There were some thoughts that if the first born child was a boy, a second male child has a higher risk of being homosexual because the first male child rendered the womb more inhospitable to a subsequent male child. Evolutionary biologic theory opines that in the early days of mankind, females were more valuable than males. Regarding maternal health and its links to autism, I probably had fsgs while I was pregnant (I was diagnosed 6 months after his birth), so it could have been my "fault" that my son is autistic. I have struggled with this "blame" for 21 years now, and that's why Rerun's suspicion that Dean's less-than-macho father causing his homosexuality made me recoil in horror.
-
Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf
So, if a gay man experiences little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation, how does God want him to live his life? This is the third time I've asked this question, and I'd really like to hear God's answer.
-
And now Hamas has gone and declared war on Israel. Why do I doubt that Obama will offer one iota of help to our strongest ally in the Middle East?
Ricki
This is nothing new. Israel struck terrorist targets in Palestine and killed the head of Hamas' military wing. Each side claims that their actions are "defensive". It doesn't look like Israel needs any more help from us. Your taxes pay for all the help Israel needs. Their military can wipe out anything that Hamas has to offer.
What specific kind of help do you want the US to offer? Would you like to see American troops in Palestine?
-
Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles;
most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf
So, if a gay man experiences little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation, how does God want him to live his life? This is the third time I've asked this question, and I'd really like to hear God's answer.
II Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
-
Hemodoc, I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar, so you are going to have to translate that for me.
In today's world, and on a day to day basis, how does God want to see a gay person living his/her life? Does God preach celibacy for homosexuals? If homosexual relations are a sin, then does God want homosexuals to lead a purely platonic life? Does living a celibate life equate to being "present with the Lord"?
-
Hemodoc, I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar, so you are going to have to translate that for me.
In today's world, and on a day to day basis, how does God want to see a gay person living his/her life? Does God preach celibacy for homosexuals? If homosexual relations are a sin, then does God want homosexuals to lead a purely platonic life? Does living a celibate life equate to being "present with the Lord"?
Dear Moosemom,
I don't believe I will be able to answer your questions in any acceptable manner without further questions of my answers. Quite simply, God states to go and sin no more to all of us what ever those sins are. Your understanding of God can only improve by reading and seeking God in your own life. That's the best I can do Moosemom. It really is in your corner, read the Bible for yourself, the King James Bible is written at a 5th grade level.
Take care,
Peter
-
because she's given up all sex with ANYONE except her spouse.
GLORY Be! There is a novel idea. Hallelujah! Sex with ONLY your spouse. Wouldn't that keep a lot of people much happier.... The Way God Intended It To Be.
:bow;
Yes, Dean's father feels bad but there has been forgiveness and healing and they are good friends now. Dean has a younger brother who is a horn dog... my gosh into pornography etc... He was not born that way. I think he got into some girly magazines at too young of an age maybe. Seed planted and thoughts grow.
My cousin had identical twins who were just fine and then after a set of vaccinations they stopped the verbal and social growth (autistic). One is more normal than the other. Very sad. So, because of that I kind of lean towards vaccinations.
will the fundamentalist pro-life Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin still want to carry the child to term?
So if it could show that a baby in their mother's womb was going to be diabetic would the liberal pro choice mother abort it?
-
Rerun, OMG, does Dean blame his FATHER? Oh God, that's just horrible if that's the case! Dean blamed his father for his own sexual sins? Really? Please tell me I've misunderstood! So, why isn't Dean's younger brother homosexual? Did their father play more "macho" games with him? Was he one kind of dad to Dean and another kind to his younger brother? Did Dean ever elaborate on this point? I'm REALLY curious!
-
Dear Moosemom,
I don't believe I will be able to answer your questions in any acceptable manner without further questions of my answers.
Why not? Are you afraid of my questions?
Quite simply, God states to go and sin no more to all of us what ever those sins are.
Ok, so I am going to interpret that to mean that if you are homosexual, you must stop having homosexual relations, which is really to remain celibate because to pretend to be straight and to marry is tantamount to lying to your spouse. Would that be about right?
Your understanding of God can only improve by reading and seeking God in your own life. That's the best I can do Moosemom. It really is in your corner, read the Bible for yourself, the King James Bible is written at a 5th grade level.
I don't happen to know any fifth graders who speak in the way the King James Bible is written, and I don't appreciate the implied insult. And who are you to assume that I have not/am not seeking God in my own life? I've always thought that I could come to you for answers to my questions, but lately it seems that the only replies I get from you are derisive and unhelpful, so I'll stop now, OK? I'll find someone else to talk to. Thanks, anyway.
-
it's pretty sad when people have genuine questions and get responses like Hemodoc's. and people wonder why Christians and Christianity are getting such resistance from society...
-
Moosemom
As a Christ-follower myself, I feel a need to comment.
I think according to the culture of the day the Jews who wrote most of the Bible considered homosexuality (at least male-to-male homosexuality) to be a serious taboo. There is a whole list of sexual taboos listed in Leviticus Chapter 20 that would be titillating enough for anyone! A major point though is that a Jew's sense of cultural identity and nationhood was (and is) uniquely strong in the history of the world. Even the Romans gave up trying to absorb them and finally just about wiped them out. And even so a remnant always survived that and many other great Holocausts.
The non-Jewish nations had all sorts of sexual behavior that to THEM was not seriously abnormal. In Roman culture, for example, it was common for young men to engage in homosexual activity because (at least among the senatorial and equestrian classes) it was common to wait until the age of 31 to get married. An earlier enemy of the Israelites was the Philistines--and their primary god was likely similar to the Roman god Priapus...who sported an exaggerated and out-of-proportion item representating a certain male body part if you get my drift.
So part of the Jewish laws may have been xenophobic in nature and designed to maintain the cultural and biological "purity" of the Jewish people. As represented in the Bible, violations of this code was usually considered a capital offense. And we as members of the Christianized West were handed down many of these cultural mores as replacements for what was considered the hedonistic behavior of the "heathen" nations. It is hard to break such deeply embedded taboos.
As a Christ-follower, I don't consider it my job to approve or disapprove of anyone's lifestyle. I know what is right and wrong TO ME because I'm influenced by Jesus Christ's teachings and lifestyle and that is the standard. I strive to keep my focus on Jesus and let God worry about what everyone else is (or is not) doing.
-
Rerun, OMG, does Dean blame his FATHER? Oh God, that's just horrible if that's the case! Dean blamed his father for his own sexual sins? Really? Please tell me I've misunderstood! So, why isn't Dean's younger brother homosexual? Did their father play more "macho" games with him? Was he one kind of dad to Dean and another kind to his younger brother? Did Dean ever elaborate on this point? I'm REALLY curious!
Yes, it came out that Dean blamed his Father who is the nicest man you would ever meet but did all the lunches and cleaned the house (still does) Dean's mom is just as sweet but kind of makes the rules. Just different dynamics. We use to tease Dean that his Dad made all the lunches in the family. He teased me because my dad was old and a farmer. Kids are mean but I think we did it in fun. We thought it was fun but down deep it hurt our feelings.
Little brother had Dean to play catch with and wrestle with (aka.. same sex acceptance). Dean's Dad showed us home movies with Dean in his cowboy hat and holster and toy guns and I guess Dean insisted he had to go to bed with all of it on. I watch those home movies and think.... OMG what happened to that cute little boy. His sisters in the home movies had dolls and toy dishes. They insist Dean was rough and tough (and he did not get that from his dad). Then in High School along with the lake incident there was a boy who Dean lived by and they started playing around he told Dean all boys did this. And I guess he could blame ME who was a prude. They use to sing the song SANDY to me. "won't go to bed 'til she old gray and dead" She can't she's Sandara "D". I wasn't even religious back then. Hadn't accepted Christ as my saviour. I was just scared to death of it. My older sister was forced to have an abortion prior to 1974 and my other sister got pregnant and didn't say anything until it was too late (Thus my nephew who is a great young man). So, me being the youngest of 5 had issues in my own family. I didn't like sex when I was married. Figured it was a woman's duty. So, yes I can certainly stay celibate the rest of my days. Dean would like to get married and have children. He is 51 but he could marry some young chick. I would dance at his wedding. He would be a good father.... but I bet his kids would blame him for something. Don't we all blame our parents for something. My Dad was old. He was 60 when I graduated from High School. We never hit it off. I could blame him for not liking men because there was no love shown to me. But I don't. I blame my ex-husband for not liking men. :)
Oh my gosh where did all that come from. :embarassed:
So, I see Dean staying celibate but not alone. He has family and friends. Some of my friends who have kids may end up alone. How about your son? Do autistic people marry and have families? It is okay to not be sexually active. I think more and more people do that.
I guess my thought here is lots of stuff you are introduced to as children and the preception they make their own may not be correct but it molds who they become.
Someone in this conversation said we didn't know about being straight when were were kids so how come some kids know they are homosexual? I grew up on a farm. I saw first hand males and females and babies. It was more weird to me when I learned how humans did it.
That said I know Dean was not born homosexual. He was exposed to it and his girlfriend wouldn't put out so he chose the lifestyle. I still won't put out for him and he feels safe with me.
-
Dear Moosemom,
I don't believe I will be able to answer your questions in any acceptable manner without further questions of my answers.
Why not? Are you afraid of my questions?
Quite simply, God states to go and sin no more to all of us what ever those sins are.
Ok, so I am going to interpret that to mean that if you are homosexual, you must stop having homosexual relations, which is really to remain celibate because to pretend to be straight and to marry is tantamount to lying to your spouse. Would that be about right?
Your understanding of God can only improve by reading and seeking God in your own life. That's the best I can do Moosemom. It really is in your corner, read the Bible for yourself, the King James Bible is written at a 5th grade level.
I don't happen to know any fifth graders who speak in the way the King James Bible is written, and I don't appreciate the implied insult. And who are you to assume that I have not/am not seeking God in my own life? I've always thought that I could come to you for answers to my questions, but lately it seems that the only replies I get from you are derisive and unhelpful, so I'll stop now, OK? I'll find someone else to talk to. Thanks, anyway.
No insult intended at all Moosemom, the King James Bible is written at a 5th grade level and it speaks plainly. That is all I was stating in reference to your statement that you are not a Bible scholar. You don't have to be a Bible scholar to understand the Bible.
As far as prohibition of homosexuality in the Bible, that is pretty clear and I have already referenced several verses. It appears you are trying to get me to justify homosexuality from the Bible in some manner. That is not going to happen since the Bible condemns that behavior. In any case, it is unlikely I can provide you the answers that you want since the Bible does not in any manner condone homosexuality in any manner at all. Sorry, but I don't have the answers to your questions.
Take care,
Peter
-
Hemodoc,
I really think MM is just trying to figure out if the Bible has any specific passages that say if homosexuals should remain celibate.
MM -
You might just try a google search. "Does the Bible address homosexuality?" pops up an awful lot of discussions. A quick skim of the first few I've looked at seems to focus on the male and female being made in pairs, the woman being a helpmate to the man, and man and wife cleaving together, as well as plenty of places where homosexuality is condemned as a sin.
As for remaining celibate - I'm thinking that's the default option, even if it's not a commandment from on high.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
Of course, Leviticus tends to stone people to death for a whole lot of things, so this doesn't really come as a surprise...
-
Moosemom
As a Christ-follower myself, I feel a need to comment.
I think according to the culture of the day the Jews who wrote most of the Bible considered homosexuality (at least male-to-male homosexuality) to be a serious taboo. There is a whole list of sexual taboos listed in Leviticus Chapter 20 that would be titillating enough for anyone! A major point though is that a Jew's sense of cultural identity and nationhood was (and is) uniquely strong in the history of the world. Even the Romans gave up trying to absorb them and finally just about wiped them out. And even so a remnant always survived that and many other great Holocausts.
The non-Jewish nations had all sorts of sexual behavior that to THEM was not seriously abnormal. In Roman culture, for example, it was common for young men to engage in homosexual activity because (at least among the senatorial and equestrian classes) it was common to wait until the age of 31 to get married. An earlier enemy of the Israelites was the Philistines--and their primary god was likely similar to the Roman god Priapus...who sported an exaggerated and out-of-proportion item representating a certain male body part if you get my drift.
So part of the Jewish laws may have been xenophobic in nature and designed to maintain the cultural and biological "purity" of the Jewish people. As represented in the Bible, violations of this code was usually considered a capital offense. And we as members of the Christianized West were handed down many of these cultural mores as replacements for what was considered the hedonistic behavior of the "heathen" nations. It is hard to break such deeply embedded taboos.
As a Christ-follower, I don't consider it my job to approve or disapprove of anyone's lifestyle. I know what is right and wrong TO ME because I'm influenced by Jesus Christ's teachings and lifestyle and that is the standard. I strive to keep my focus on Jesus and let God worry about what everyone else is (or is not) doing.
Dear Willis,
It is not an issue of interjecting into others personal choices, but instead simply answering the questions put forth directly showing only that which God teaches both in the Old Testament as well as the new testament on this issue. Unfortunately, as you know since the time of the garden of Eden, people have rejected God's Holy commandments. It is no different today. Jesus Himself states, I do not judge you but the words that I have spoken will. Wouldn't you agree that is why it is important for people to read the Bible themselves to know and understand what is expected?
John 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
When the women caught in the very act of adultery was brought to Jesus, he wrote in the ground and said, he who is without sin cast the first stone. One by one, they all dropped their stones and walked away leaving the woman alone with Jesus. Jesus asked her, where are your accusers? They had left she answered. Jesus told her, neither do I accuse you either, but He left her with the admonition, go and sin no more. We are all left with that same admonition, go and sin no more, no matter what the sins.
Willis, as you know, we are still in the age of grace where all people can stand before Jesus and be forgiven of all transgressions. Jesus came to save the lost and not to condemn. That is the message of the Gospel, but Jesus did speak of eternal judgement as well. Just about everyone knows John 3:16, but few know the context of that verse in what Jesus spoke right after that.
16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 ¶ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Sadly, many will reject the light of the gospel. For that, there remains only great sorrow but people have the free to choose as they will. The Bible speaks plainly and is easily understood. The rest remains each persons personal choice.
I am a little puzzled, are you implying that the Jewish laws came from the people the Jews and were xenophobic, or are they instead God's Holy commandments as Moses testified and God's word alone?
-
Hemodoc,
I really think MM is just trying to figure out if the Bible has any specific passages that say if homosexuals should remain celibate.
MM -
You might just try a google search. "Does the Bible address homosexuality?" pops up an awful lot of discussions. A quick skim of the first few I've looked at seems to focus on the male and female being made in pairs, the woman being a helpmate to the man, and man and wife cleaving together, as well as plenty of places where homosexuality is condemned as a sin.
As for remaining celibate - I'm thinking that's the default option, even if it's not a commandment from on high.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
Of course, Leviticus tends to stone people to death for a whole lot of things, so this doesn't really come as a surprise...
Dear Jbeany,
Sorry, I simply don't have all the answers to all of MM's questions and have so stated. I would point out that Jesus holds us to a much higher standard in the New Testament than the old testament. Take a look:
Matthew 5:27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
I believe that is about as close to the answer to the question that MM has put forth. Anything more specific than that I don't believe exists in the Scriptures to the best of my knowledge. It is not only what we do, but what we think is also very important. To look upon a woman in a lustful manner is to be guilty of the sin of adultery as Jesus Himself teaches. It is a standard that no man can attain, but only through faith in Christ do we overcome. That is Christ's message.
So, it all goes back to whether the Bible is the true, literal word of God or not. If it is not, then there is no consequence whatsoever to ignoring it's teachings. However, if it is the true, literal word of God, then how we accept or reject it's teachings has temporal and eternal consequences. I spent the first 36 years of my life rejecting the Bible until someone spoke the truth of the importance of God's word to me. As a Christian, sugar coating it's reality is not an option if we are going to be true to our beliefs.
In any case, back to the topic of traditional America. Homosexuality is a nontraditional lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible. Once again, I am not sure why anyone would be surprised by that knowledge which is indeed not a secret at all. The Bible justifies no sins, but Jesus justifies the sinner if they will simply believe on His name and call upon Jesus for salvation.
In traditional America, seeking the will of God was the operative word for many people. Our nation was founded on religious liberty and that is our heritage from colonial times.
-
It appears you are trying to get me to justify homosexuality from the Bible in some manner. That is not going to happen since the Bible condemns that behavior. In any case, it is unlikely I can provide you the answers that you want since the Bible does not in any manner condone homosexuality in any manner at all. Sorry, but I don't have the answers to your questions.
Take care,
Peter
No, I'm not trying to get you to justify homosexuality from the Bible in any manner. If you don't have the answers to my questions, that's certainly fair enough.
@jbeany, yes, that's what I was getting at. Yes, like you, I'd guess that "sin no more" in this case would mean "remain celibate". Difficult, but doable.
-
@Rerun, yes, autistic people might marry, but it depends upon whether or not there is anyone out there who will have them. It also depends on how disabled they are. I never thought my son would learn to drive, but he did. I doubt he will ever marry because I don't know if anyone else could accept him as he is, but I may be wrong. I hope I am because he is my only child and I have no brothers or sisters, and it would be really nice to have a grandchild. I think I'd feel less lonely in this world. I know he wants to get married. He has told me that he doesn't want to be alone, and that has always been my greatest fear for him, that he will end up alone. Because of my kidney disease, I could not have any other children, so he has no siblings. I fear for him. I hope God will look out for him once his dad and I are dead.
I agree that childhood experiences can shape who you are. As another poster commented, it's the old "nature vs nurture" debate. One could look at all of the children in one family, brought up in the same way, and yet marvel at how different they are. Or one could look at identical twins, separated at birth, and marvel how identical they really are despite their different upbringings. All part of the mystery of life.
Celibacy is the preferred "sexual orientation" for more people than you might think. Frees up a lot of energy for the enjoyment of the many other things that life has to offer.
-
@ cariad, I didn't mean to say that there was no evidence of a biological reason for homosexuality. I just meant that to my knowledge, a specific "gay gene" has not yet been found, just as an "autism gene" has not yet been identified.
There are always suspects but it will probably, as I've said, be linked to a complex of genes and environmental influences (much of which could be biological in nature). The term "gay gene" is just pop science shorthand for "genetic involvement", at least that is how I read it. It is going to take much longer to properly unravel a genetic link to homosexuality since it presents such a political minefield, funding is almost non-existent.
@jbeany, I know that there are some studies that have been done on the environment in the womb while a male fetus is developing. There were some thoughts that if the first born child was a boy, a second male child has a higher risk of being homosexual because the first male child rendered the womb more inhospitable to a subsequent male child. Evolutionary biologic theory opines that in the early days of mankind, females were more valuable than males.
Females ARE more valuable than males from an evolutionary perspective, from the early days of mankind right up to today, and across most if not all mammalian species. Hormones and reproduction are quite amazing when you really get into the study of it, so I think that hormones will be implicated in complex traits like homosexuality far more than genetics. In rodents for example, (I believe it's rats, perhaps mice?) females will spontaneously abort only male fetuses under certain conditions (exposure to adult males for example). There are some amazing phenomena out there - I have a fantastic biological anthro text that I would love to reread.... someday!
-
I am a little puzzled, are you implying that the Jewish laws came from the people the Jews and were xenophobic, or are they instead God's Holy commandments as Moses testified and God's word alone?
Yes, and I will suppose many will consider me a heretic, but I believe that significant portions of the Old Testament were what the priests of the Hebrew nation (i.e., its government) wanted to represent AS God's position when it was really THEIR view of God's position. I sincerely believe that God inspired the history as it was written. But that He allowed the history to be written with all of its ugliness. Compare that to the ancient literature of almost all other cultures in which everything is sanitized. To me, the strongest evidence for this is that those who claimed to practice the Law most sincerely with all its added precepts from the Talmud and Mishna were the very ones who rejected the Messiah and had him crucified as a criminal by the Romans.
When the Hebrew history "says" that God told them to enter some land and kill every man, woman, and child how is that different from some modern guy who says he killed his family because "God told me to do it"? We call men like that crazy.
No, I think this is what I will call the Hebrew "Bad Ass" God. The leaders of Israel had a vested interest in promoting such a God to not only keep their own people in control but as a warning of bad consequences for their enemies. When they attacked Jericho and probably due to a timely earthquake the walls fell and they took the city it was to their benefit to depict the victory as miraculous intervention by their Bad Ass God. The interesting things to me is that I do believe God allowed their xenophobic depiction of God and everyone else as an example of how depraved a legalistic approach to religion can actually become. In the Middle Ages and beyond we saw this same sort of depiction of God when governmental and religious leadership were synonymous. Just to cite one example, take mandatory confession to a local priest. In an age when people rarely traveled, just imagine the power the "church" had when one man in the village knew all the "secrets" and had the power of banishment over transgressors who failed to toe-the-line.
The Old Testament narratives can be compared to other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures such as those of the various Prophets who spent most of their time CONDEMNING those who were writing the history. The truly miraculous part, in my opinion, is that God allowed such unfiltered and immoral religiosity to survive all these thousands of years as an example of what NOT to do.
Jesus rejected the prevailing views of the Hebrew priests and called them hypocrites, blind, and a "brood of vipers"! What Scriptures did they follow and what God did they project to keep the population under control? It wasn't the God represented in the flesh by Jesus Christ because that is the God they crucified.
-
What a fascinating post, Willis. Actually, I find all of your posts to be really interesting. They give me much food for thought.
-
I am a little puzzled, are you implying that the Jewish laws came from the people the Jews and were xenophobic, or are they instead God's Holy commandments as Moses testified and God's word alone?
Yes, and I will suppose many will consider me a heretic, but I believe that significant portions of the Old Testament were what the priests of the Hebrew nation (i.e., its government) wanted to represent AS God's position when it was really THEIR view of God's position. I sincerely believe that God inspired the history as it was written. But that He allowed the history to be written with all of its ugliness. Compare that to the ancient literature of almost all other cultures in which everything is sanitized. To me, the strongest evidence for this is that those who claimed to practice the Law most sincerely with all its added precepts from the Talmud and Mishna were the very ones who rejected the Messiah and had him crucified as a criminal by the Romans.
When the Hebrew history "says" that God told them to enter some land and kill every man, woman, and child how is that different from some modern guy who says he killed his family because "God told me to do it"? We call men like that crazy.
No, I think this is what I will call the Hebrew "Bad Ass" God. The leaders of Israel had a vested interest in promoting such a God to not only keep their own people in control but as a warning of bad consequences for their enemies. When they attacked Jericho and probably due to a timely earthquake the walls fell and they took the city it was to their benefit to depict the victory as miraculous intervention by their Bad Ass God. The interesting things to me is that I do believe God allowed their xenophobic depiction of God and everyone else as an example of how depraved a legalistic approach to religion can actually become. In the Middle Ages and beyond we saw this same sort of depiction of God when governmental and religious leadership were synonymous. Just to cite one example, take mandatory confession to a local priest. In an age when people rarely traveled, just imagine the power the "church" had when one man in the village knew all the "secrets" and had the power of banishment over transgressors who failed to toe-the-line.
The Old Testament narratives can be compared to other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures such as those of the various Prophets who spent most of their time CONDEMNING those who were writing the history. The truly miraculous part, in my opinion, is that God allowed such unfiltered and immoral religiosity to survive all these thousands of years as an example of what NOT to do.
Jesus rejected the prevailing views of the Hebrew priests and called them hypocrites, blind, and a "brood of vipers"! What Scriptures did they follow and what God did they project to keep the population under control? It wasn't the God represented in the flesh by Jesus Christ because that is the God they crucified.
Wow, then the God of the Old Testament in your opinion is not God. Wow. In any case, to each his own.
-
If I have understood correctly, and forgive me if I have not, one definition of "traditional America" has its underpinings in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think I've also understood that to understand "traditional America", one should look to evangelical Christianity to understand the traditional American steadfastness with Israel.
I have an acquaintance who defines himself as a born-again Christian, but I have in the past observed some comments/behaviours from him that I would consider to be anti-Semitic. So as a general question, is it possible to be an evangelical Christian AND be anti-Semitic? Or is that an oxymoron?
-
@Rerun, yes, autistic people might marry, but it depends upon whether or not there is anyone out there who will have them.
MM, there is someone out there for your son if he will just accept that he has much to offer a partner. Have you asked if he's been attracted to anyone or dated anyone? I read this article about a year ago and if you haven't already, you should have a look as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/navigating-love-and-autism.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/navigating-love-and-autism.html?pagewanted=all) I hope he does not view himself as 'damaged goods' or similar, because I do believe that will serve to drive away any love interests, and really all sorts of people find love every single day.
It also depends on how disabled they are. I never thought my son would learn to drive, but he did. I doubt he will ever marry because I don't know if anyone else could accept him as he is, but I may be wrong. I hope I am because he is my only child and I have no brothers or sisters, and it would be really nice to have a grandchild. I think I'd feel less lonely in this world. I know he wants to get married. He has told me that he doesn't want to be alone, and that has always been my greatest fear for him, that he will end up alone.
One thing i have noticed about England is that disabled people of all stripes are more visible here. I think it's the government's and society's refusal to just cast them aside to fend for themselves that makes them able to participate in life more fully here than I've ever seen in the US. There is a local couple (I think they are a couple) with Down's Syndrome that frequently ride the bus that I take each day. I once watched a documentary where a person with Down Syndrome guided parents and their children with DS through life with this condition, and I remember the mother asking 'will he be able to get married?' and the response from this man being 'If you want to get married, you can get married. The only reason I am not married is because I don't want to be right now.' I think for the higher-functioning people like this man and your son, that is absolutely true.
-
Wow, then the God of the Old Testament in your opinion is not God.
I didn't say that. I said that God allowed much and perhaps most of the HISTORICAL NARRATIVE to be written from the often twisted and evil point-of-view of the educated-class and priesthood of the Israelites...which were the very people Jesus condemned. Even considering my previous statement, there are certainly many parts of the Old Testament depicting the God of love and grace. Examples might be books such as Ruth and Esther (in which women are the main characters). Within the books of the prophets too there are additional narrative-like passages that are most assuredly an accurate picture of the True God.
Interestingly, it is in such prophetical writings that the probable writers of the historical books are the very ones usually facing warnings of doom for their apostasy. There's plenty of information concerning the strong and just side of God, it's just that I can't reconcile a MURDEROUS God with a JUST God. Trying to do deal with the cognitive dissonance of that discrepancy has lead many a believer away from the faith. When I read the propaganda-like parts now I see them with a better understanding that actually gives me a greater faith in the inspiration and inerrant veracity of the Scriptures.
-
Cariad, oh yes, my son has been attracted to all sorts of young ladies; in that regard, he is no different than most other 21 year old guys. And he has even asked several out, but he has yet to find someone to date on a regular basis. I'm sure there is someone out there for him; it's just a matter of whether or not he will ever find her.
I don't think he sees himself as "damaged goods", but he is self-aware enough to know he is "different", and I think he has some self-esteem issues. At least that's what he says. I'm very open with him about what his autism can mean, ie, people with autism can find it difficult to "read" other people's emotions and express interest in other people, so these are things he has to work on if he wants to be able to get along with people. He is far more sociable than I am, so he is willing to try. He has a cadre of friends, and he is a thoughtful person, so he has more advantages than most people with his condition. He has had to learn some social lessons the hard way. He got into trouble when he was trying to be what he thought others wanted him to be, but like any kid, sometimes kids don't listen to their parents and just have to learn the hard way.
Sometimes we have the funniest conversations. He'll call me because he knows he's done something that has irritated or annoyed someone, but he's not sure exactly what, so I'll try to explain. He'll ask, "Was that me being autistic?" And invariably I'll end up saying, "No, that was just you being obnoxious." :rofl;
He's not really all that different from neuronormals, but he's just different enough that his peers pick up on it, you know? But they don't have either the maturity or the experience to know what "it" is.
Thanks for the NYT article. Isn't it interesting to have a mirror into the workings of another person's mind?
-
Wow, then the God of the Old Testament in your opinion is not God.
I didn't say that. I said that God allowed much and perhaps most of the HISTORICAL NARRATIVE to be written from the often twisted and evil point-of-view of the educated-class and priesthood of the Israelites...which were the very people Jesus condemned. Even considering my previous statement, there are certainly many parts of the Old Testament depicting the God of love and grace. Examples might be books such as Ruth and Esther (in which women are the main characters). Within the books of the prophets too there are additional narrative-like passages that are most assuredly an accurate picture of the True God.
Interestingly, it is in such prophetical writings that the probable writers of the historical books are the very ones usually facing warnings of doom for their apostasy. There's plenty of information concerning the strong and just side of God, it's just that I can't reconcile a MURDEROUS God with a JUST God. Trying to do deal with the cognitive dissonance of that discrepancy has lead many a believer away from the faith. When I read the propaganda-like parts now I see them with a better understanding that actually gives me a greater faith in the inspiration and inerrant veracity of the Scriptures.
Sorry, Willis, what you are calling a MURDEROUS God is not that at all. Many incorrectly hold up the Old Testament judgements of other nations as an unjust and a murderous God, which is quite an allegation if you don't mind me stating. However, the Bible gives the evidence of what is really at the heart of the issue, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth of the Old Testament law. In other words justice. The clearest evidence of this is in Judges:
Judges 1:6 But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.
By itself, that appears to be a heinous act against this pagan king that they conquered. However, the answer to your puzzle is found in the next verse:
7 And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.
Now it is clear that God used the children of Israel as His instrument of judgement against these nations giving them an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth handing out justice in exactly the same way that these nations had committed against other nations. Just as those that live by the sword even today shall die by the sword (New testament), one aspect of God that is unchanging is reaping what a person has sown.
Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
-
I'm sure sometimes the way I talk and act you would not know I'm a Born Again Christian. I am not perfect but I am forgiven and I do try.
:(
-
"God will turn his back on this nation."??? How dare you state what God will do. You have no idea. My God is a loving, caring, forgiving God who gave us free will.
If he would turn away from his only son while on the cross, why wouldnt he turn away from our Nation? Christ was innocent, we are not! God can not look at SIN. Christ took our sins upon Himself, and God turned away from His Son until His Blood was Shed. Christ Died, was Buried, and Rose again. Now He is with His Father in Heaven. All this, so that He can have a relationship with Man again, like He had with Adam & Eve, before they listened to the serpent who told them they would not die if they ate of that tree in the garden. By the way, it was the only tree that God told them not to eat. They had a whole slew of other trees to pick from, but they had to have the one that God said No to! Sounds like us, don't it?
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
I'm sure sometimes the way I talk and act you would not know I'm a Born Again Christian. I am not perfect but I am forgiven and I do try.
:(
Same here Rerun. That is the Beauty of Christ Jesus. We would not need Christ if we were Perfect. He died for our Sins, so that we can have Eternal Life in Heaven with him. We can do all kind of good for one another, but without the Blood of Jesus, it is in vain! There is nothing we can do to pay our way into heaven, you have to Believe that He lived, died and rose 3 days later and is on the Right side of Our Father in Heaven. He is preparing a place for us. A place unimaginable to me, but I do Believe it with all my heart!
I know many really good & descent people who do so many wonderful things for others. But they do not ackhnowledge God or Christ his son. I have told them many times, but it falls on deaf ears. So sad, to think that they may not go to Heaven, I hope one day they will believe in Christ, I pray so very much so. As one person, I put the message in their ears, its up to them as to what they choose! I love them still the same, as Christ commands us.
I don't understand alot about alot of things, but I do know, that Satan or Devil, still reigns on the earth. His spirit is very much alive. I do believe that his time will be short though, so he needs to enjoy it while he can. I do believe he knows it too, which is why all this confusion going on in the world today.
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
because she's given up all sex with ANYONE except her spouse.
GLORY Be! There is a novel idea. Hallelujah! Sex with ONLY your spouse. Wouldn't that keep a lot of people much happier.... The Way God Intended It To Be.
It seems God was once okay with palace chambers full of concubines. What happened to those days?
I am a little puzzled, are you implying that the Jewish laws came from the people the Jews and were xenophobic, or are they instead God's Holy commandments as Moses testified and God's word alone?
Yes, and I will suppose many will consider me a heretic, but I believe that significant portions of the Old Testament were what the priests of the Hebrew nation (i.e., its government) wanted to represent AS God's position when it was really THEIR view of God's position. I sincerely believe that God inspired the history as it was written. But that He allowed the history to be written with all of its ugliness. Compare that to the ancient literature of almost all other cultures in which everything is sanitized. To me, the strongest evidence for this is that those who claimed to practice the Law most sincerely with all its added precepts from the Talmud and Mishna were the very ones who rejected the Messiah and had him crucified as a criminal by the Romans.
In the early years of Christianity, there were major discussions about whether or not Judaism had anything whatsoever to do with Christianity. Indeed, early on, one could have proclaimed Christianity the heir of Zoroastianism, to which it is much closer in tone and content than to Judaism. You even have the magi -- Zoroastrian priests looking for signs in the heavens for the earthly arrival of their saoshyant, their messiah -- showing up at the birth of Jesus.
The New Testament and the Old were stitched together, and some of the seams are still visible. For instance: in order to conform with the view of later Judaism and Christianity, the modern English translations of the Bible have Jacob saying, "God was revealed to me." But that's not what he says in the original Hebrew. He actually says, "Gods were revealed to me."
Wow, then the God of the Old Testament in your opinion is not God. Wow. In any case, to each his own.
God is a metaphor, a reference to that which words can't touch. Neither the name nor the image is the final term to a mystery that transcends all thought categories. When you bind yourself to one name (Yahveh, Elohim, El, Allah) or one image you've already closed yourself off, whereas the name or image is supposed to open you up to a sense of the sublime.
Literal interpretation of scripture is a way of getting stuck with the words, with the image. We know the earth isn't six thousand years old. We know Jesus ascending bodily to heaven even at the speed of light would still be somewhere in the Milky Way, though how he could be ascending is difficult to say since there is no up in space. The Bible is full of contradictions and mistranslations. The views of the early Old Testament books are different views from those of the later Zoroastrian-influenced Judeans and Christians. The early Yahvists had no conception of heaven or hell as we understand them. When people died, the went to sheol, the underworld, which was like the underworld of the Sumerians or Greeks. Only in very rare circumstances was one carried alive to heaven to dwell with God. There was no idea of a lord of darkness, Satan (which means "adversary").
But these contradictions don't matter, because religion is properly addressed to the spirit, not to the mind. Not to literal thinking. Not to Aristotelian logic. When it's taken literally, it's not religion, it's ideology. And the only way to take literally a text which is contradicted by the known world is to reject the known world. No religion can thrive which refuses to accept the world as it is.
-
A very interesting read, Hober. Have you ever read God: A Biography? It is fascinating. I've read it twice, I enjoyed it so much. Little bits that seem so obvious were still a revelation to me. The chapter on Genesis begins "He is talking to himself." I'd never even thought of that (which I guess is not surprising for an atheist) but still, who is He talking to? Jack Miles (author) said "Let there be light" etc. could be translated more accurately as "Light" as if God were a surgeon asking for a tool or a chef naming his ingredients as he added them into the mix.
In the sequel to God: A Biography, Miles posits that essentially, God needs to really outdo himself to explain why he did not keep his promise to the Jews. So, instead of the promise of victory over their enemies, the promise becomes victory over death itself. Anyhow, the author makes a strong case and fills in details to more fully explain some of Jesus' statements. I really enjoyed his analysis.
-
ok I'm going to throw out some ideas and see what sticks. Be gentle, I usually manage to avoid these conversations because I always manage to accidentally offend everyone.
fruit flies have a gay gene, my bro was on the team that discovered it. in humans there seems to be a combo of genes that determine how selective we are in choosing mates and some really recent stuff about the effects of hormones on sexuality.
I am always confused about the mention of homosexuality and the bible, the old testament seems mostly concerned with people not raping fallen generals to death, which seems like a good thing to forbid. otoh, I thought Jesus was supposed to get rid of most of those scary ot rules, like about beard trimming and not wearing poly-cotton blends.
now Paul tells men to not be "silky" the big problem I have with that bit is that Paul makes up a word that can't be successfully translated. of course, Paul never met Jesus so I tend to view everything he said with a grain of salt.
overall the bible seems to be structured as a narrative to tell the story of god evolving from an older brother figure to more of a father figure. also the Nicene council cut out all of the good bits. are we any closer to piecing together the q gospel? the sayings gospels seem to be a lot closer, chronologically, to when a historical Jesus would have lived.
don't hate on me too hard, I'm in the blood, I just also cast lots and try to view the bible in its historical context.
aisha
-
Oh Aisha, I have no doubt that you managed to offend someone, but that's the nature of these sorts of conversations! LOL! I'm just glad you chimed in!
I just try to live my life in such a way that more people are positively affected by my existence than not. I can't quote Bible verses at the drop of a hat, but I don't think that makes me a bad person. I strive to be strong enough to both take care of myself AND my fellow human beings. I leave the Judgment to whichever Higher Being may exist.
That's sorta "traditional America", isn't it?
What I fear is this mindset of there being only "makers and takers" becoming the new definition of "traditional America".
-
I would argue that religion has nothing to do with traditional America. Heck. I would argue that all religions are man-made owing to the nature of man as a sentient being who seeks answers where answers are not apparent. But that is beside the point.
Traditional America has everything to do with people. We cannot ignore the fact that we are one of them and it was a wise-man who said; “Treat others as you would have others treat yourself.”
In the most recent US elections I needed no other ideology than how to treat people when deciding my vote. Traditional America is buying a homeless man a pair of boots on a cold day; advocating medical help for everyone; feeding the poor; arguing instead of killing; believing that it can be done; believing that there are no second class citizens; proud parents; kids; and the pets we keep.
gl
-
I would argue that religion has nothing to do with traditional America. Heck. I would argue that all religions are man-made owing to the nature of man as a sentient being who seeks answers where answers are not apparent. But that is beside the point.
Traditional America has everything to do with people. We cannot ignore the fact that we are one of them and it was a wise-man who said; “Treat others as you would have others treat yourself.”
In the most recent US elections I needed no other ideology than how to treat people when deciding my vote. Traditional America is buying a homeless man a pair of boots on a cold day; advocating medical help for everyone; feeding the poor; arguing instead of killing; believing that it can be done; believing that there are no second class citizens; proud parents; kids; and the pets we keep.
gl
Too funny Gerald, you try to exclude religion in your version of traditional America, but you paraphrase the "golden rule."
"Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" Matthew 7:12. Yes, I agree, Jesus is a wise man and much more.
-
You sure he was not influenced by Confucius?
Confucius (551–479 BCE)
己所不欲，勿施於人。
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others."
子貢問曰：“有一言而可以終身行之者乎”？子曰：“其恕乎！己所不欲、勿施於人。”
Zi Gong [a disciple] asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'reciprocity'! Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."
-
I have to ask how a topic about government became a topic about god?
Sometimes, I think the problem with our world is strictly based on religious beliefs. It sickens me that so many could be so judgemental... I dont claim to be righteous or even that smart, but come on... Isn't "God" supposed to be the only judge? Arent we supposed to "love thy neighbor" ? And If Im not mistaken, there is even something in that book about loving those who are 'sinners' because they need the most love?
I am so sick of seeing people use a god as an excuse for chaos. people need to grow up and realize that maybe if we just loved a little more, and stopped being judgemental pricks, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe the world wouldnt be so damn doomed.
As for the orginal topic, I really havent a clue about what he meant, but I do think that its just scared white guys, afraid of what is coming, because they are no longer the majority.
-
:thumbup; Very well said gothiclovemonkey :bow;
-
I approve gothiclovemonkey's post. Thank you for your wise words! You are SPOT ON!!!
KarenInWA
-
I have to ask how a topic about government became a topic about god?
Sometimes, I think the problem with our world is strictly based on religious beliefs. It sickens me that so many could be so judgemental... I dont claim to be righteous or even that smart, but come on... Isn't "God" supposed to be the only judge? Arent we supposed to "love thy neighbor" ? And If Im not mistaken, there is even something in that book about loving those who are 'sinners' because they need the most love?
I am so sick of seeing people use a god as an excuse for chaos. people need to grow up and realize that maybe if we just loved a little more, and stopped being judgemental pricks, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe the world wouldnt be so damn doomed.
As for the orginal topic, I really havent a clue about what he meant, but I do think that its just scared white guys, afraid of what is coming, because they are no longer the majority.
"scared white guys"
I had to ask my brown skinned wife what that means and what is it that I am supposed to be scared of?
In any case, the thread is Traditional America. In our current nontraditional America, yes I understand the complete rejection of most religious aspects of our heritage, but nontraditional America isn't the topic of this thread.
In any case, I hope you and all learn of the true God of the Bible who is not responsible for the chaos of this world. That blame is on our shoulders sad to say. So, not sure if I am the "scared white guy" you are referring to, but perhaps I would suggest a little bit more toleration of us folks on your part that enjoy continuing to live in a traditional America for as long as it will last.
My only question, why all the hostility? Surely that is not healthy at all.
-
ok I'm going to throw out some ideas and see what sticks. Be gentle, I usually manage to avoid these conversations because I always manage to accidentally offend everyone.
fruit flies have a gay gene, my bro was on the team that discovered it. in humans there seems to be a combo of genes that determine how selective we are in choosing mates and some really recent stuff about the effects of hormones on sexuality.
I am always confused about the mention of homosexuality and the bible, the old testament seems mostly concerned with people not raping fallen generals to death, which seems like a good thing to forbid. otoh, I thought Jesus was supposed to get rid of most of those scary ot rules, like about beard trimming and not wearing poly-cotton blends.
now Paul tells men to not be "silky" the big problem I have with that bit is that Paul makes up a word that can't be successfully translated. of course, Paul never met Jesus so I tend to view everything he said with a grain of salt.
overall the bible seems to be structured as a narrative to tell the story of god evolving from an older brother figure to more of a father figure. also the Nicene council cut out all of the good bits. are we any closer to piecing together the q gospel? the sayings gospels seem to be a lot closer, chronologically, to when a historical Jesus would have lived.
don't hate on me too hard, I'm in the blood, I just also cast lots and try to view the bible in its historical context.
aisha
Dear girlgeek,
The Bible states that if you search for God with all of your heart you shall find Him. An interesting Bible study is the refutation of the so called canonization of the Scriptures. Funny thing though, the apostles recognized what they wrote was Scripture when they were writing it. Peter calls Paul's epistles Scripture and Paul likewise calls his own rightings "commandments" of God as well as Quoting directly from Luke's gospel and he also calls Marks writings "commandments." Peter also calls the writings of the apostles "commandments."
God put together His own Holy Word. Man did not decide what is God's word and what is not at the Nicene council even thought that is the accepted Theological discourse. The Bible states otherwise.
Not sure about a "gay" gene in fruitflies, I killed about 10 that snuck in my house a couple of weeks ago as the weather got cold, but I didn't observe them in any homosexual behavior before I squashed them. Since we have already mapped the entire human genome, perhaps some one can point out where it exists in humans? To date, no "gay gene" for people.
Now, the OT law is still and always will be the OT law. Not one jot or tittle shall pass until the end of heaven and earth. Jesus so stated Himself:
Matthew 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For a born again Christian, we are no longer under the law, but a new covenant through the shed blood of Jesus who offered Himself for a final sacrifice once and for all and then sat at the right hand of the Father.
Finally, Paul did indeed not only meet Jesus on the road to Damascus, but was taught by Jesus Himself. Jesus is alive and shall live forever more.
When I was 36 years old, after obtaining my degree in Biology and my medical degree with years of education on evolution, I was confronted with the true, literal word of God where the Lord Himself reached out and showed me without any doubt that His word and He are real.
I am giving a serious answer to your serious questions. Don't give up on the word of God, it is real and filled with abundant proof. I wish you luck in your journey searching for Him.
God bless,
Peter
-
because she's given up all sex with ANYONE except her spouse.
GLORY Be! There is a novel idea. Hallelujah! Sex with ONLY your spouse. Wouldn't that keep a lot of people much happier.... The Way God Intended It To Be.
It seems God was once okay with palace chambers full of concubines. What happened to those days?
I am a little puzzled, are you implying that the Jewish laws came from the people the Jews and were xenophobic, or are they instead God's Holy commandments as Moses testified and God's word alone?
Yes, and I will suppose many will consider me a heretic, but I believe that significant portions of the Old Testament were what the priests of the Hebrew nation (i.e., its government) wanted to represent AS God's position when it was really THEIR view of God's position. I sincerely believe that God inspired the history as it was written. But that He allowed the history to be written with all of its ugliness. Compare that to the ancient literature of almost all other cultures in which everything is sanitized. To me, the strongest evidence for this is that those who claimed to practice the Law most sincerely with all its added precepts from the Talmud and Mishna were the very ones who rejected the Messiah and had him crucified as a criminal by the Romans.
In the early years of Christianity, there were major discussions about whether or not Judaism had anything whatsoever to do with Christianity. Indeed, early on, one could have proclaimed Christianity the heir of Zoroastianism, to which it is much closer in tone and content than to Judaism. You even have the magi -- Zoroastrian priests looking for signs in the heavens for the earthly arrival of their saoshyant, their messiah -- showing up at the birth of Jesus.
The New Testament and the Old were stitched together, and some of the seams are still visible. For instance: in order to conform with the view of later Judaism and Christianity, the modern English translations of the Bible have Jacob saying, "God was revealed to me." But that's not what he says in the original Hebrew. He actually says, "Gods were revealed to me."
Wow, then the God of the Old Testament in your opinion is not God. Wow. In any case, to each his own.
God is a metaphor, a reference to that which words can't touch. Neither the name nor the image is the final term to a mystery that transcends all thought categories. When you bind yourself to one name (Yahveh, Elohim, El, Allah) or one image you've already closed yourself off, whereas the name or image is supposed to open you up to a sense of the sublime.
Literal interpretation of scripture is a way of getting stuck with the words, with the image. We know the earth isn't six thousand years old. We know Jesus ascending bodily to heaven even at the speed of light would still be somewhere in the Milky Way, though how he could be ascending is difficult to say since there is no up in space. The Bible is full of contradictions and mistranslations. The views of the early Old Testament books are different views from those of the later Zoroastrian-influenced Judeans and Christians. The early Yahvists had no conception of heaven or hell as we understand them. When people died, the went to sheol, the underworld, which was like the underworld of the Sumerians or Greeks. Only in very rare circumstances was one carried alive to heaven to dwell with God. There was no idea of a lord of darkness, Satan (which means "adversary").
But these contradictions don't matter, because religion is properly addressed to the spirit, not to the mind. Not to literal thinking. Not to Aristotelian logic. When it's taken literally, it's not religion, it's ideology. And the only way to take literally a text which is contradicted by the known world is to reject the known world. No religion can thrive which refuses to accept the world as it is.
Dear Hober, I cannot agree with your view of the Bible at all, but I won't argue point for point.
I will address your last statement:
"And the only way to take literally a text which is contradicted by the known world is to reject the known world. No religion can thrive which refuses to accept the world as it is."
Not sure what Bible you are reading, but my Bible tells me what to look for in these days and is quite literally accurate by far and does not in the least reject what we see in the world today as to what we shall see. The Bible does not sugar coat any topic at all. David is seen with all of his "warts and blemishes" as are all of the OT prophets. I won't go into a point for point exposition, but indeed, I find that the Bible is the MOST relevant book I have ever read applied to today especially. I understand you disagree and I will leave it at that. Indeed, there is no book ever written that can explain what we see today in very clear and literal terms as does the Bible.
-
I have to ask how a topic about government became a topic about god?
Sometimes, I think the problem with our world is strictly based on religious beliefs. It sickens me that so many could be so judgemental... I dont claim to be righteous or even that smart, but come on... Isn't "God" supposed to be the only judge? Arent we supposed to "love thy neighbor" ? And If Im not mistaken, there is even something in that book about loving those who are 'sinners' because they need the most love?
I am so sick of seeing people use a god as an excuse for chaos. people need to grow up and realize that maybe if we just loved a little more, and stopped being judgemental pricks, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe the world wouldnt be so damn doomed.
As for the orginal topic, I really havent a clue about what he meant, but I do think that its just scared white guys, afraid of what is coming, because they are no longer the majority.
"scared white guys"
I had to ask my brown skinned wife what that means and what is it that I am supposed to be scared of?
In any case, the thread is Traditional America. In our current nontraditional America, yes I understand the complete rejection of most religious aspects of our heritage, but nontraditional America isn't the topic of this thread.
In any case, I hope you and all learn of the true God of the Bible who is not responsible for the chaos of this world. That blame is on our shoulders sad to say. So, not sure if I am the "scared white guy" you are referring to, but perhaps I would suggest a little bit more toleration of us folks on your part that enjoy continuing to live in a traditional America for as long as it will last.
My only question, why all the hostility? Surely that is not healthy at all.
Um, Im pretty positive that I wasnt talking about you. I was talking about the dude from the original post..... and perhaps I could have worded that better, used the dudes name to avoid such confusion?
And I didnt blame god, re read that sir, I said PEOPLE USE HIM AS AN EXCUSE... huge difference. And I do not need to learn anything, I have already learned, thank you very much. Dont assume anything about me that you do not know. You dont know my beliefs, or anything about me.
I am probably the most tolerant person you will ever meet. It seems you misread my post, stating that we need more love, more tolerance, less judging...
And there was absolutely no hostility in that post, so I am not sure why you think that. I am, however, saddened by the people who claim to be christians and such using God as an excuse to create wars and hate. For an example, the Westborough Baptist Church. That isnt hostile, that is truth, and sadness.
I could easily be hostile toward someone who judges me, someone who judges my friends because they chose to love who they love, reguardless of their sex. BUT, I dont, because it isnt right. And what it the point? it only causes more issues.
All I see from these posts is something I want no part in. Judgemental hate.... Cant we just love? and having understanding?
smh
-
I suspect that most of us have seen the clips of Bill O'Reilly saying that "It's not a traditional America anymore. The white establishment is now a minority."
I am not really sure what defines "traditional America" as this is, and always has been, such a diverse country in its ideas, philosophies and even origins. And I don't know what "the white establishment" is, either. I'm guessing that there is a lot of white people who don't feel like we're the establishment of anything.
So, to you, what exactly is "traditional America" and what is "the white establishment".
And do you want "stuff"?
I read this article and thought of this thread, http://nymag.com/news/features/republican-caribbean-cruise-2012-12/#print (http://nymag.com/news/features/republican-caribbean-cruise-2012-12/#print)
To me at the base, their world view speaks of the generation of the first boomers more than our particular moment in history. I think the generation born immediately after the war kicked off a new vein of self importance that now runs through our culture. They were first then and now they are first to pass to irrelevance.
It sucks getting old and finding out the world is set to go on without you and by in large people don't hold your exact views, things that were/are important to you aren't as important, to an increasing degree, to each generation that follows.
-
Damn. I was just reading through this post, and was preparing to dive in, but realized I really don't have enough information to do so.
I see lots of references to God, but not references to WHICH God we are speaking about in this nation that has so, so very many religions. So since my god and your god and her god and his god are not all likely the same, it's impossible to decipher this thread.
On the issue of Gay Marriage, if we call it what it really is, it's different. For me, it has zero to do with any religion (which religion, again?) and everything to do with civil rights. If you want to keep your own civil rights, you have no call to keep someone elses away from them. And if you DO successfully keep others from their civil rights, please, don't come crying when yours start to disappear.
-
Also, more blood has been shed under the guise of 'religion' and 'god' than any other single thing in the history of EVER.
-
I suspect that most of us have seen the clips of Bill O'Reilly saying that "It's not a traditional America anymore. The white establishment is now a minority."
I am not really sure what defines "traditional America" as this is, and always has been, such a diverse country in its ideas, philosophies and even origins. And I don't know what "the white establishment" is, either. I'm guessing that there is a lot of white people who don't feel like we're the establishment of anything.
So, to you, what exactly is "traditional America" and what is "the white establishment".
And do you want "stuff"?
I read this article and thought of this thread, http://nymag.com/news/features/republican-caribbean-cruise-2012-12/#print (http://nymag.com/news/features/republican-caribbean-cruise-2012-12/#print)
To me at the base, their world view speaks of the generation of the first boomers more than our particular moment in history. I think the generation born immediately after the war kicked off a new vein of self importance that now runs through our culture. They were first then and now they are first to pass to irrelevance.
It sucks getting old and finding out the world is set to go on without you and by in large people don't hold your exact views, things that were/are important to you aren't as important, to an increasing degree, to each generation that follows.
Actually, having spent a lot of time when I was a kid with my dad's family who grew up on a farm in Kansas, the nature of my own childhood growing up in Alaska had much in common with my father's father and his father's father. In other words, there were many common themes to my traditional childhood with those of the last 3-4 generations. I truly had a traditional childhood sheltered in many ways from the craziness of the 1960's in the lower 48. Being isolated in Alaska was by far a blessing.
In such, your link is a political discourse on post election analysis by some fat cat GOP politicians. That really is not at all in line with traditional America. I would note that history was against the GOP from the start. If you exclude Gerald Ford since he never won any Presidential election, but was instead appointed, Jimmy Carter is the ONLY sitting president to lose reelection in about 90 years. History shows that the incumbent except in one case wins their second term. Don't forget the soul searching the Dems did after Kerry lost in 2004.
In any case, back to traditional America. My kids did not grow up in traditional America. First of all, you cannot just let your kids run wild like we did as kids. Those days are long gone which in many ways is a distinct separation from the connection I have with my father's father and his father's father. The traditional values that they had is what I grew up with as well. I can't say the same for my kids sadly. Yes, it is more than just nostalgia Bill, we have lost something very dear and cherished in America, that is traditional America. Once again, that is not speaking at all of politics since I grew up in a democratic household where they spoke often of the New Deal and Roosevelt and Truman. Traditional America has nothing at all to do with politics.
-
Damn. I was just reading through this post, and was preparing to dive in, but realized I really don't have enough information to do so.
I see lots of references to God, but not references to WHICH God we are speaking about in this nation that has so, so very many religions. So since my god and your god and her god and his god are not all likely the same, it's impossible to decipher this thread.
On the issue of Gay Marriage, if we call it what it really is, it's different. For me, it has zero to do with any religion (which religion, again?) and everything to do with civil rights. If you want to keep your own civil rights, you have no call to keep someone elses away from them. And if you DO successfully keep others from their civil rights, please, don't come crying when yours start to disappear.
Actually, that is not true, I have probably made most of those references to God that you are talking about in this thread, and I have been quite specific, the God of the Bible.
I hope you find out the one true God. When you do, you will find it is not about religion at all which you are correct has caused many wars. Instead, I have a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. He gave us the Bible. I invite you to learn of who He is.
Take care,
Peter
-
Actually, having spent a lot of time when I was a kid with my dad's family who grew up on a farm in Kansas, the nature of my own childhood growing up in Alaska had much in common with my father's father and his father's father. In other words, there were many common themes to my traditional childhood with those of the last 3-4 generations. I truly had a traditional childhood sheltered in many ways from the craziness of the 1960's in the lower 48. Being isolated in Alaska was by far a blessing.
In any case, back to traditional America. My kids did not grow up in traditional America. First of all, you cannot just let your kids run wild like we did as kids. Those days are long gone which in many ways is a distinct separation from the connection I have with my father's father and his father's father. The traditional values that they had is what I grew up with as well. I can't say the same for my kids sadly. Yes, it is more than just nostalgia Bill, we have lost something very dear and cherished in America, that is traditional America. Once again, that is not speaking at all of politics since I grew up in a democratic household where they spoke often of the New Deal and Roosevelt and Truman. Traditional America has nothing at all to do with politics.
You know, Hemodoc, you bring up a very good point, or at least an idea that brings up a very good point. I suspect that the pace of change is so accelerated that we as a society are finding it hard to keep up. We had centuries and centuries that did not bring about a lot of change; I doubt much changed between the years 1400 and 1475. But think about how much has happened...how much has changed...in the world in the past 75 years! We communicate so much faster and so much efficiently, and we can fly from one end of the globe to another in just a day. You couldn't do these things 75 years ago.
So it makes me think that "traditional America" is still within our memory. I don't thing that someone in France in 1400 pined for "traditional France". There are a lot of societies that right now are experiencing massive change in a short amount of time. America is in flux just like most parts of the world, and again, it is happening quickly. Furthermore, as more time passes, the faster the rate of change. At least that's how I perceive it. So, the result is this pining for a way of life that existed not that long ago but yet is so very different from the way we live now, and it is very disconcerting.
What are your thoughts in this regard, Hemodoc? Would you agree that the rate of change has created this "discombobulation"? LOL!
-
@Peter - I appreciate the invitation. As someone who grew up Southern Baptist, and finally wound up at a Christian Church in my early adulthood, who taught Sunday School, and who spent several days each week at the church, leading youth/teen groups, I assure you, I've had the opportunity. I've been baptized, I accepted Christ as my savior, all in my younger years.
In the intervening years, I've moved completely away from any organized religion, and I've moved away from specificities into what I believe to be 'the bigger picture'. If I had to label myself (which I try to avoid) I would simply say I'm a spiritual person, and possibly a 'Humanist' by it's definition. But neither of those fully encapsulates who I am, and what I believe.
At the base of what I believe is that all humans have a right to their own faith, or non faith. And that in each of those sectors, there are good people, and bad people. We live in a country that literally came to be out of the desire to worship or not worship as one sees fit, without the fear of the persecution that has caused so very much bloodshed.
Which brings me right back to the opinion that we cannot have God involved in our government. Regardless of what you believe, there are millions and millions who believe something different. I wonder how it would make those who believe in and pray to God if we said 'Okay. Let's put religion back into our country. We'll go with Buddhism.' I feel it would be an outrage.
What we need to put back in our government is common sense, human decency, and a desire to work together for the common good. An understanding that we are all in this together. Currently, our government is held by a minority of the peoples, run by the minority of the peoples, and working almost solely for the good of those in charge of it.
-
Actually, having spent a lot of time when I was a kid with my dad's family who grew up on a farm in Kansas, the nature of my own childhood growing up in Alaska had much in common with my father's father and his father's father. In other words, there were many common themes to my traditional childhood with those of the last 3-4 generations. I truly had a traditional childhood sheltered in many ways from the craziness of the 1960's in the lower 48. Being isolated in Alaska was by far a blessing.
In any case, back to traditional America. My kids did not grow up in traditional America. First of all, you cannot just let your kids run wild like we did as kids. Those days are long gone which in many ways is a distinct separation from the connection I have with my father's father and his father's father. The traditional values that they had is what I grew up with as well. I can't say the same for my kids sadly. Yes, it is more than just nostalgia Bill, we have lost something very dear and cherished in America, that is traditional America. Once again, that is not speaking at all of politics since I grew up in a democratic household where they spoke often of the New Deal and Roosevelt and Truman. Traditional America has nothing at all to do with politics.
You know, Hemodoc, you bring up a very good point, or at least an idea that brings up a very good point. I suspect that the pace of change is so accelerated that we as a society are finding it hard to keep up. We had centuries and centuries that did not bring about a lot of change; I doubt much changed between the years 1400 and 1475. But think about how much has happened...how much has changed...in the world in the past 75 years! We communicate so much faster and so much efficiently, and we can fly from one end of the globe to another in just a day. You couldn't do these things 75 years ago.
So it makes me think that "traditional America" is still within our memory. I don't thing that someone in France in 1400 pined for "traditional France". There are a lot of societies that right now are experiencing massive change in a short amount of time. America is in flux just like most parts of the world, and again, it is happening quickly. Furthermore, as more time passes, the faster the rate of change. At least that's how I perceive it. So, the result is this pining for a way of life that existed not that long ago but yet is so very different from the way we live now, and it is very disconcerting.
What are your thoughts in this regard, Hemodoc? Would you agree that the rate of change has created this "discombobulation"? LOL!
Dear Moosemom,
I can't separate this rate of change as you call it from what I know about Bible prophecy that told us over 2000 years ago of these things that are coming to pass before our eyes. That is one of the things that separates the God of the Bible from all of the "religions." Only the Bible has thousands of literally fulfilled prophecies, both in the past and many more to come. Israel for instance. You can read the entire history of Israel over the last 3000 years spoken by Moses around 1400 B.C. for instance in Leviticus chapter 26. The diaspora was prophesied by Moses and many of the OT prophets and their regathering is shown in dozens of OT prophecies as well. So, as I am indeed saddened by the changes we see today, I am not completely surprised by them since we have known what is to come for those of us that do believe the truth of the Bible.
-
@Peter - I appreciate the invitation. As someone who grew up Southern Baptist, and finally wound up at a Christian Church in my early adulthood, who taught Sunday School, and who spent several days each week at the church, leading youth/teen groups, I assure you, I've had the opportunity. I've been baptized, I accepted Christ as my savior, all in my younger years.
In the intervening years, I've moved completely away from any organized religion, and I've moved away from specificities into what I believe to be 'the bigger picture'. If I had to label myself (which I try to avoid) I would simply say I'm a spiritual person, and possibly a 'Humanist' by it's definition. But neither of those fully encapsulates who I am, and what I believe.
At the base of what I believe is that all humans have a right to their own faith, or non faith. And that in each of those sectors, there are good people, and bad people. We live in a country that literally came to be out of the desire to worship or not worship as one sees fit, without the fear of the persecution that has caused so very much bloodshed.
Which brings me right back to the opinion that we cannot have God involved in our government. Regardless of what you believe, there are millions and millions who believe something different. I wonder how it would make those who believe in and pray to God if we said 'Okay. Let's put religion back into our country. We'll go with Buddhism.' I feel it would be an outrage.
What we need to put back in our government is common sense, human decency, and a desire to work together for the common good. An understanding that we are all in this together. Currently, our government is held by a minority of the peoples, run by the minority of the peoples, and working almost solely for the good of those in charge of it.
Actually, a little known fact is that separation of church and state is a Baptist doctrine set forth in America first by Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island.
http://www.wallofseparation.us/the-origins-of-wall-of-separation/ (http://www.wallofseparation.us/the-origins-of-wall-of-separation/)
However, this wall of separation was a one way wall preventing government from establishing a denomination like in Europe and in some of the states in the early colonies, but it did not in any manner prevent Christian influences over the government. The original intent of the "wall of separation" is exactly opposite to how it is interpreted today. In fact, look up many of the original state constitutions that required an oath of allegiance to th Christian faith for elected officials. The constitution did not at all prohibit those things at the state and local governments. Here is one example.
CHAPTER II.--EXECUTIVE POWER
Section I,--Governor
Article I. There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be styled "The governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts;" and whose title shall be "His Excellency."
Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.
Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."
Which conservative state held these and more "Christian" prerequisites, Massachusetts of course:
http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm
Once again, the current understanding of the separation of church and state is quite foreign to the original founding fathers concept of separation of church and state. That is part of traditional America that has fallen to the wayside as well.
-
In such, your link is a political discourse on post election analysis by some fat cat GOP politicians. That really is not at all in line with traditional America. I would note that history was against the GOP from the start. If you exclude Gerald Ford since he never won any Presidential election, but was instead appointed, Jimmy Carter is the ONLY sitting president to lose reelection in about 90 years. History shows that the incumbent except in one case wins their second term. Don't forget the soul searching the Dems did after Kerry lost in 2004.
Color me confused, but wasn't George H.W. Bush a Republican, and did he not run for re-election in 1992 and lost to Bill Clinton? I thought he was President from Jan 20, 1989 to Jan 20, 1993. Am I mistaken? If memory serves me correct, we had a 3rd Party candidate who participated in the debates for that eleciton as well, one Mr. Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent. This all happened well within the last 90 years.
KarenInWA
-
In such, your link is a political discourse on post election analysis by some fat cat GOP politicians. That really is not at all in line with traditional America. I would note that history was against the GOP from the start. If you exclude Gerald Ford since he never won any Presidential election, but was instead appointed, Jimmy Carter is the ONLY sitting president to lose reelection in about 90 years. History shows that the incumbent except in one case wins their second term. Don't forget the soul searching the Dems did after Kerry lost in 2004.
Color me confused, but wasn't George H.W. Bush a Republican, and did he not run for re-election in 1992 and lost to Bill Clinton? I thought he was President from Jan 20, 1989 to Jan 20, 1993. Am I mistaken? If memory serves me correct, we had a 3rd Party candidate who participated in the debates for that eleciton as well, one Mr. Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent. This all happened well within the last 90 years.
KarenInWA
Sorry, that is correct, Bush and Carter broke the mold of what the usual historic reelection rate is for second terms. But without Ross Perot, Bush would have easily won reelection making that a bit of anomaly as well.
-
Dear Moosemom,
I can't separate this rate of change as you call it from what I know about Bible prophecy that told us over 2000 years ago of these things that are coming to pass before our eyes. That is one of the things that separates the God of the Bible from all of the "religions." Only the Bible has thousands of literally fulfilled prophecies, both in the past and many more to come. Israel for instance. You can read the entire history of Israel over the last 3000 years spoken by Moses around 1400 B.C. for instance in Leviticus chapter 26. The diaspora was prophesied by Moses and many of the OT prophets and their regathering is shown in dozens of OT prophecies as well. So, as I am indeed saddened by the changes we see today, I am not completely surprised by them since we have known what is to come for those of us that do believe the truth of the Bible.
What saddens me is the dearth of kindness and compassion that Jesus Christ wanted us to show to our fellow human beings. Big corporations taking advantage of the chronically ill. Using drones to kill people in far off lands just because we can and because we now seem to lack the courage to put our own people in harm's way for what we've defined is a righteous cause. Killing machines from the sky...how horrible is that?
I thought that in "traditional America", we were kind to one another and were eager to help. But it's not that way anymore, is it, particularly if your neighbor happens to speak a different language or doesn't look like you.
We can talk about the lack of personal responsibility, the lack of morality, gay marriage being at the root of all of our evils or whatever else the OT prophesied, but in my mind, this lack of care for one another and this refusal to treat others as you would have them treat you is the true cause of our eventual doom.
About eight years ago, my husband and I stopped to help a young woman who had been booted out of our local Baker's Square because she lacked the money to pay for more than a cup of coffee. She was homeless but was living at a local shelter which happened to be run by and located in the basement of a neighborhood church. This shelter does a lot of good work, and my husband and I had attended several of their fund-raising functions. But since it was a Sunday morning and services were being conducted, the residents of this shelter were kicked out for reasons that I do not even WANT to understand. They were allowed back in once services were over. And to top it all off, the reason Baker's Square made this young lady leave was because they wanted her table to be free for all of the people who normally came in for lunch after...church.
So Hemodoc, while I can understand that you believe that God will punish us all for advocating for gay marriage or for whatever else we will be sent to hell for, I respectfully submit that we will all be condemned for our inhumanity to man. We all seem to be at each other's throats, and of course it is always someone else's fault.
And btw, Baker's Square went bankrupt. Call it God's Will. I rejoice in the Lord every time I see that now-vacant lot!
-
Dear Moosemom,
I can't separate this rate of change as you call it from what I know about Bible prophecy that told us over 2000 years ago of these things that are coming to pass before our eyes. That is one of the things that separates the God of the Bible from all of the "religions." Only the Bible has thousands of literally fulfilled prophecies, both in the past and many more to come. Israel for instance. You can read the entire history of Israel over the last 3000 years spoken by Moses around 1400 B.C. for instance in Leviticus chapter 26. The diaspora was prophesied by Moses and many of the OT prophets and their regathering is shown in dozens of OT prophecies as well. So, as I am indeed saddened by the changes we see today, I am not completely surprised by them since we have known what is to come for those of us that do believe the truth of the Bible.
What saddens me is the dearth of kindness and compassion that Jesus Christ wanted us to show to our fellow human beings. Big corporations taking advantage of the chronically ill. Using drones to kill people in far off lands just because we can and because we now seem to lack the courage to put our own people in harm's way for what we've defined is a righteous cause. Killing machines from the sky...how horrible is that?
I thought that in "traditional America", we were kind to one another and were eager to help. But it's not that way anymore, is it, particularly if your neighbor happens to speak a different language or doesn't look like you.
We can talk about the lack of personal responsibility, the lack of morality, gay marriage being at the root of all of our evils or whatever else the OT prophesied, but in my mind, this lack of care for one another and this refusal to treat others as you would have them treat you is the true cause of our eventual doom.
About eight years ago, my husband and I stopped to help a young woman who had been booted out of our local Baker's Square because she lacked the money to pay for more than a cup of coffee. She was homeless but was living at a local shelter which happened to be run by and located in the basement of a neighborhood church. This shelter does a lot of good work, and my husband and I had attended several of their fund-raising functions. But since it was a Sunday morning and services were being conducted, the residents of this shelter were kicked out for reasons that I do not even WANT to understand. They were allowed back in once services were over. And to top it all off, the reason Baker's Square made this young lady leave was because they wanted her table to be free for all of the people who normally came in for lunch after...church.
So Hemodoc, while I can understand that you believe that God will punish us all for advocating for gay marriage or for whatever else we will be sent to hell for, I respectfully submit that we will all be condemned for our inhumanity to man. We all seem to be at each other's throats, and of course it is always someone else's fault.
And btw, Baker's Square went bankrupt. Call it God's Will. I rejoice in the Lord every time I see that now-vacant lot!
We live in a nation that is loudly and decisively rejecting Jesus Christ in all aspects of our society which is one of the prophecies we knew would come as well. Because man has rejected God in this nation in the last few decades in no manner diminishes his teachings or Him in any way. I give money to homeless folks all the time. We are all actually condemned when we refuse His Son. That is what the Scriptures state.
John 3:16 ¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 ¶ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Actually, I still live in an area where folks still reach out and help folks when they are in need. No traditional America is still alive and well but indeed under attack. If you want to live in traditional America, you can still find it today.
-
OK, I had more questions for you, Hemodoc, but I have promised not to ask any more, so I deleted them. LOL!
-
Actually, having spent a lot of time when I was a kid with my dad's family who grew up on a farm in Kansas, the nature of my own childhood growing up in Alaska had much in common with my father's father and his father's father. In other words, there were many common themes to my traditional childhood with those of the last 3-4 generations. I truly had a traditional childhood sheltered in many ways from the craziness of the 1960's in the lower 48. Being isolated in Alaska was by far a blessing.
In such, your link is a political discourse on post election analysis by some fat cat GOP politicians. That really is not at all in line with traditional America. I would note that history was against the GOP from the start. If you exclude Gerald Ford since he never won any Presidential election, but was instead appointed, Jimmy Carter is the ONLY sitting president to lose reelection in about 90 years. History shows that the incumbent except in one case wins their second term. Don't forget the soul searching the Dems did after Kerry lost in 2004.
In any case, back to traditional America. My kids did not grow up in traditional America. First of all, you cannot just let your kids run wild like we did as kids. Those days are long gone which in many ways is a distinct separation from the connection I have with my father's father and his father's father. The traditional values that they had is what I grew up with as well. I can't say the same for my kids sadly. Yes, it is more than just nostalgia Bill, we have lost something very dear and cherished in America, that is traditional America. Once again, that is not speaking at all of politics since I grew up in a democratic household where they spoke often of the New Deal and Roosevelt and Truman. Traditional America has nothing at all to do with politics.
Peter, what you are describing really is ordinary nostalgia once you strip away the politics. Kids today have fun in different ways from you and your forefathers, but they''re still having fun. I don't think that is the defining characteristic of traditional America O'Reilly was referencing. If Mitt Romney had won do you think O'Reilly would have had a segment on the end of traditional America? Regardless of your personal position Peter, the original question was what the hell was Bill O'Reilly talking about and to answer that you can not strip away the politics. The people on the cruise are all Bill O'Reilly avatars; their anxiety is the anxiety Bill O'Reilly was expressing.
-
In such, your link is a political discourse on post election analysis by some fat cat GOP politicians. That really is not at all in line with traditional America. I would note that history was against the GOP from the start. If you exclude Gerald Ford since he never won any Presidential election, but was instead appointed, Jimmy Carter is the ONLY sitting president to lose reelection in about 90 years. History shows that the incumbent except in one case wins their second term. Don't forget the soul searching the Dems did after Kerry lost in 2004.
Color me confused, but wasn't George H.W. Bush a Republican, and did he not run for re-election in 1992 and lost to Bill Clinton? I thought he was President from Jan 20, 1989 to Jan 20, 1993. Am I mistaken? If memory serves me correct, we had a 3rd Party candidate who participated in the debates for that eleciton as well, one Mr. Ross Perot, who ran as an Independent. This all happened well within the last 90 years.
KarenInWA
Sorry, that is correct, Bush and Carter broke the mold of what the usual historic reelection rate is for second terms. But without Ross Perot, Bush would have easily won reelection making that a bit of anomaly as well.
You'd have to talk about John Anderson too, but what did in Carter was the primary challenge by Kennedy from his left.
-
Bill, all discussions morph as the posts come in, but if you wish, back to the OP. White America is NOT a minority. The 2010 census notes 72% are "white." The white race is still the majority but it is at the lowest point in our history.
As far as traditional America, that would I assume is the WASP we have heard of before. That is white anglo-saxon protestants. I confess that I grew up as a WASP in all definable terms, after all, my dad was a Methodist minister. You can't get much more WASP than that. That cultural dominance began to change in the 1960's but once again, we are still a 72% caucasion nation.
Culture attributed to WASPs
The original WASP elite established the United States, its social structure and significant institutions, existing as the dominant social group beginning in the 17th century when the country's social hierarchy took shape, and lasting into the 1960s, when WASP society gradually began to relinquish national control and retreating amongst themselves, growing reminiscent of a cloistered Aristocracy, in what has been termed the Leisure class. Many scholars, including researcher Anthony Smith, argue that nations tend to be formed on the basis of a pre-modern ethnic core that provides the myths, symbols, and memories for the modern nation and that WASPs were indeed that core.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant
The Christian nature of the WASP heritage is certainly under siege throughout our entire society, but that is what Bill was referring to as traditional America in the OP that was quoted.
-
The Christian nature of the WASP heritage is certainly under siege
The WASPs themselves are no longer the majority, though. A huge portion of those listing themselves as white are no longer religious at all, and they don't identify with those "core values" the WASPs believe in. And the birth rate trends show that whites will not even be the majority much longer.
I find the use of the phrase "under siege" quite telling. It shows a perception that this is a battle - and a losing one at that. I was raised in that same WASP environment, but I don't see it as a war at all. More of a natural adaption to a changing environment. Some of us are going to adapt easily and calmly. Some aren't.
Biology 101 - Adapt or Die.
-
I dig you, jbeany.
That is all.
-
The Christian nature of the WASP heritage is certainly under siege
The WASPs themselves are no longer the majority, though. A huge portion of those listing themselves as white are no longer religious at all, and they don't identify with those "core values" the WASPs believe in. And the birth rate trends show that whites will not even be the majority much longer.
I find the use of the phrase "under siege" quite telling. It shows a perception that this is a battle - and a losing one at that. I was raised in that same WASP environment, but I don't see it as a war at all. More of a natural adaption to a changing environment. Some of us are going to adapt easily and calmly. Some aren't.
Biology 101 - Adapt or Die.
Dear jbeany,
What part of Christianity is not under siege in America today? I didn't say WASP's were under siege, I stated that for Christianity. That is a fact as more and more aspects of Christianity are attacked in our society, in our governments, state, local and federal. No, that is still true and siege is very much what is coming against Christianity and Christian values.
Since I don't believe in evolution, I guess I will just continue to believe in my Saviour and the truth of the Bible thank you.
-
A siege against Christianity? Are you making yourself a victim?
In an era where information is exchanged at light-speed, the average American is asking questions like never before. For instance; where is this God Christianity talks about? One can chase the concept of God in circles until you have narrowed it down to a belief system. Simply put, this is “faith” and nothing more.
There is no evidence of a God or Jesus Christ. None? Not even a little bit.
This is not a condemnation; people all over the world have used faith as a crutch when suffer. It helps; and so does Santa Claus to little kids. Yes HemoDoc, values are created and enforced by humans as is faith. There are many religions and faiths.
If someone asks you a question about Christianity that you cannot factually answer, you are not under siege, you are facing changing values – the values of intellectual Ideas.
gl
-
A siege against Christianity? Are you making yourself a victim?
In an era where information is exchanged at light-speed, the average American is asking questions like never before. For instance; where is this God Christianity talks about? One can chase the concept of God in circles until you have narrowed it down to a belief system. Simply put, this is “faith” and nothing more.
There is no evidence of a God or Jesus Christ. None? Not even a little bit.
This is not a condemnation; people all over the world have used faith as a crutch when suffer. It helps; and so does Santa Claus to little kids. Yes HemoDoc, values are created and enforced by humans as is faith. There are many religions and faiths.
If someone asks you a question about Christianity that you cannot factually answer, you are not under siege, you are facing changing values – the values of intellectual Ideas.
gl
Hey Gerald, great to hear from you again. Funny how so many folks that don't believe in Jesus are so quick to state that there is no evidence when in fact that is not true at all. Believe what you wish my friend. However, I am not the least bit afraid to answer any question about Christianity folks wish to know.
If folks want to believe that traditional Christian values are not under attack, so be it. All of you shall indeed have your time to explain that at a later time.
Fortunately, as a Christian, I have the Rock of Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and forever. I am glad that God reached out and found me 18 year ago. No evidence, sorry you are so wrong my friend but I hope you find out before it is too late. Good luck with all of your changing values and intellectual ideas folks. All I can say is good luck.
-
We are indeed facing the loss of basic freedoms here in America. Thomas Jefferson made a very interesting statement which is preserved among other places in the D.C. Jefferson Memorial from panel three:
“God, who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that those liberties are the gift of God?”
America is once again embarking on a great social experiment of throwing away the traditional Judeo-Christian values that are at the heart of the founding of our nation. Jefferson stated well that relationship even though one may question how much he believed in the God of the Bible himself. Nevertheless, his words ring true for our time.
When we question the existence of the God of the Bible as a nation, it is no wonder indeed that our liberties are vanishing before our eyes and people willingly give up our constitutional liberties gladly. The entire understanding of what freedom really is has changed in only one generation. Yes, the WASP roots of our traditional American culture and their connection to Christianity is indeed under attack. Adapt or Die jbeany. Really, who is going to make me die? Yes, yes, Darwinistic social evolution is alive and well in America. Sadly, America is no longer a Christian nation. That in the end will not be to our benefit.
In any case, Jefferson also has another quote in his memorial:
Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.
All are free to their own opinions on religion including me. Sadly, those that hold fast to the truth of the Bible are vilified in our culture today. Just the way it is, we have cast aside the ideals and values that our founding fathers set forth in their documents. Traditional America, no longer. It is actually under attack on many levels.
Have a great day Gerald.
-
CNN’s Piers Morgan Says Bible is ‘Flawed’
“It’s flawed,” Morgan said during an interview with evangelical pastor and author Rick Warren. “Both the Bible and the Constitution were well-intentioned, but they are basically, inherently flawed – hence the need to amend it.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/cnns-piers-morgan-says-bible-is-flawed.html
I would venture to state that a greater majority of folks agree with CNN's Piers Morgan than with Rick Warren on the merits of the Bible. Despite Gerald's rejection of the truth of the Bible, there is a reason why so many today understand that God's word is the truth. In any case, it is very common to see comments and opinions exactly as Piers Morgan and in fact, that is the growing trend. No, to deny that traditional American Judeo-Christian values are not under attack is to truly have your head buried in the sand.
-
I always find it fascinating when people quote Thomas Jefferson in regard to freedom and liberty. He meant those words only for white, landowning males. I don't see him telling us that God gave liberty to slaves and to women.
I do think that here in the US we strive to adhere to Judeo-Christian ideals. Even those who have no faith or those who have a different faith generally agree that it is wrong to murder, that it is wrong to steal and that it is good to be kind and to treat others as you would want to be treated. I don't think anyone who reads the Ten Commandments would say that any one of them is unfounded. We may not all be what is generally understood as "evangelical", but that doesn't make us bad people.
I do believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that I don't think God didn't have a hand in it. There's a reason that the Higgs Boson was nicknamed "the God particle."
-
I always find it fascinating when people quote Thomas Jefferson in regard to freedom and liberty. He meant those words only for white, landowning males. I don't see him telling us that God gave liberty to slaves and to women.
I do think that here in the US we strive to adhere to Judeo-Christian ideals. Even those who have no faith or those who have a different faith generally agree that it is wrong to murder, that it is wrong to steal and that it is good to be kind and to treat others as you would want to be treated. I don't think anyone who reads the Ten Commandments would say that any one of them is unfounded. We may not all be what is generally understood as "evangelical", but that doesn't make us bad people.
I do believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that I don't think God didn't have a hand in it. There's a reason that the Higgs Boson was nicknamed "the God particle."
Dear Moosemom, I take your statement at face value, but I suspect that you don't really agree with all of the 10 commandments. Most people agree with commandments 5-10, but they reject the first four:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Do you keep the Sabbath, have no other gods before you, not take the name of the Lord in vain and not worship any graven images? Do you believe that the world was created in six days and God rested on the 7th? If you believe in evolution then you reject the 4th commandment since I suspect you reject the notion that God created the earth in 6 days.
Strive is a very strong word that truly does not fit the complete rejection the Judeo-Christian heritage by a majority of people in our US society today. Is support of gay marriage striving for Judeo-Christian ideals? Is abortion, or legalizing pot, or free sexual manifestations throughout our society? No, America openly and defiantly rejects these ideals today that traditional America founding on the WASP society embraced.
-
I take your statement at face value, but I suspect that you don't really agree with all of the 10 commandments.
I think plenty of Americans believe in God - but not the Bible. Or only bits and pieces of it. More and more Americans identify themselves as religious or spiritual, but not Christian. I don't see an attack or a siege on Christianity - I see a retreat from harsh doctrines written by men who claim to be receiving the word of God but more often were - and are - acting in their own best interests. So I'd have to say I'm in agreement with Piers Morgan - although I'd actually have to track down to the entire conversation that one line is quoted from to see just how far out of context it might be.
All of you shall indeed have your time to explain that at a later time.
... but I hope you find out before it is too late... All I can say is good luck.
I, like Gerald, think that lots of people get comfort from religion, and that it has done good things for those who need it and find strength from it. I respect that power and I'm glad it works for them.
However, I'm always entertained by the threats of eternal doom aimed at those who don't believe. I keep my childhood Bible on the same shelf I keep the rest of the fiction I saved from when I was a kid. The threat of hell to non-believers is a bit like telling Christians that the Red Queen is going to order their heads chopped off when they fall through the looking glass.
Hey, as a kid, I believed in fairies so Tinkerbell wouldn't die, too.
-
I take your statement at face value, but I suspect that you don't really agree with all of the 10 commandments.
I think plenty of Americans believe in God - but not the Bible. Or only bits and pieces of it. More and more Americans identify themselves as religious or spiritual, but not Christian. I don't see an attack or a siege on Christianity - I see a retreat from harsh doctrines written by men who claim to be receiving the word of God but more often were - and are - acting in their own best interests. So I'd have to say I'm in agreement with Piers Morgan - although I'd actually have to track down to the entire conversation that one line is quoted from to see just how far out of context it might be.
All of you shall indeed have your time to explain that at a later time.
... but I hope you find out before it is too late... All I can say is good luck.
I, like Gerald, think that lots of people get comfort from religion, and that it has done good things for those who need it and find strength from it. I respect that power and I'm glad it works for them.
However, I'm always entertained by the threats of eternal doom aimed at those who don't believe. I keep my childhood Bible on the same shelf I keep the rest of the fiction I saved from when I was a kid. The threat of hell to non-believers is a bit like telling Christians that the Red Queen is going to order their heads chopped off when they fall through the looking glass.
Hey, as a kid, I believed in fairies so Tinkerbell wouldn't die, too.
Sorry that you believe the Bible is fiction. Not my take on that at all. I was saved through the study of Bible prophecy, those already fulfilled and those yet to be fulfilled. Sorry, but there is more than ample proof of the truth of the Bible, hopefully you will take another look at it again in the future. As far as heaven and hell, I have no doubt both are real.
-
Dear jbeany,
What part of Christianity is not under siege in America today? I didn't say WASP's were under siege, I stated that for Christianity. That is a fact as more and more aspects of Christianity are attacked in our society, in our governments, state, local and federal. No, that is still true and siege is very much what is coming against Christianity and Christian values.
Since I don't believe in evolution, I guess I will just continue to believe in my Saviour and the truth of the Bible thank you.
What part of Christianity is not under siege? How about the part where you can believe anything you want? And the part where you can freely gather in groups to profess your religion? And the part where you can conduct your life however you like? I don't understand the panic. Would you feel the same way if Romney had won?
-
I do believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that I don't think God didn't have a hand in it.
I no not know if I no agree with this.
-
Dear jbeany,
What part of Christianity is not under siege in America today? I didn't say WASP's were under siege, I stated that for Christianity. That is a fact as more and more aspects of Christianity are attacked in our society, in our governments, state, local and federal. No, that is still true and siege is very much what is coming against Christianity and Christian values.
Since I don't believe in evolution, I guess I will just continue to believe in my Saviour and the truth of the Bible thank you.
What part of Christianity is not under siege? How about the part where you can believe anything you want? And the part where you can freely gather in groups to profess your religion? And the part where you can conduct your life however you like? I don't understand the panic. Would you feel the same way if Romney had won?
That is actually an interesting question Bill as far as believing anything that you want. Yes, that is absolutely true, God has given us a free will and does not impose His will upon us. Most folks don't understand that separation of church and state is actually a Christian doctrine championed by the Baptists mainly.
No panic at all Bill, but of a truth, America is no longer a Christian nation but when I was born in the late 50's you could put forth a very strong argument that we were still indeed a Christian nation. You are right, today, we still have the ability to gather and worship in a manner denied today in many nations around the world such as China, many of the arab nations and other places as well.
Yet, all we have to do is go north to Canada where the Bible has been deemed hate speech and you can no longer preach certain verses from the pulpit without fear of arrest. There have been proposed laws here in the US that to date have been struck down by courts or failed to pass. One such law passed that the Governator signed was SB 1234 which prohibited parts of the Bible. This was later overturned by the courts.
http://www.christianity.com/print/1280230/
There are many that wish to see similar pass and I suspect one day that they will making those verses in the Bible outlawed with severe criminal penalties and fines as did the CA SB 1234. Once again, this bill passed, was signed and then only later reversed by the courts. That is how close we were to criminalizing the Bible.
Yes, America is no longer a Christian nation and it is only a matter of time before American preachers are locked up for proclaiming the truth of the Bible as others have already been prosecuted in Canada and Sweden for instance simply for reading the Bible from the pulpit.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2004/jul/04070505
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html
Fortunately, both were acquitted on appeal.
-
I do believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that I don't think God didn't have a hand in it.
I no not know if I no agree with this.
Depends on your definition of God. Einstein believed in God as a term to describe the beauty and force that began the universe. He just didn't buy the idea of a personal god who paid attention to the hairs on our heads. I've read quite a bit of what he's said, and I think along the same lines.
I remember the first time as a child I really grasped the concept of the size of the universe compared to the insignificant speck that is Earth - and my relative size to that. I was listening to a very enthusiastic science teacher describe what the best scientists theorized about the ever-expanding space around us. I felt as if the inside of my brain was rapidly expanding outward, with stars, suns, and planets swirling madly away in the distance as I traveled by them. It was a moment I'd need terms like "vision," "spiritual," and "out-of-body" to describe accurately. If you want to call that "God" then I'll go along with it.
-
Dear Moosemom, I take your statement at face value, but I suspect that you don't really agree with all of the 10 commandments. Most people agree with commandments 5-10, but they reject the first four:
Do you keep the Sabbath, have no other gods before you, not take the name of the Lord in vain and not worship any graven images? Do you believe that the world was created in six days and God rested on the 7th? If you believe in evolution then you reject the 4th commandment since I suspect you reject the notion that God created the earth in 6 days.
Strive is a very strong word that truly does not fit the complete rejection the Judeo-Christian heritage by a majority of people in our US society today. Is support of gay marriage striving for Judeo-Christian ideals? Is abortion, or legalizing pot, or free sexual manifestations throughout our society? No, America openly and defiantly rejects these ideals today that traditional America founding on the WASP society embraced.
I have no other gods before me, I do not take the name of the Lord in vain, I do not worship any graven images. As for keeping the Sabbath and not working on that day, well, I wish I could tell my husband that I mustn't clean or make his meals on a Sunday because that day is holy. Do you dialyze on Sundays? Does your wife cook and clean for you on Sundays? Do women stop caring for their children (and surely you know how much work THAT takes) on Sundays? So I guess I'm not entirely sure what that particular commandment means in the context of my life.
No, I do not think God created the world in six days. I believe in evolution because God Himself left behind His clues for us to discover as our minds evolved as He intended. Evolution is not anti-Christian.. Evolution is a miracle. If you believe in the Bible, then you'll believe that He created the Grand Canyon, and the Canyon has evolved over millenia, just like us and just like animals and microbes and the Earth itself.
-
I do believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that I don't think God didn't have a hand in it.
I no not know if I no agree with this.
LOL! The phone rang while I was typing this. I guess I got distracted. How many negatives can I manage to work into one sentence?
I do believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean that I think that God didn't have a hand in it. :P
-
Dear Moosemom, I take your statement at face value, but I suspect that you don't really agree with all of the 10 commandments. Most people agree with commandments 5-10, but they reject the first four:
Do you keep the Sabbath, have no other gods before you, not take the name of the Lord in vain and not worship any graven images? Do you believe that the world was created in six days and God rested on the 7th? If you believe in evolution then you reject the 4th commandment since I suspect you reject the notion that God created the earth in 6 days.
Strive is a very strong word that truly does not fit the complete rejection the Judeo-Christian heritage by a majority of people in our US society today. Is support of gay marriage striving for Judeo-Christian ideals? Is abortion, or legalizing pot, or free sexual manifestations throughout our society? No, America openly and defiantly rejects these ideals today that traditional America founding on the WASP society embraced.
I have no other gods before me, I do not take the name of the Lord in vain, I do not worship any graven images. As for keeping the Sabbath and not working on that day, well, I wish I could tell my husband that I mustn't clean or make his meals on a Sunday because that day is holy. Do you dialyze on Sundays? Does your wife cook and clean for you on Sundays? Do women stop caring for their children (and surely you know how much work THAT takes) on Sundays? So I guess I'm not entirely sure what that particular commandment means in the context of my life.
No, I do not think God created the world in six days. I believe in evolution because God Himself left behind His clues for us to discover as our minds evolved as He intended. Evolution is not anti-Christian.. Evolution is a miracle. If you believe in the Bible, then you'll believe that He created the Grand Canyon, and the Canyon has evolved over millenia, just like us and just like animals and microbes and the Earth itself.
Actually, the Sabbath is Friday at Sunset to Saturday at Sunset. Sunday is the first day of the week. But that is a bit of a long discussion of great contention, so won't go there in detail. As far as dialyzing, absolutely, if my schedule falls on Sunday which it does quite frequently, yes, I dialyze and furthermore that is not at all in opposition to the teachings of Jesus.
Luke 14:1 AND it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.
2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.
3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
4 And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;
5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
6 And they could not answer him again to these things.
If you wish to discuss evolution and even the Grand Canyon in detail, perhaps it would be better to start a separate thread. In brief, scientist really have no clue how the Grand Canyon formed or how old it really is. Last year, the canyon was younger than thought, this year the canyon is older than they thought. In reality, they don't have a clue how it formed.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765618011/Study-contends-Grand-Canyon-as-old-as-dinosaur-era.html?pg=all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1381686/Scientist-claims-hes-finally-discovered-caused-Grand-Canyon.html
Simply question for you, if the Grand Canyon formed over millions and millions of years, how are the sedimentary rocks perfectly flat in between all of the layers. There is a very simple answer to that question that all of the secular scientists reject. The formation of sedimentary rocks is very interesting actually very important evidence of the truth of the Bible. But anyway, if you would like to look into that issue in depth, it is way off topic for this thread.
As far as evolution not being anti-Christian, I would beg to differ. But that is also a separate thread as well if you wish to discuss those issues in detail. Glad to do so, but off topic to this thread.
-
Hemodoc, thanks for the clarification re healing on the Sabbath. As for the definition of the Sabbath, I knew that in the Jewish faith, the Sabbath is observed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, so I am wondering why Christians chose Sunday as the traditional day of worship. I don't imagine that in traditional America, people stopped working from Friday night to Saturday night. Is this contrary to the Bible's teachings? But since you say that this is a contentious subject, perhaps you are right in saying that this is not the place for that discussion. Still, I am curious!
No, I don't wish to get into the mysteries of the Grand Canyon and how God created its perfect layers. You and I will just have to agree to disagree about evolution. I think the story of God creating the world in 6 days is a simplistic parable because what He REALLY did and how He REALLY did it is far more impressive. I personally believe that the Big Bang was the Hand of God, His moment of creation.
I strive to live by the Golden rule and to be kind and compassionate. As you know, I am not a biblical scholar, so I am probably sinning every minute of every day without even knowing it. I have a son that God created to be autistic, so He has given me a great challenge...to teach my son to be kind and compassionate, too, when those concepts are hard for him to understand. I struggle through life just like everyone else, but I try very hard not to let my struggles keep me from being a good person who tries to live a life that God would judge as satisfactory. If this is not good enough for Him, then so be it.
Most people I know are just like me, people who strive to be "good" and who work hard and who struggle through life's many challenges, just like people did in what you would call "traditional America".
I know you feel that America has discarded Judeo-Christian ideals, so what do you do on a daily basis that upholds those ideals? You've said that you give money to "homeless folk". Well, so do I, but that's not very much. When was the last time you had a kind word for someone? When was the last time you helped a neighbor? When was the last time you showed some compassion and shared your vast medical knowledge with a new, scared member here on IHD? I don't ask you this because I suspect that you have not done these things but, rather, I ask because I expect that you HAVE, and I'd like to know more about how YOU uphold the ideals of "traditional America".
-
Hemodoc, thanks for the clarification re healing on the Sabbath. As for the definition of the Sabbath, I knew that in the Jewish faith, the Sabbath is observed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, so I am wondering why Christians chose Sunday as the traditional day of worship. I don't imagine that in traditional America, people stopped working from Friday night to Saturday night. Is this contrary to the Bible's teachings? But since you say that this is a contentious subject, perhaps you are right in saying that this is not the place for that discussion. Still, I am curious!
No, I don't wish to get into the mysteries of the Grand Canyon and how God created its perfect layers. You and I will just have to agree to disagree about evolution. I think the story of God creating the world in 6 days is a simplistic parable because what He REALLY did and how He REALLY did it is far more impressive. I personally believe that the Big Bang was the Hand of God, His moment of creation.
I strive to live by the Golden rule and to be kind and compassionate. As you know, I am not a biblical scholar, so I am probably sinning every minute of every day without even knowing it. I have a son that God created to be autistic, so He has given me a great challenge...to teach my son to be kind and compassionate, too, when those concepts are hard for him to understand. I struggle through life just like everyone else, but I try very hard not to let my struggles keep me from being a good person who tries to live a life that God would judge as satisfactory. If this is not good enough for Him, then so be it.
Most people I know are just like me, people who strive to be "good" and who work hard and who struggle through life's many challenges, just like people did in what you would call "traditional America".
I know you feel that America has discarded Judeo-Christian ideals, so what do you do on a daily basis that upholds those ideals? You've said that you give money to "homeless folk". Well, so do I, but that's not very much. When was the last time you had a kind word for someone? When was the last time you helped a neighbor? When was the last time you showed some compassion and shared your vast medical knowledge with a new, scared member here on IHD? I don't ask you this because I suspect that you have not done these things but, rather, I ask because I expect that you HAVE, and I'd like to know more about how YOU uphold the ideals of "traditional America".
I start last question first, my good deeds are between me and God, not folks here at IHD thank you.
Living by the golden rule is a great place to start. The problem is not that it is not good enough for God, it is that there is only one way to Heaven, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. If we could be good enough in our right to be right with God, then why did He send His Son to die on the cross for the atoning of our sins? In the end, you are partly right, we by ourselves and our own actions can never be perfect and holy and justified in God's eyes. That is the gospel message, we are in need of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, we are all sinners.
God does speak of a big bang, but it is much different than the big bang the secular scientists promote as their theory of how the universe began. By the way, have you ever considered where all that dirt, i.e. the matter of the universe came from in the first place? As far as the parallel layers of Grand Canyon and around the world for that matter, the issue is that the scientist tell us that there are millions of years between each layer. How then are there no signs of erosions between those layers? Millions of years and no signs of erosions. Sorry, that is not science.
http://brycecanyoncountry.com/blog/2011/01/grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument/
In any case, I am always willing to answer questions about the Bible if you are interested.
Take care,
Peter
-
I realize that questions about your "good deeds" are personal, and if you decline to answer, I respect that. I know a couple of people who "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk", and I trust you are not one of those.
-
That is actually an interesting question Bill as far as believing anything that you want. Yes, that is absolutely true, God has given us a free will and does not impose His will upon us. Most folks don't understand that separation of church and state is actually a Christian doctrine championed by the Baptists mainly.
No panic at all Bill, but of a truth, America is no longer a Christian nation but when I was born in the late 50's you could put forth a very strong argument that we were still indeed a Christian nation. You are right, today, we still have the ability to gather and worship in a manner denied today in many nations around the world such as China, many of the arab nations and other places as well.
Yet, all we have to do is go north to Canada where the Bible has been deemed hate speech and you can no longer preach certain verses from the pulpit without fear of arrest. There have been proposed laws here in the US that to date have been struck down by courts or failed to pass. One such law passed that the Governator signed was SB 1234 which prohibited parts of the Bible. This was later overturned by the courts.
http://www.christianity.com/print/1280230/ (http://www.christianity.com/print/1280230/)
There are many that wish to see similar pass and I suspect one day that they will making those verses in the Bible outlawed with severe criminal penalties and fines as did the CA SB 1234. Once again, this bill passed, was signed and then only later reversed by the courts. That is how close we were to criminalizing the Bible.
Yes, America is no longer a Christian nation and it is only a matter of time before American preachers are locked up for proclaiming the truth of the Bible as others have already been prosecuted in Canada and Sweden for instance simply for reading the Bible from the pulpit.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2004/jul/04070505 (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2004/jul/04070505)
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html (http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2007/12/pastor-found-guilty-of-hate-crime.html)
Fortunately, both were acquitted on appeal.
To substantiate your question "What part of Christianity is not under siege in America today?" you provided links to stories from Canada and Sweden? What bill in CA are you talking about? It is preposterous to suggest Christianity is under siege - that political policies preferred by evangelical Christians are not popular nationally, does not a siege make. One could say that the popularity of argument by assertion is under siege, but that is categories different from Christianity per se, though a venn diagram would show significant overlap.
-
Hemodoc, thanks for the clarification re healing on the Sabbath. As for the definition of the Sabbath, I knew that in the Jewish faith, the Sabbath is observed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, so I am wondering why Christians chose Sunday as the traditional day of worship. I don't imagine that in traditional America, people stopped working from Friday night to Saturday night. Is this contrary to the Bible's teachings? But since you say that this is a contentious subject, perhaps you are right in saying that this is not the place for that discussion. Still, I am curious!
No, I don't wish to get into the mysteries of the Grand Canyon and how God created its perfect layers. You and I will just have to agree to disagree about evolution. I think the story of God creating the world in 6 days is a simplistic parable because what He REALLY did and how He REALLY did it is far more impressive. I personally believe that the Big Bang was the Hand of God, His moment of creation.
I strive to live by the Golden rule and to be kind and compassionate. As you know, I am not a biblical scholar, so I am probably sinning every minute of every day without even knowing it. I have a son that God created to be autistic, so He has given me a great challenge...to teach my son to be kind and compassionate, too, when those concepts are hard for him to understand. I struggle through life just like everyone else, but I try very hard not to let my struggles keep me from being a good person who tries to live a life that God would judge as satisfactory. If this is not good enough for Him, then so be it.
Most people I know are just like me, people who strive to be "good" and who work hard and who struggle through life's many challenges, just like people did in what you would call "traditional America".
I know you feel that America has discarded Judeo-Christian ideals, so what do you do on a daily basis that upholds those ideals? You've said that you give money to "homeless folk". Well, so do I, but that's not very much. When was the last time you had a kind word for someone? When was the last time you helped a neighbor? When was the last time you showed some compassion and shared your vast medical knowledge with a new, scared member here on IHD? I don't ask you this because I suspect that you have not done these things but, rather, I ask because I expect that you HAVE, and I'd like to know more about how YOU uphold the ideals of "traditional America".
I start last question first, my good deeds are between me and God, not folks here at IHD thank you.
Living by the golden rule is a great place to start. The problem is not that it is not good enough for God, it is that there is only one way to Heaven, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. If we could be good enough in our right to be right with God, then why did He send His Son to die on the cross for the atoning of our sins? In the end, you are partly right, we by ourselves and our own actions can never be perfect and holy and justified in God's eyes. That is the gospel message, we are in need of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, we are all sinners.
God does speak of a big bang, but it is much different than the big bang the secular scientists promote as their theory of how the universe began. By the way, have you ever considered where all that dirt, i.e. the matter of the universe came from in the first place? As far as the parallel layers of Grand Canyon and around the world for that matter, the issue is that the scientist tell us that there are millions of years between each layer. How then are there no signs of erosions between those layers? Millions of years and no signs of erosions. Sorry, that is not science.
http://brycecanyoncountry.com/blog/2011/01/grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument/
In any case, I am always willing to answer questions about the Bible if you are interested.
Take care,
Peter
Hey Peter please do not try and tout your "good deeds." For some reason you have decided to skip over Exodus 20:16, Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. I know for a fact that you have posted lies about other members. You are a sinner. You have proved this through your "deeds."
-
Wow, YL Guy! Would you shed your "Perfect Blood" to save Peters Soul. Only God himself will point out the deeds of others. Please would you shed your blood for me too, cause I know, Iam not perfect. Had no idea I was in the presences of one who is!!
lmunchkin :kickstart;
P.S. John 8:7 (KJV) He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Matt: 7:5 (KJV) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-
i had no idea id be in church today.... good thing my jeans are holy *giggles*
Come on people... stop.
If any of you were half as "christian" as you claim to be, these fights wouldnt be occurring. You can read and post the word of god all you want, but until you live it completely, you are just as much a sinner as the next guy. everyone is a sinner, no body is perfect. blah blah blah blah -insert random pointless sermon here blah blah blah
if you all want to spout that crap, just remember :
LOVE THY NEIGHBOR
-
Exactly my point Glovemonkey!!!! Stop the pointing fingers. And please, we can all do as we please. Give our views! You have given your views too! None of us can say we havent. If I choose to use the scriptures to prove God, that is my right, whether Iam a Christian or Not. Lots of non-Christians use the scriptures.
What is wrong with using them? If I don't believe, what does it hurt you?
I don't like to see sinners pointing others sinners problems out. That is all. I felt like the Word Of God, if you believe or not, was the best way to get it across. Like it or not GLM, not much one can do about it, is there? You can't stop the spewing & ugliness any more than I can.
You call It "Crap", I choose to call it the "Bible". No problem with me. I just don't understand why some can use it & others have a problem with it.
Whether you think Im Christian or Not, is really none of my concern. All of us will be Judged for our Deeds, whether Good or Bad, in the Open or Hidden. God Knows & See All.
Jesus Is Lord,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
Hemodoc, thanks for the clarification re healing on the Sabbath. As for the definition of the Sabbath, I knew that in the Jewish faith, the Sabbath is observed from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday, so I am wondering why Christians chose Sunday as the traditional day of worship. I don't imagine that in traditional America, people stopped working from Friday night to Saturday night. Is this contrary to the Bible's teachings? But since you say that this is a contentious subject, perhaps you are right in saying that this is not the place for that discussion. Still, I am curious!
No, I don't wish to get into the mysteries of the Grand Canyon and how God created its perfect layers. You and I will just have to agree to disagree about evolution. I think the story of God creating the world in 6 days is a simplistic parable because what He REALLY did and how He REALLY did it is far more impressive. I personally believe that the Big Bang was the Hand of God, His moment of creation.
I strive to live by the Golden rule and to be kind and compassionate. As you know, I am not a biblical scholar, so I am probably sinning every minute of every day without even knowing it. I have a son that God created to be autistic, so He has given me a great challenge...to teach my son to be kind and compassionate, too, when those concepts are hard for him to understand. I struggle through life just like everyone else, but I try very hard not to let my struggles keep me from being a good person who tries to live a life that God would judge as satisfactory. If this is not good enough for Him, then so be it.
Most people I know are just like me, people who strive to be "good" and who work hard and who struggle through life's many challenges, just like people did in what you would call "traditional America".
I know you feel that America has discarded Judeo-Christian ideals, so what do you do on a daily basis that upholds those ideals? You've said that you give money to "homeless folk". Well, so do I, but that's not very much. When was the last time you had a kind word for someone? When was the last time you helped a neighbor? When was the last time you showed some compassion and shared your vast medical knowledge with a new, scared member here on IHD? I don't ask you this because I suspect that you have not done these things but, rather, I ask because I expect that you HAVE, and I'd like to know more about how YOU uphold the ideals of "traditional America".
I start last question first, my good deeds are between me and God, not folks here at IHD thank you.
Living by the golden rule is a great place to start. The problem is not that it is not good enough for God, it is that there is only one way to Heaven, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. If we could be good enough in our right to be right with God, then why did He send His Son to die on the cross for the atoning of our sins? In the end, you are partly right, we by ourselves and our own actions can never be perfect and holy and justified in God's eyes. That is the gospel message, we are in need of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, we are all sinners.
God does speak of a big bang, but it is much different than the big bang the secular scientists promote as their theory of how the universe began. By the way, have you ever considered where all that dirt, i.e. the matter of the universe came from in the first place? As far as the parallel layers of Grand Canyon and around the world for that matter, the issue is that the scientist tell us that there are millions of years between each layer. How then are there no signs of erosions between those layers? Millions of years and no signs of erosions. Sorry, that is not science.
http://brycecanyoncountry.com/blog/2011/01/grand-staircase-escalante-national-monument/
In any case, I am always willing to answer questions about the Bible if you are interested.
Take care,
Peter
Hey Peter please do not try and tout your "good deeds." For some reason you have decided to skip over Exodus 20:16, Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. I know for a fact that you have posted lies about other members. You are a sinner. You have proved this through your "deeds."
Never mind, have a great day YL.
-
I think I was misunderstood.
I realize that I seem to come across wrong here often, and I really dont see how, perhaps I suck at wording myself lol I am sorry for that.
First and formost, Imunchkin, Forgive me for using the term "crap" I meant absolutely no offense, your beliefs are your own, just as mine are my own. It was a poor choice for a word, i think... but i seriously meant no offense by it! And I agree wholeheartedly that we will be judged in the end by how we live our lives. I know I am far from perfect, and Im sorry if I came across otherwise...
I am not saying dont state opinions or anything like that, but when the personal attacks start.... thats not good.
Ive been attacked a few times, myself, and i dont really know why. The only thing i have been saying is, instead of attacking each other, agree to disagree and love one another....
people want to claim to know what those scriptures mean, but then not act accordingly... seems a bit silly to know them so well, and not try to live by them...
BUT that is just my opinion...
As I am sure you can tell I am not a relgious person, I dont identify as any specific religion, but I believe in good, and I believe in God.
It doesnt really matter what I believe, or what you(this is not directed to any one person btw) believe, what matters is that we are good to one another.
Shouldnt that be all peoples common goal?
Its just so frustrating to see us all arguing over everything when we should be loving each other.
I have no problems with people quoting the bible, but i do however have a problem when I see people use it to benifit their arguments ... Not saying anyone has done that, but it does seem the only time its used is for arguing.... thats sad. :(
-
I agree it is sad to argue. I was not arguing. I was merely pointing out that Im not perfect and don't appreciate another
Hey Peter please do not try and tout your "good deeds." For some reason you have decided to skip over Exodus 20:16, Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. I know for a fact that you have posted lies about other members. You are a sinner. You have proved this through your "deeds."
Non perfect person pointing out the other non perfect persons deeds. Whew, that was a tongue twister!!! It is a metaphor I was making. A comparison so to sa according to the Bible. I felt it was pretty condescending on his part. I didn't see where he apologized for it. Doesn't bother me, I just felt like it needed to be said. We are all adults here, and I don't think any of us need repromanding by the admins.
Forgive me if I offended anyone, that was not my intent. Just pointing out that we must be careful in our language to others. If some find it awful in what I said, Im sorry. But it was simply to point out that all of us are sinners and no need for one to condemn the other for theirs.
No offense taken Glm. Irregardless of what I say or do, I still love IHD!
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
I do disagree about using the Bible to benefit (as you said) an arguement. The Bible is the Truth and is an excellent source for verification. Iam a sinner but Im a Christian through the Blood of Jesus. Doent mean Im perfect, just means that Iam forgiven for past, present & future sins. Though I must ask forgiveness daily.
Im not sure what people mean when they say they are not "Religious". What does that mean? I do love to go to Church. Wish it was open everyday, but the reality is, it is not in a particular building where christians can fellowship, it is in the Heart! To talk about "Church" things? Not understanding that either. I do like talking about the Love that Christ gives. And since he is a part of me now, wasn't in the past, I will not let it go. I can't help it yall! I am always going to express my greatfulness to him. How can I ask someone who gave his life for my sins, to take it back? How dumb would I be! Nope, not gonna do it.
And you know, GLM, Ive been attacked here myself. A couple times was Justified, but not all times. Just have to pull up those big girl britches and go on. Remember the childhood saying, "sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" The devil is in to words. He loves for people to use words to hurt people. But like the saying says, those words will never hurt me, they use to, but not no more because of Jesus. When He entered my heart, the Devil scattered! As a mortal person, my feelings may get hurt, but the word does not hurt.
Oh he still tempts me, but the battle is over and the devil knows it. I pray he never has a hand in my life again!
Now Im getting to "Preachy" but I know of no other way.
Love to all,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
P.S. To all those who do not believe in any of this, then this has no bearing on you. So I know you are not worried about what Im saying because it means nothing or has no relevance in your life, God & Jesus, I mean.
-
lol to clarify what i personally mean by saying im not religious...
I think the best way for me to explain that is by saying I dont identify myself a christian, catholic, buddist, etc. I belong to no specific religion. I do however believe in a higher power. Some would call that agnostic, but i dont label it. I just believe what I believe. (if i had to define, i suppose id say christian though, i just dont agree with everything written in the bible... )
And I personally believe that a church is not a building, as you said.
im glad that so many of you have your beliefs... some people have none.
-
Thanks for clearing that up Glm. Ive heard people express that on here, think maybe I have said it too, but not really knowing what that means. Daaaah.
At least you are making a stand for what You believe in, whether I agree or not, at least you are doing so. Yea, I have questions about the Bible too, but I still Believe it is the Truth! I Believe it is the Word of God. Now I don't claim to know & understand it, far from it, but I don't have to understand everything about it to Believe it. God is still working on that with me. I want to read it more than I do, (I know) my bad, but finding the time is really hard. I do think He understands, as long as we read it and apply it to our hearts! I believe as long as we know about the Christ and his purpose for coming, then I think God is cool with that. I just have to strive to be more obedient to Him and His Will for my life.
Take care now, cause got to go shopping for Grandkids,
God Bless,
lmunchkin :kickstart;
-
glm, look up the term "humanist." I didn't have a term for what I considered myself until I read about humanism. Atheists believe in nothing, agnostics doubt just about everything, but humanists tend to believe that there is more to the universe than science has explained, don't follow any organized religion (although they respect others who do), and believe in being moral and ethical because it's the right thing to do for both individuals and society, not because of any religious law.
-
glm, look up the term "humanist." I didn't have a term for what I considered myself until I read about humanism. Atheists believe in nothing, agnostics doubt just about everything, but humanists tend to believe that there is more to the universe than science has explained, don't follow any organized religion (although they respect others who do), and believe in being moral and ethical because it's the right thing to do for both individuals and society, not because of any religious law.
Jbeany, dear, as an atheist (also humanist) I want to clarify something. We atheists don't "believe in nothing." Now there's a double negative for ya! We do, however, lack a belief in any supernatural beings. I know a great many atheists who would also take issue with a description that we believe in nothing. Just saying. :laugh:
Aleta
-
glm, look up the term "humanist." I didn't have a term for what I considered myself until I read about humanism. Atheists believe in nothing, agnostics doubt just about everything, but humanists tend to believe that there is more to the universe than science has explained, don't follow any organized religion (although they respect others who do), and believe in being moral and ethical because it's the right thing to do for both individuals and society, not because of any religious law.
Jbeany, dear, as an atheist (also humanist) I want to clarify something. We atheists don't "believe in nothing." Now there's a double negative for ya! We do, however, lack a belief in any supernatural beings. I know a great many atheists who would also take issue with a description that we believe in nothing. Just saying. :laugh:
Aleta
:-*
Hair-splitting noted for future reference! :rofl; Remind me not to try to sum up 3 belief systems in a single sentence anymore, either. ;D
-
LOL you guys are funny
ive heard of that term before... not sure where...
i think everyone puts wayyyyyy to much effort in trying to define something that doesnt really need to be defined. i know whats in my heart, and so does my god... that should be good enough (i hope haha)
its like with sexuality and political beliefs, i really dont have a definition for either of those things either hahaha
I am what I am....
apparently, im also popeye..... now wheres me spinach?
-
A very interesting read, Hober. Have you ever read God: A Biography? It is fascinating.
Okay, I've been gone a while and am now playing catchup.
No, I've never read it, but since you mention it I may check it out.
In the sequel to God: A Biography, Miles posits that essentially, God needs to really outdo himself to explain why he did not keep his promise to the Jews.
Yeah, that was a psychological crisis for the Jews. If you've ever read 1 and 2 Chronicles, the entire point of the author is that the kings who were pious and faithful to Yahveh were always inevitably rewarded with material wealth, wives and concubines, and governed a prosperous Judah and those that turned away from Yahveh were just as surely punished. The view the author takes is that good times were always -- without exception -- the result of pious kings and that bad times are always the result of faithless kings. After the fall of Judah and the exile, the Jews were psychologically shattered and had to come up with some explanation.
You get a more refined view of God with the story of Job. In Job, Job loses his children and his livelihood, and is at a loss to explain it. The people who have come to comfort him take the view of the author os of 1 and 2 Chronicles and insist that he *must* have done something wrong in the eyes of God, or God would not have allowed this calamity. But Job did nothing wrong, and the text tells us this. Job challenges God over this injustice and and learns what many religious people today have to learn -- that his image of God can only get you so far. The image is a reference to something which transcends all categories of thought. And when you get stuck with the personification of God and forget its reference, you get a shock when you come into contact with the cold equations of the universe, which have no notion whatever of justice. Justice is not a product of the universe, and it was not a product of Job's God. Challenged, God appears to Job. But he doesn't explain himself to Job as Job wants. His response to Job is this: "Did you create this universe? Do you make the world turn? Did you hook leviathon?" The answer, in other words, is "I'm great -- greater than you. Do not apply your values to me. Do not create *me* in *your* image." In other words, by clinging to an image of God and not understanding the reference, you are essentially worshipping idols. Job bows his head in shame.
So, instead of the promise of victory over their enemies, the promise becomes victory over death itself.
And that's a major influence from Zoroastianism, which the Jews picked up in exile. In early Yahvism, you have a God, but no modern concept of heaven and hell. All people when they died went to Sheol, the underworld. Sheol is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, but is translated into English as "hell." In Zoroastianism, you have a lord of light, Ahura Mazda, and a lord of darkness, Angra Manyu, and the universe if the battleground between light and darkness. Zoroaster was a prophet who brought the good news to the world, and would one day return to the world as a messiah (sayoshant), born of a virgin, to conquer the lord of the lie once and for all, and all the good people would live forever with Ahura Mazda while all the wicked would be destroyed. Sound familiar?
-
Hmmm, possible court martial for simply talking about the Bible?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-criminalizes-christianity-the-military
http://christiannews.net/2013/05/01/atheist-military-organization-asks-pentagon-to-court-martial-soldiers-who-share-faith-with-troops/
Yes, times are changing in traditional America. I became a Christian while on active duty in the Army in 1994. Nearly 20 years later and what my friend did is under possible scrutiny of court martial for anyone doing the same today.
-
Proselytizing in military?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/proselytizing.asp
In case you aren't familiar with it, www.snopes.com is an excellent site for gathering information. I highly recommend it.
cheers,
skg
-
Proselytizing in military?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/proselytizing.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/proselytizing.asp)
In case you aren't familiar with it, www.snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com) is an excellent site for gathering information. I highly recommend it.
cheers,
skg
You beat me to it skg. I suggest keeping Snopes bookmarked. I like the part where the Breitbart author uses himself as a source and the Examiner and the rest use Breitbart as their source, a nearly perfect example of right wing epistemic closure.
-
Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.
Sorry, spreading the gospel of Christ is not a "weaponized and twisted version of Christianity."
Yes, indeed, great source.
Further, as someone who has actually spent nine years of my life in the military, this is a dramatic change in the climate of the military. Christianity has never been the subject of such an "enforcement" action in the past. I became a Christian in the Army from one of my friends. Best thing that ever happened in my life and that to come. So "fundamentalist Christian monster?" Wow, really unbiased reporting for sure.
-
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
-
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
-
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
-
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html
i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.
In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.
-
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
Dear skg,
Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.
-
Now, if you want to talk about sources as if Breitbart did not get it right, here is the story reported from source in the Pentagon as written up in The Stars and Stripes.
What it comes down to, officials said, is that discussing matters of faith and religious practice with a willing audience is allowed, but pushing religious beliefs on those who don’t want to hear it is a form of harassment forbidden under Defense Department policies.
http://www.stripes.com/pentagon-ok-to-talk-about-faith-but-not-to-push-beliefs-on-others-1.219261#.UYMcnkg9gN4.facebook
The problem is the difference between discussing and proselytizing is going to be a matter of interpretation. What if you talk to someone who says they don't mind talking about it and later decides they were offended. The gospel of Christ is offensive to many people and has been for 2000 years. After all, they put Christ to death for speaking his gospel 2000 years ago. For Christians, it is not new that persecution for their faith can be a constant companion.
This is a shift in military culture from what was "tolerated" 20 years ago. At that time, a few months after I was saved, I took over a Bible study where I was a Captain and just about everyone else was of lower rank or I supervised them in some fashion. I could see a situation where I could be prosecuted under the current doctrine for simply having an open Bible study for anyone who wished to come.
So, very different and provocative change to the long standing acceptance of Christian faith practiced openly in the military for over 200 years. But this is simply a progression. In 2011, Walter Reed Hospital (BTW, I did a rotation at Walter Reed as a medical student) rescinded a prohibition against the Bible for service members brought to them by their loved ones.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/u-s-military-to-rescind-policy-banning-bibles-at-hospital.html
The US military burned Bibles in Afghanastan in 2009:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/05/bibles-destroye/
Can you imagine the outrage if they had burned the Koran???
Sorry, but the military is changing its "tolerance" of the Christian faith. This is indeed a new and in my opinion unwelcome change. It is interesting that about 25% of the doctors I worked with while on Active duty were born again Christians. That was not true at my training hospital, but it was at my duty site. We didn't have any issues openly discussing our faith with anyone who wanted to listen. In fact, another 25% were died in the wool Mormons. We had some very interesting lunchroom hallway discussions about religion and no one batted an eyeball. The military was much more tolerant 20 years ago than what the reports indicate today.
-
Here is another write up in the Washington Post:
[b]U.S. military should put religious freedom at the front
“This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.”
“The chain of command is compliant,” said Wilkerson. “Abuse of power is inimical to all military. Condoning of sexual assault or proselytizing is an abuse of command.” The idea of “zero tolerance,” he said, is “the most mocked phrase in the military. It camouflages a lot.”
The proselytizing they referred to is primarily from “dominionist” or fundamentalist evangelical Christians. Weinstein’s organization has 33,000 clients, and 96 percent are Christian. These clients come to him to complain about having their religious freedom undermined in some way.[/b]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html
Well, theology and where it goes wrong is a great hobby of mine. The Bible does not teach dominionism and that is not compatible or equivalent to "evangelic Christian" beliefs. So, the statement about dominionism equals evangelic Christianity is blatantly false. Sure, some folks believe that they will help usher in the Kingdom of God, but that is not what the Bible states. Many who are not Christian believe we want a theocracy. Yet, they fail to understand what Jesus told Pilot:
John 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Secondly, another quotation this time from a Christian military association is used as further evidence that evangelicals are trying to usher in a theocracy:
What must stop is the concept that America needs to conquer the world for Christ. An example that Weinstein gave: The Officers Christian Fellowship, in a posting on the Naval Academy’s Web site, promoted the idea of Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up godly military ambassadors for Christ in uniform empowered by the Holy Spirit. “They are trying to create a spiritually transformed U.S. military,” said Weinstein.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story_1.html
An ambassador for Christ refers to an epistle of Paul where he calls all Christians ambassadors for Christ, which is true. An ambassador is a person who represents his king or ruler while in a foreign land. The Bible teaches us that our home is in heaven and we are just passing through on earth. So, no dominion theology here my friend, he got it wrong again. It is quite entertaining and sad at the same time to watch people who lack faith in Christianity struggle with some of the simple concepts of the Bible. Our kingdom is in Heaven, and as an ambassador of Christ, we are to preach His gospel to all creatures here in this foreign land. So, telling Christian men in uniform to be ambassadors is simply stating, be a good example of your Saviour here on earth so that Jesus can be glorified in your good works. Is being a good example scary?
One more Christian concept to understand, is that if someone is not interested in the gospel, we go on. We all have free will to choose or not choose. Christianity is not by coerciveness, instead it is by the moving of the Holy Ghost upon them unto conversion. We present the gospel, but it is God that does the work of conversion on a one to one, individual basis. That is precisely how I was saved.
In logic, when you start with a false premise, your conclusion will be false, in most instances. Obviously, many have been fooled by the right answer to the wrong question and believe the question must be right as well. But in general, a false premise leads to the wrong answer as in this case.
So, don't worry folks, us Christians are not looking to usher in a theocracy here in America or anywhere on earth to bring Christ's kingdom to pass. We already have a kingdom and it is within. Our Holy Father is waiting with open arms for all that will call upon the name of Jesus for salvation and to bring them home. The gospel of Christ is simple, there are consequences for our sins and we are all sinners. The good news (i.e. the gospel) is that Jesus already paid the price for those sins and all who call upon His name believing he died and rose again shall be saved by His ransom for our sins. Short and sweet, but that is it. Is that offensive? Not to me, it is but sweet music in my ears. What a deal, we break the law and Jesus pays the price when we call upon Him to save us in faith believing. To many who don't wish to adhere to God's laws and commandments, yes, it is offensive to be called a sinner and have absolute rights and wrongs as our measure.
-
Regarding your "faith and the military" post, I'm not sure I see the problem. The military has said that discussion of matters of faith with a willing audience is just fine. I don't know why you think that the Gospel of Christ is "offensive" to so many. Are you saying that it is offensive to people who are not Christian? That may be true, but I'm sure that the tenets of other faiths are regarded as offensive to Christians. Many people of many faiths have been persecuted for their beliefs. That's the Devil's work.
Why do you see coming a situation where a soldier could be prosecuted for "having an open Bible study for anyone who wished to come"? Now Hemodoc, are you engaging in just a little bit of scaremongering again? :P
The fact is that the US military, just like the US itself, is comprised of men and women of many backgrounds and faiths. This was not the case some decades ago. As the composition of the military changes, so too must some policies. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, these policies can make for a more cohesive unit.
How would you feel if Muslim members of the US military held group discussions of the Koran? Do Jewish members of the military ever hold such discussion groups? Are those such groups/discussions allowed by the US military? I truly do not know; I've never thought about it until I read your post. Do you know? If a Muslim soldier ever approached you and wanted to have a discussion with you about, say, the differences and/or similarities between Christianity and Islam, would you feel offended or hounded?
I admit to being rather horrified by any chaplain in the military handing out Bibles to the Afghan people. If any Afghan civilian approached a US military chaplain and specifically asked to be taught the gospel, I suppose that is OK. But in a wartime situation, I would have thought that the duty of a US military chaplain would be to minister to the spiritual needs of the soldiers and not trying to convert the native population of a nation that we are occupying.
-
As for destroying the Bibles, I'm not sure it is correct to equate the burning of Bibles by US personnel to burning Korans by US personnel. Muslims view the Koran in a different way than Christians view a physical Bible. The word of God transcends the printed word.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/us-military-should-put-religious-freedom-at-the-front/2013/04/26/c1befcea-ade2-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html
I read this whole article, and I would love to know your thoughts on the "Christian" woman who wrote to Weinstein and told him that every day, she and her prayer group pray that he goes to Hell with all of the other "homos, muslems...communists, leftists..." etc. It must be said that whenever many people hear "Christian", this is the type of person that comes to mind.
And why in the world would a chaplain tell soldiers, some of them Afghani, that they only have 2,000 days to live and must "get right" with Jesus?
What are people to make of these things? Are these people evangelical Christians? Are these two people really teaching the gospel of Christ? I am not offended by the Gospel of Christ, but I AM offended by these two "Christians". Perhaps this is why you feel that Christians are so prosecuted. People like these two are just offensive and perhaps are deserving of "prosecution".
-
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
I don't see how anyone could fail to see that Snopes is doing what journalists are supposed to do: reporting without an agenda, giving information, quoting people and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So few sites do this, but you are right, skg, Snopes is excellent at it and that site no more referred to anyone as a "fundamentalist Christian monster" than Fox News did in using the exact same quote in their piece.
Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.
Snopes did no such thing, Peter. It is clear as day that the source that skg called excellent was Snopes. Quoting does not equal agreeing with nor condoning. Snopes is indeed a great source.
It's really sad, the way people try to find persecution, victimhood and offense in absolutely everything. It ruins these discussions.
-
Regarding your "faith and the military" post, I'm not sure I see the problem. The military has said that discussion of matters of faith with a willing audience is just fine. I don't know why you think that the Gospel of Christ is "offensive" to so many. Are you saying that it is offensive to people who are not Christian? That may be true, but I'm sure that the tenets of other faiths are regarded as offensive to Christians. Many people of many faiths have been persecuted for their beliefs. That's the Devil's work.
Why do you see coming a situation where a soldier could be prosecuted for "having an open Bible study for anyone who wished to come"? Now Hemodoc, are you engaging in just a little bit of scaremongering again? :P
The fact is that the US military, just like the US itself, is comprised of men and women of many backgrounds and faiths. This was not the case some decades ago. As the composition of the military changes, so too must some policies. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, these policies can make for a more cohesive unit.
How would you feel if Muslim members of the US military held group discussions of the Koran? Do Jewish members of the military ever hold such discussion groups? Are those such groups/discussions allowed by the US military? I truly do not know; I've never thought about it until I read your post. Do you know? If a Muslim soldier ever approached you and wanted to have a discussion with you about, say, the differences and/or similarities between Christianity and Islam, would you feel offended or hounded?
I admit to being rather horrified by any chaplain in the military handing out Bibles to the Afghan people. If any Afghan civilian approached a US military chaplain and specifically asked to be taught the gospel, I suppose that is OK. But in a wartime situation, I would have thought that the duty of a US military chaplain would be to minister to the spiritual needs of the soldiers and not trying to convert the native population of a nation that we are occupying.
Dear Moosemom,
Not sure if you have ever been in the military, but social rules of conduct are MUCH different than in the civilian world. People in the military can be prosecuted for adultery. That was one of the issues with the recent head of the CIA and whether he had his affair while still on active duty. He could have faced court martial even though retired with possible jail time and loss of rank and retirement benefits.
In addition, there is not supposed to be fraternization between officers and enlisted and folks have been prosecuted for that in the past. In addition, that extends to dating as well. It is almost never enforced but the rules are still on the books and yes, folks have been prosecuted.
If the rules now in effect were in effect 20 years ago, yes, that could have been an offense that they would possibly choose to prosecute but it was not an issue while I was in at all. In fact, even with the watered down version released by the Pentagon correcting the Air Force regulations, it is quite troublesome. However, this is once again a progression of restrictions such as not allowing Christian Chaplains to publicly pray in the name of Jesus.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/21/20051221-121224-6972r/?page=all
So what you are dismissing is NOT anything to dismiss for people still in uniform who are Christians. I believe you do not understand the significance of these new rules of conduct and how they will enforce them.
-
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
I don't see how anyone could fail to see that Snopes is doing what journalists are supposed to do: reporting without an agenda, giving information, quoting people and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So few sites do this, but you are right, skg, Snopes is excellent at it and that site no more referred to anyone as a "fundamentalist Christian monster" than Fox News did in using the exact same quote in their piece.
Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.
Snopes did no such thing, Peter. It is clear as day that the source that skg called excellent was Snopes. Quoting does not equal agreeing with nor condoning. Snopes is indeed a great source.
It's really sad, the way people try to find persecution, victimhood and offense in absolutely everything. It ruins these discussions.
Dear Cariad,
I already answered skg and Bill on this issue. Please read above.
-
The fact is that the US military, just like the US itself, is comprised of men and women of many backgrounds and faiths. This was not the case some decades ago. As the composition of the military changes, so too must some policies. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, these policies can make for a more cohesive unit.
How would you feel if Muslim members of the US military held group discussions of the Koran? Do Jewish members of the military ever hold such discussion groups? Are those such groups/discussions allowed by the US military? I truly do not know; I've never thought about it until I read your post. Do you know? If a Muslim soldier ever approached you and wanted to have a discussion with you about, say, the differences and/or similarities between Christianity and Islam, would you feel offended or hounded?
I admit to being rather horrified by any chaplain in the military handing out Bibles to the Afghan people. If any Afghan civilian approached a US military chaplain and specifically asked to be taught the gospel, I suppose that is OK. But in a wartime situation, I would have thought that the duty of a US military chaplain would be to minister to the spiritual needs of the soldiers and not trying to convert the native population of a nation that we are occupying.
Good questions which I have already in part discussed.
First, 5/20 of the doctors on my post were born again Christians. 5/20 were Mormons. We had MANY polite but spirited discussions of our respective faith often and it was not an issue to anyone. Interestingly, I found that the the headquarters buildings at least on one post had many artifacts of Egyptian sun god religion on display. I never did ask the general about that, but they were there for all to view. That is an interesting discussion all in itself, but I will pass.
I suspect under the new rules of conduct that those open and polite discussions we had with our Mormon friends and colleagues would no longer take place as openly as we did at the time. This is a major change in the atmosphere of the codified social interactions in the military.
Secondly, members of the military all take an oath to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. In such, fighting for our freedoms contained in the constitution is something real to these people. Millions of American service men and women have died for these ideas that mean so little to many in the civilian world.
The first amendment was held high and it is the military who has chaplains for people of all faiths. These are not civilian volunteers. In addition, they are considered a valuable part of any war effort since after all soldiers are real flesh and blood people with real fears, real pain and suffering.
In addition, you may not be aware of the long standing support for military chaplains dating back to the revolutionary war.
In response to your horror over handing out Bibles to Afghanistan people, are you aware of what MacArthur stated America should do to improve the life of people in Japan?
In this day and age — when it is unthinkably politically incorrect to even whisper that Christianity is true, that Jesus is, indeed, the only Way, the idea that a historical figure such as General MacArthur thought so, too, is … scandalous!
However, in this case, the stunning revelation is not even news. In the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, MacArthur spoke freely that post-war Japan was in a spiritual vacuum. All its gods had failed — its invincible military, its divine emperor, its 1,000-year belief that the Land of the Rising Sun would rule the world.
Now the conquered people of Japan had nothing.
MacArthur, sent out word: “Send missionaries,” he pleaded to a number of religious groups, “And Bibles.”
He made no secret of it, either. In 1955, MacArthur told U.S. News and World Report, “No phase of the occupation has left me with a greater sense of personal satisfaction than my spiritual stewardship.”
“Over the next five years, some 5,000 missionaries from all different kinds of churches went to Japan,” writes Dr. Jeff Sanders. “The land was flooded with millions of Bibles.”
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/06/scandal-general-douglas-macarthur-thought-christianity-would-help-japan.html#ixzz2SFgMSKEz
So, understanding the military is an organization characterized written and unwritten tradition, what the military is doing today is far from the traditional America of the not so distant past that included open support for the Bible and Christianity. It is quite true that many a soldier was converted while in a fox hole praying to God to save him. Yes, there truly are no atheists in fox holes.
-
As for destroying the Bibles, I'm not sure it is correct to equate the burning of Bibles by US personnel to burning Korans by US personnel. Muslims view the Koran in a different way than Christians view a physical Bible. The word of God transcends the printed word.
Tyrants have been burning the Bible for thousands of years. I am unaware of any previous Bible burning decrees in the US military prior to this. I for one would have refused that order and I know many who would likewise refuse it as well.
While you are correct that the word of God does transcend the printed word, I know of no true Christians that treat their Bible with disdain. That is repugnant to me. I have all of my Bibles I have ever purchased and when worn out, they go on my shelf but never in the trash or thrown out. Americans get upset when they see the flag burned. The US flags holds nothing as precious as the Bible, albeit I do not disrespect the flag either.
I don't believe you understand the veneration Christians have for the Bible which is the word of God as you state. The printed word of God and how many people who have tried to destroy it is a very interesting part of world history.
-
You are right, Hemodoc. There is a lot I don't understand, and that's why I ask a lot of questions and am open to many discussions. I like to do more than just air my opinion. I enjoy learning and coming to understand how other people think. I am not ashamed of my ignorance. True ignorance is the refusal to learn or to just make up stuff to mask one's lack of knowledge.
No, I have never been in the military but have many family members who have. A couple have been in Special Ops and have never been entirely open about their wartime activities for obvious reasons, but the next time I see them, I will ask them about the role that faith has in the military and what their own experience of that has been.
There must have been some reason that the US military burned these Bibles at that particular time and in that particular circumstance. I suspect that it was a painful experience for those involved, but perhaps it was a tactical decision made for some greater good. Was it perhaps too difficult to remove them by land transport? Do you know exactly why they were destroyed? I'm sure it was not a decision taken lightly.
I think what bothers me about many of these types of discussions is the implication that some Christians are "better" or "truer" Christians than others. I don't know if you would define me as a "true" Christian (probably not! LOL!), but I've never destroyed a Bible. I still have my grandmother's Bible, our family Bible, a Bible given to me by the pastor that married us, and my step-daughter's Bible. I do understand, however, how many have tried to destoy the word of God by destroying Bibles in the past, but these desecrations have not destroyed faith. If your Bibles were tragically lost in a fire, I am certain that your faith would not similarily be lost to the flames.
Something's wrong with my computer...a virus warning. I'll be back later.
-
Lastly, Moosemom, sorry, but I don't engage in "scaremongering" ever. You may disagree with my opinion, but so be it. Please don't falsely characterize legitimate concerns. Were the current regulations and restrictions in place when I was in the military 20 years ago, my open discussions with those of other faiths would have been tempered greatly. With such a climate, it is easy to see how folks could end up the subject of a witch hunt simply for exercising their first amendment rights of free speech and religious freedom. Once again, you fail to appreciate what is at risk.
Were the current regulations in place 20 years ago, I would NOT have been able to include anyone in my chain of command in a voluntary Bible study in my home where by the way, no one was coerced to come nor "punished" for not coming. For a doctor going through a court martial, that would be the end of their medical career. You are once again failing to understand the significance of these recent actions which are quite real since the threat of court martial is quite real.
Once again, we are entering a period of time where many at high levels hold the constitution in disdain. I see this as a continuation of what has been happening for quite some time now.
-
Well, it seems that the virus warning was a virus itself! How creepy is that?
No, I don't find MacArthur's declaration to send Bibles and missionaries to Japan appalling in the least. What I do find to be rather disconcerting is that since we nuked all those people, the fact that they needed saving in so many ways was due to us. First we send them nuclear weapons, and then we send them Bibles. Hmmm....
Has anyone in the military yet been court martialled because they've held or participated in an open prayer group? Do you really think
Funnily, Hemodoc, I don't really disagree with as many of your opinions as you think, but you present them in such a way that makes me wonder if you live your life in fear. It appears that in your world, you are relentlessly persecuted, your faith is constantly disparaged, your way of life is on the verge of destruction and all you believe in will soon come to an end. But I realize that the only view I have of you is what you post on the internet. I've never met you in person, but I hope that should I ever get that opportunity, I'd find a charming and happy fellow. I value our discussions, and I enjoy reading what you post. But on a personal level, your posts make me feel sad for you. They are so filled with fear and pessimism and persecution. And loss.
-
If the rules now in effect were in effect 20 years ago, yes, that could have been an offense that they would possibly choose to prosecute but it was not an issue while I was in at all. In fact, even with the watered down version released by the Pentagon correcting the Air Force regulations, it is quite troublesome. However, this is once again a progression of restrictions such as not allowing Christian Chaplains to publicly pray in the name of Jesus.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/21/20051221-121224-6972r/?page=all
So what you are dismissing is NOT anything to dismiss for people still in uniform who are Christians. I believe you do not understand the significance of these new rules of conduct and how they will enforce them.
You're right. I don't understand the significance of these new rules, but I'd like to. Do you have any other information on this, especially on how they will enforce these new rules? Thanks.
Edited to add: The above article was from 2005. Do you have any more recent information? Thanks.
I'm going to have lunch now. Bye!
-
You are right, Hemodoc. There is a lot I don't understand, and that's why I ask a lot of questions and am open to many discussions. I like to do more than just air my opinion. I enjoy learning and coming to understand how other people think. I am not ashamed of my ignorance. True ignorance is the refusal to learn or to just make up stuff to mask one's lack of knowledge.
No, I have never been in the military but have many family members who have. A couple have been in Special Ops and have never been entirely open about their wartime activities for obvious reasons, but the next time I see them, I will ask them about the role that faith has in the military and what their own experience of that has been.
There must have been some reason that the US military burned these Bibles at that particular time and in that particular circumstance. I suspect that it was a painful experience for those involved, but perhaps it was a tactical decision made for some greater good. Was it perhaps too difficult to remove them by land transport? Do you know exactly why they were destroyed? I'm sure it was not a decision taken lightly.
I think what bothers me about many of these types of discussions is the implication that some Christians are "better" or "truer" Christians than others. I don't know if you would define me as a "true" Christian (probably not! LOL!), but I've never destroyed a Bible. I still have my grandmother's Bible, our family Bible, a Bible given to me by the pastor that married us, and my step-daughter's Bible. I do understand, however, how many have tried to destoy the word of God by destroying Bibles in the past, but these desecrations have not destroyed faith. If your Bibles were tragically lost in a fire, I am certain that your faith would not similarily be lost to the flames.
Something's wrong with my computer...a virus warning. I'll be back later.
No problem Moosemom. One of the most difficult skills to master as a doctor during training is to admit to your attending "I don't know." The process of medical training is such that anyone that tries to, sorry for lack of better term, B.S. their way through evaluations will find out quite quickly that the attending doc asking you the question already knows the right answer before he asks. We called it "pimping." It does not mean in the medical world what it does elsewhere. Ignorance is fixable, the other is a flaw of character hard to fix.
http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2006/01/the-medical-definition-of-pimp/
I found that most military folks that have been in combat do not speak about any of their war time experiences EXCEPT with other military folks explaining in part the popularity of the VFW. My uncle did three tours in Korea in the 50's and became quite "good at what the military called him to do. He was also in the rangers. He never ONCE spoke about the war UNTIL the day I joined the Army myself. I have spoken to dozens of special ops folks over the years and heard many hair raising stories. They are allowed to speak about declassified events. In any case, likely they simply do not want to talk to someone without military experience themselves first and foremost.
Lastly, no where in this discussion have I stated I am better than anyone else. That is NOT Christianity. Here take a look:
Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17 And the way of peace have they not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. . .
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
So making that false accusation of Christianity stems from, yup, ignorance of what Christianity is. We are sinners saved by grace, that is all. It is Jesus that is righteous and without sin, not us.
-
Well, it seems that the virus warning was a virus itself! How creepy is that?
No, I don't find MacArthur's declaration to send Bibles and missionaries to Japan appalling in the least. What I do find to be rather disconcerting is that since we nuked all those people, the fact that they needed saving in so many ways was due to us. First we send them nuclear weapons, and then we send them Bibles. Hmmm....
Has anyone in the military yet been court martialled because they've held or participated in an open prayer group? Do you really think
Funnily, Hemodoc, I don't really disagree with as many of your opinions as you think, but you present them in such a way that makes me wonder if you live your life in fear. It appears that in your world, you are relentlessly persecuted, your faith is constantly disparaged, your way of life is on the verge of destruction and all you believe in will soon come to an end. But I realize that the only view I have of you is what you post on the internet. I've never met you in person, but I hope that should I ever get that opportunity, I'd find a charming and happy fellow. I value our discussions, and I enjoy reading what you post. But on a personal level, your posts make me feel sad for you. They are so filled with fear and pessimism and persecution. And loss.
Dear Moosemom, the topic of discussion is traditional America. I gave a documented and ongoing issue in the military today that is in direct opposition to traditional America and you call me paranoid essentially. Good grief, look back at how many times you challenge my motivations instead of simply discussing an active, ongoing and controversial subject. Lets stick to the facts and keep your ad hominems whether intended or accidental out of the discussion.
For your info, I am quite happy living in Idaho where people still understand the concept of true freedom. We are about to enter escrow on a great deal for our house with 4 competing offers in the first three days with a couple quite a bit above our asking price. Yes, my wife and I are quite pleased thank you, how about you???
There is much loss to America freedom and hang on for the ride, it is only getting worse, yes, that is real. I cherish the freedoms God gave us and as protected at one time in our constitution. I am saddened that my grandchildren shall never understand the freedoms I grew up with which were the same as my father and his fathers before him. Yes, that is a loss, but my gain in Christ is so much greater that whatever we go through here is nothing at all.
Lastly, the Japanese brought the war to us, not the other way around. We killed more people firebombing the cities of Japan than the nuclear bombs did. War is a horrible event. However, if you read MacArthurs comment, he states that the Japanese were in a spiritual vacuum with the failure of the Emperor who as you know was never seen or heard by his people until his surrender speech. He was worshipped as a god.
Objecting to the surrender, die-hard army fanatics attempted a coup d'état by conducting a full military assault and takeover of the Imperial Palace. Known as the Kyūjō Incident, the physical recording of the surrender speech was hidden and preserved overnight, and the coup was quickly crushed on the Emperor's order.
The surrender speech noted that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage" and ordered the Japanese to "endure the unendurable" in surrender. It was the first time the public had heard the Emperor's voice. The speech, using formal, archaic Japanese was not readily understood by many commoners. According to historian Richard Storry in A History of Modern Japan, the Emperor typically used "a form of language familiar only to the well-educated" and to the more traditional samurai families.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito
MacArthur states that their gods had failed them and they needed something to fill that spiritual vacuum. MacArthur did send missionaries and Bibles, at least by tacit approval and call for these things. Today, that could NEVER happen. Yes, traditional America has changed. That is self evident.
Something else to add is how MacArthur did not humiliate the Japanese and helped build them up into a viable friend and ally, something of benefit till today. His story is truly a remarkable tale of traditional, Christian values sadly missing today.
-
If the rules now in effect were in effect 20 years ago, yes, that could have been an offense that they would possibly choose to prosecute but it was not an issue while I was in at all. In fact, even with the watered down version released by the Pentagon correcting the Air Force regulations, it is quite troublesome. However, this is once again a progression of restrictions such as not allowing Christian Chaplains to publicly pray in the name of Jesus.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/21/20051221-121224-6972r/?page=all
So what you are dismissing is NOT anything to dismiss for people still in uniform who are Christians. I believe you do not understand the significance of these new rules of conduct and how they will enforce them.
You're right. I don't understand the significance of these new rules, but I'd like to. Do you have any other information on this, especially on how they will enforce these new rules? Thanks.
Edited to add: The above article was from 2005. Do you have any more recent information? Thanks.
I'm going to have lunch now. Bye!
Dear Moosemom,
I am no longer in the military and no longer have contact with people in the military today. Most of my friends have already done their 20 and are retired. The only information I have is from the same sources available to all.
Have a great lunch,
God bless
-
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
I don't see how anyone could fail to see that Snopes is doing what journalists are supposed to do: reporting without an agenda, giving information, quoting people and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So few sites do this, but you are right, skg, Snopes is excellent at it and that site no more referred to anyone as a "fundamentalist Christian monster" than Fox News did in using the exact same quote in their piece.
Wow, you give a source that calls me a "fundamentalist Christian monster" and you call that a good source??? LOL.
Snopes did no such thing, Peter. It is clear as day that the source that skg called excellent was Snopes. Quoting does not equal agreeing with nor condoning. Snopes is indeed a great source.
It's really sad, the way people try to find persecution, victimhood and offense in absolutely everything. It ruins these discussions.
Dear Cariad,
I already answered skg and Bill on this issue. Please read above.
Dear Hemodoc,
I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.
Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.
-
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Dear Hemodoc,
I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.
Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.
Dear Cariad,
Here is my second comment which refers to ANOTHER quote form the same article that I was referring to in my first comment. Sorry, that I did not make that intuitively clear in the first comment that you take such umbrage. In any case, yes, I am quite stupid at times. Just ask my wife. What is your point?
There is a third alternative, I simply left my statement unintentionally ambiguous as to WHICH source I was referring. My second comment explains which source I was referring in my first comment. Do you wish to belabor this trivial issue further??? If you simply wish to trade ad hominems, sorry, not interested.
Have a great day.
-
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html
i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.
In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.
FYI Cariad, it appears you missed this.
-
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
Dear skg,
Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.
Dear Cariad, as I stated, I already answered skg and Bill.
Have a great day.
-
Dear Moosemom, the topic of discussion is traditional America. I gave a documented and ongoing issue in the military today that is in direct opposition to traditional America and you call me paranoid essentially. Good grief, look back at how many times you challenge my motivations instead of simply discussing an active, ongoing and controversial subject. Lets stick to the facts and keep your ad hominems whether intended or accidental out of the discussion.
For your info, I am quite happy living in Idaho where people still understand the concept of true freedom. We are about to enter escrow on a great deal for our house with 4 competing offers in the first three days with a couple quite a bit above our asking price. Yes, my wife and I are quite pleased thank you, how about you???
Yeah, but I get distracted. :P "Ad hominem" implies "attack", and I am neither challenging nor attacking you. This may surprise you, but I sometimes feel genuine concern. Like everyone else who posts on IHD, you have substantial challenges that most other people do not experience. I guess I should not let my personal feelings and concern for my fellow IHDers color my posts. However, I am really glad to hear that you are happy in Idaho, a place where you feel happy amongst your fellow Idahoians (is that a word?). And good luck to you and your wife on your house deal! That's great!
I guess we are all influenced by how and where we live. I am living in a small city where there is a church on just about every corner. The faith community in our town is thriving. This was named as the best place for raising a family in 2011 by some magazine (can't remember which one, but it's a publication that's familiar to most people). Decorations for Christmas go up the day after Thanksgiving. Ellen Degeneres shot a piece here a couple of years ago around Christmas to illustrate a "traditional Christmas". So it is hard for me, personally, to find evidence of the loss of traditional America. I am not aware of any freedoms that my parents have that I do not now have myself. Can you be a bit more specific about which freedoms your grandchildren will not have that you have now?
-
Dear Moosemom, the topic of discussion is traditional America. I gave a documented and ongoing issue in the military today that is in direct opposition to traditional America and you call me paranoid essentially. Good grief, look back at how many times you challenge my motivations instead of simply discussing an active, ongoing and controversial subject. Lets stick to the facts and keep your ad hominems whether intended or accidental out of the discussion.
For your info, I am quite happy living in Idaho where people still understand the concept of true freedom. We are about to enter escrow on a great deal for our house with 4 competing offers in the first three days with a couple quite a bit above our asking price. Yes, my wife and I are quite pleased thank you, how about you???
Yeah, but I get distracted. :P "Ad hominem" implies "attack", and I am neither challenging nor attacking you. This may surprise you, but I sometimes feel genuine concern. Like everyone else who posts on IHD, you have substantial challenges that most other people do not experience. I guess I should not let my personal feelings and concern for my fellow IHDers color my posts. However, I am really glad to hear that you are happy in Idaho, a place where you feel happy amongst your fellow Idahoians (is that a word?). And good luck to you and your wife on your house deal! That's great!
I guess we are all influenced by how and where we live. I am living in a small city where there is a church on just about every corner. The faith community in our town is thriving. This was named as the best place for raising a family in 2011 by some magazine (can't remember which one, but it's a publication that's familiar to most people). Decorations for Christmas go up the day after Thanksgiving. Ellen Degeneres shot a piece here a couple of years ago around Christmas to illustrate a "traditional Christmas". So it is hard for me, personally, to find evidence of the loss of traditional America. I am not aware of any freedoms that my parents have that I do not now have myself. Can you be a bit more specific about which freedoms your grandchildren will not have that you have now?
No problem Moosemom, I always enjoy talking with you.
Freedoms, well for instance, I will NEVER let my little granddaughter just walk off to school as we did when I was young. One of the worst murder/kidnapping cases in the last decade occurred 10 miles from my home in Idaho and the man was captured 1 mile from my house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III
My father enjoyed running around everywhere he wished, that is no longer true for my grandkids. That is a significant loss of freedom. I also grew up in Alaska and when I was 8 went down to the store and bought ammunition for our guns with no parental oversight. Not something I would do with my own kids, but shucks, things were different in traditional America and kids acted with more responsibility in many cases at much earlier ages.
I could go on with a long list, but I think you get my point.
P.S. we are going to the realtor to sign the documents in a couple of hours. Now the work of cleaning out the house!! In any case, Idaho is a place my wife and I both love and enjoy especially with the grandkids. There is a reason I don't write that much on my blog anymore, it is called grandkids. I am too busy learning the "Wheels on the Bus" "Itsy Bitsy Spider" "5 Little Monkeys" etc. Lots of fun and entertainment for sure. Poor little thing misses us greatly and it will be fun to get back out and show her her animals, the sheep, the horse, the deer, the geese, the eagles, etc that she loves to see and learn about. Really quite something watching a child grow in wisdom and knowledge at such a young age.
One of my goals is to give her a sense of traditional America which is still possible up in Idaho. This thread is not just an existential commentary, it is quite vividly real to me. Traditional America and the actions of men such as MacArthur will soon truly be a thing of the past. That is not to America's credit.
-
I understand your concerns, Hemodoc. I think it is human nature to want to pass down your way of life and your culture to your kids and your grandkids.
I do envy you. It is my fondest wish and dream to have a grandchild, maybe a granddaughter with whom I can have a teddy bear picnic. But I do not think that I will ever be so blessed. God truly has favoured you and blessed you. I am so very happy for you! Enjoy!
-
I understand your concerns, Hemodoc. I think it is human nature to want to pass down your way of life and your culture to your kids and your grandkids.
I do envy you. It is my fondest wish and dream to have a grandchild, maybe a granddaughter with whom I can have a teddy bear picnic. But I do not think that I will ever be so blessed. God truly has favoured you and blessed you. I am so very happy for you! Enjoy!
We all have our crosses to bear Moosemom. Many things I have wondered why they are, but in some instances, it is not for us to know the why.
I am blessed knowing you. My granddaughter that is the love of my life is from my step daughter, there are more ways to skin a cat so to say. The child doesn't have to be "yours" to be yours if you know what I mean. But yes, grandkids are a lot more fun than kids even when we have her nearly 1/2 the time in her good days and her bad days.
I am not looking forward to moving from Kaiser, they have taken great care of me. Now I will have Medicare primary and Group Health secondary??? A little trepidation how the transition will be, but so be it, that is the way this life is, filled with unknowns and at times, unknowables.
-
Ahhhh, got it on all of the accusations of crying wolf about Christian persecution. I don't spend a lot of time reading left leaning blogs or news sources, so here is a blog talking about us allegedly crying wolf about allegedly non-existent persecution.
Steve Doocy Validates Hate Group's Bogus War On Christian Soldiers Claim
In the bizarro world of the Christian right, Christianity is under siege everywhere, including the military. The reality is that those in the military, who feel that they are under siege from proselytizing evangelical Christians, are pushing back which, of course, generates that sense of victimization in which right wing Christians revel. As Fox News specializes in persecuted Christians, as does Fox's Todd Starnes, it wasn't surprising to see Fox & Friends pick up on his recent report that the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation told Pentagon officials that troops who proselytize should be punished, a comment that provoked immediate outrage from Tony Perkins, head of the "hate group" Family Research Council.
http://www.newshounds.us/20130502_steve_doocy_validates_hate_group_s_bogus_war_on_christian_soldiers_claim
Here is another similar type article:
The "War on Christianity"
And sometimes, especially during the last couple of years, the “war on Christians” involves the complex idea whereby the “Christian” foundations of the nation are being denied by secularists, in turn denying Christians—or more specifically, a particular brand of Christians—their natural dominion over public policy. This is a particular rich vein of delusion in the Christian Right wing of the Tea Party movement, which often argues that the Declaration of Independence—frequently conflated with the Constitution—enthrones not only Christianity but such “divine” and “natural” laws as the Right to Life for the Unborn, the Right to Discriminate Against the Ungodly, or even the Right to Enjoy Private Property Without Taxation or Regulation. These, it is asserted, are all part of the Founders’ design which cannot be abrogated by Congress or courts or any popular majority. You will note that in answering the debate question, both Romney and Santorum made elaborate references to the Declaration, which has become a major dog-whistle to the Christian Right for Republican politicians.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_01/the_war_on_christianity035049.php
Once again, these two commentators miss the point on what we in the Christian "right" are espousing. First, who says we wish to discriminate against the "ungodly." I assume that is a veiled reference to opposition of same sex marriage. What the real issue here is not whether folks wish to have same sex marriage, but whether as a civil right, American churches will be forced against their beliefs to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. America is not an island unto itself. Europe and Canada have laws on their books that have placed Christians in jail for exercising their faith against some of these new laws. For example:
In 1999, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Christian printer Scott
Brockie $5,000 for refusing work from the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.
By 2004, after appeals, his legal fees had grown to $40,000.
In 2001, the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission forced the
Christian couple Dagmar and Arnost Cepica to close their bed-and-breakfast and
pay $1,000 in damages for refusing to allow practicing homosexuals to take
rooms in their home. To stay open, they would have had to submit to a pro-
homosexuality seminar by the Human Rights Commission.
In 2002, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal awarded a transsexual
woman (previously a man) $7,500 for injury to her dignity and ordered a
Vancouver rape crisis centre to allow transsexual females to counsel women who
are victims of rape.
http://www.mncc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Archbishop-Prendergast-Consequences-of-SSM-from-Canadian-Perspective.pdf
A pastor in Sweden was jailed simply for preaching from the Bible against homosexuality.
http://chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/
Attempts at implementing similar laws in the US have met severe political opposition from the "Christian right."
Examples:
1) ENDA introduced in congress every year since 1994. (Championed again and again by Ted Kennedy)
Why churches opposed ENDA:
This bill is currently pending before Congress and could have a detrimental effect on the ability of churches to only hire individuals that agree with their religious beliefs and live their lives accordingly. If passed, ENDA would add “sexual orientation” to the list of characteristics upon which an employer cannot discriminate. This is unlikely to have much direct effect on churches because Title VII allows religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion.
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/church-governance/top-legal-issues-that-concern-churches-–-issue-5-employment-nondiscrimination-act-“enda”/
California enacted SB1234 hate crime legislation that would have placed similar provisions of laws seen in Canada and Europe, but it was later overturned in court because it criminalized speech alone as is already the law in Canada for instance. This would have placed parts of the Bible as hate speech just as in Canada.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/09/23/16962231.php
However, Canada recently narrowed the scope of the law in a ruling that went against a man for handing out anti-gay literature, but the Canadian Supreme Court removed aspects of the law that criminalized the Bible as hate speech.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/02/major-hate-speech-ruling-in-canada-affirms-biblical-principle.html
These are all real examples that have already been promoted in the US and other nations. Not crying wolf, simply concerned about where some folks want to go with restrictions against our 1st amendment freedoms of religion.
-
Once again, these two commentators miss the point on what we in the Christian "right" are espousing. First, who says we wish to discriminate against the "ungodly." I assume that is a veiled reference to opposition of same sex marriage. What the real issue here is not whether folks wish to have same sex marriage, but whether as a civil right, American churches will be forced against their beliefs to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
I heard a clergyman say on the radio not too long ago something that I had not really thought about. He said that churches perform weddings, not marriages. It is the State that recognizes marriages. You can be wed IN a church, but not BY the church. You can only be MARRIED by the State. That Marriage Certificate you get after the WEDDING ceremony is issued by the State. So Hemodoc, I don't think you have to worry about American churches being forced to do something they don't want to do. My feeling is that if you want to be wed in the eyes of God, well, in that case, it probably follows that you believe God created this beautiful earth. You can be standing on a beach or in a meadow and be in the view of God.
I can't speak to what is going on in Europe or Canada. While I viscerally don't like the idea of discrimination, I do believe that if you are running a private business like a bed and breakfast, and your personal faith precludes you from accomodating a gay couple, then that is your right as protected by the First Amendment, but be prepared to have otherwise potential guests purposely avoid your business for the same reason.
I'm not sure it is helpful to compare the US with Canada, Europe or Sweden. I know a lot of people in the UK and in Scandinavia, and they all express constant surprise that America is "so religious". Those are very different societies, and comparisons can lead to wonky conclusions. To them, it seems so odd that our politicians speak so much, so publicly, about their personal faith, whereas here, some Christians feel they are persecuted. How does one square those two views?
As for the military, I have come to hope that open prayer groups will be encouraged rather than stifled. The US military has a lot of social problems and appears to be quite dysfunctional. Rape of female military personnel is all too commonplace. I find this to be particularly horrifying because we civilians go all out in glorifying every soldier we meet. There is never any major sporting event held in this country without trotting out a token military platoon, and we have been silently taught to respect the omnipresent "brave men and women in uniform." But if a male soldier rapes or abuses ANY other soldier in ANY way...if one military man shows the ultimate disrespect to another member of the military who is there to serve his/her country, then why should the rest of us view these people with any regard at all? If one soldier has so little respect for a fellow soldier, then he needs help from somewhere. Maybe God can help! So yes, if more prayer groups and more Bibles and more chaplains can minister to these predators in the military who sully the very name of the United States Armed Forces, then by all means, go for it! And we all know how our soldiers are suffering emotionally and psychologically.
I read the article re Doocy. Whenever I follow a link, I tend to read the comments that follow. It's a bad habit, I know, because so many of those comments are crazy, hyperbolic and just downright abusive. But there was one comment from a woman named Lisa Schauland-Fleming that might make you feel a bit better.
On a lighter note, are you selling your place in CA and moving permanently to Idaho? Or am I making an incorrect assumption? And thanks for the soothing words. Much appreciated.
-
Once again, these two commentators miss the point on what we in the Christian "right" are espousing. First, who says we wish to discriminate against the "ungodly." I assume that is a veiled reference to opposition of same sex marriage. What the real issue here is not whether folks wish to have same sex marriage, but whether as a civil right, American churches will be forced against their beliefs to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
I heard a clergyman say on the radio not too long ago something that I had not really thought about. He said that churches perform weddings, not marriages. It is the State that recognizes marriages. You can be wed IN a church, but not BY the church. You can only be MARRIED by the State. That Marriage Certificate you get after the WEDDING ceremony is issued by the State. So Hemodoc, I don't think you have to worry about American churches being forced to do something they don't want to do. My feeling is that if you want to be wed in the eyes of God, well, in that case, it probably follows that you believe God created this beautiful earth. You can be standing on a beach or in a meadow and be in the view of God.
I can't speak to what is going on in Europe or Canada. While I viscerally don't like the idea of discrimination, I do believe that if you are running a private business like a bed and breakfast, and your personal faith precludes you from accomodating a gay couple, then that is your right as protected by the First Amendment, but be prepared to have otherwise potential guests purposely avoid your business for the same reason.
I'm not sure it is helpful to compare the US with Canada, Europe or Sweden. I know a lot of people in the UK and in Scandinavia, and they all express constant surprise that America is "so religious". Those are very different societies, and comparisons can lead to wonky conclusions. To them, it seems so odd that our politicians speak so much, so publicly, about their personal faith, whereas here, some Christians feel they are persecuted. How does one square those two views?
As for the military, I have come to hope that open prayer groups will be encouraged rather than stifled. The US military has a lot of social problems and appears to be quite dysfunctional. Rape of female military personnel is all too commonplace. I find this to be particularly horrifying because we civilians go all out in glorifying every soldier we meet. There is never any major sporting event held in this country without trotting out a token military platoon, and we have been silently taught to respect the omnipresent "brave men and women in uniform." But if a male soldier rapes or abuses ANY other soldier in ANY way...if one military man shows the ultimate disrespect to another member of the military who is there to serve his/her country, then why should the rest of us view these people with any regard at all? If one soldier has so little respect for a fellow soldier, then he needs help from somewhere. Maybe God can help! So yes, if more prayer groups and more Bibles and more chaplains can minister to these predators in the military who sully the very name of the United States Armed Forces, then by all means, go for it! And we all know how our soldiers are suffering emotionally and psychologically.
I read the article re Doocy. Whenever I follow a link, I tend to read the comments that follow. It's a bad habit, I know, because so many of those comments are crazy, hyperbolic and just downright abusive. But there was one comment from a woman named Lisa Schauland-Fleming that might make you feel a bit better.
On a lighter note, are you selling your place in CA and moving permanently to Idaho? Or am I making an incorrect assumption? And thanks for the soothing words. Much appreciated.
Dear Moosemom,
The issue is a bit more complicated. Most of the US churches have bought into the idea of becoming corporations and 501C3 tax exempt organizations even though churches don't even need to apply to be tax exempt, they already are. However, following this thought, a corporation is a creation of the state which is already a conflict as the Church of God. A famous case from a couple decades back took place in Texas where Lester Roloff, a well known Baptist preacher opened homes for teens with problems. In 1973, he refused to obtain the required state license making claim that as a church, the state could not regulate his homes.
However, Roloff made a critical error, he put them in the name of his church, but his church was a state created corporation. In becoming a state corporation, he had to adhere to the laws of Texas for corporations essentially losing the constitutional protections his church should have enjoyed. He ended up in jail twice after Texas passed further laws requiring licenses for these types of homes even though he won his appeal to the state Supreme court in 1974. The reasoning, his church was a corporation subject to all the laws of the state thus abrogating his argument for religious freedoms.
So, if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passes, almost all of the US churches would have to comply with hiring practices where gay rights are considered a civil right. In such a situation, yes, a church could be sued for not hiring someone who is gay. That is the main reason for the opposition to this bill that has been put forth in congress for decades.
Secondly, America is becoming more and more European as far as political ideology. The fact that we have already had laws promulgated that would have given America similar outcomes as Europe is also quite real and well documented.
Lastly, yes, we SOLD the house in CA today and enter escrow on Monday. But the grandkids in Idaho miss us already as do we them, so that is the sweet part of this bittersweet episode in our lives. It is always a major event to sell a home where we spent 15 years. That is the longest I have lived in any home in my entire life. But, I have never liked the CA desert so going to Idaho with trees and grass and mountains and streams and lakes and fish and bear and moose and deer and elk is a welcome change and throw in a bit of snow as well. Nice place and hopefully no one else finds it!!
-
That's VERY interesting, Hemodoc! I can now see the conundrum and more clearly understand your concerns. This may be vastly understating things and be revealing my general ignorance in this area, but when I see these enormous "megachurches", I can't help but notice that they look more like corporate headquarters! The churches in our little historic city are beautiful and intimate, but in the vast areas out of town, the big churches try to be everything to everyone, containing gyms and pools and enormous recreation areas, and all very well appointed.
Home is where the heart is, and if your heart is with your grandkids and they are in Idaho, then that will be your home. It sounds wonderful, and I have no doubt you and your wife will be very happy there! Congratulations!
-
That's VERY interesting, Hemodoc! I can now see the conundrum and more clearly understand your concerns. This may be vastly understating things and be revealing my general ignorance in this area, but when I see these enormous "megachurches", I can't help but notice that they look more like corporate headquarters! The churches in our little historic city are beautiful and intimate, but in the vast areas out of town, the big churches try to be everything to everyone, containing gyms and pools and enormous recreation areas, and all very well appointed.
Home is where the heart is, and if your heart is with your grandkids and they are in Idaho, then that will be your home. It sounds wonderful, and I have no doubt you and your wife will be very happy there! Congratulations!
The mega-church movement is not part of traditional America where churches were made up of folks in the local community who lived and worked and played together already. Certainly, the grand lifestyles some of the pastors are living ain't part of the Bible either.
-
I grew up in Houston and still follow the sports teams there. The Rockets (basketball) played in a facility that is now Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church. It's really big.
-
I grew up in Houston and still follow the sports teams there. The Rockets (basketball) played in a facility that is now Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church. It's really big.
I have actually listened to him a couple of times. His messages are not really gospel preaching, more of feel good self help sort of stuff. In fact, his messages differ greatly from his fathers messages who was also a well known evangelist and preacher in his own day. Here is something I just found going over their different styles of preaching. The writer essential calls Joel a motivational speaker but calls his father a preacher of righteousness. I agree with that assessment from a Christian perspective.
http://www.atoast2wealth.com/2011/09/21/pastor-john-osteen-preached-righteousness-but-son-joel-osteen-preaches-fluff/
Actually, Moosemom, the differences between this father and the son is one more example of the change in traditional America and it's churches.
-
I was able to see the video of John Osteen, but the vid of Joel Osteen had been removed because the YouTube account associated with it had been terminated. But I've seen enough of Joel Osteen to get your point. I can see why some would call him a motivational speaker as opposed to being called a pastor.
-
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
Dear skg,
Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.
Dear Cariad, as I stated, I already answered skg and Bill.
Have a great day.
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html
i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.
In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.
FYI Cariad, it appears you missed this.
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Dear Hemodoc,
I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.
Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.
Dear Cariad,
Here is my second comment which refers to ANOTHER quote form the same article that I was referring to in my first comment. Sorry, that I did not make that intuitively clear in the first comment that you take such umbrage. In any case, yes, I am quite stupid at times. Just ask my wife. What is your point?
There is a third alternative, I simply left my statement unintentionally ambiguous as to WHICH source I was referring. My second comment explains which source I was referring in my first comment. Do you wish to belabor this trivial issue further??? If you simply wish to trade ad hominems, sorry, not interested.
Have a great day.
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
Three responses to my last brief comment on what you consider a "trivial" issue and I'm belabouring the point?!
I found your reply to skg quite rude, laughing at his description of Snopes as an excellent source, and you never acknowledged that it was a snide remark based on less-than-careful reading, or writing, as the case may be. If you are trying to admit that you made a mistake in saying Snopes was not a good source, that is not at all clear from what you wrote. If you find it so trivial, that's up to you, I don't. Whether a source is trustworthy or not is always germane to political discussions. You seem to think that once you reply, everyone else should just drop the subject. I notice you never drop it. Far from it.
I have had a fantastic 3 days, actually. One for each of your replies to me! I'll probably post more about the fun we've been up to round here, but not in this thread.
Enjoy composing your lengthy reply to me! ;)
-
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Either, you weren't as careful at reading as you should be or you are being disingenuous. The context for the quote written on the snopes site which I recommended begins by saying:
"That Michael Weinstein should have been included in such discussions is vexing to many conservatives as, he recently penned an opinion piece on the subject in which he referred to ...."
So the snopes article is explaining why many conservatives were unhappy with Michael Weinstein's inclusion in the discussions, and illustrating that by using a quote of Michael Weinstein's.
cheers,
skg
Dear skg,
Nope, not disingenuous. I do make a lot of mistakes in my life, but I understood correctly the quote from Weinstein and I included a direct quote from that "opinion" piece in my second comment. Disingenuous??? No.
Dear Cariad, as I stated, I already answered skg and Bill.
Have a great day.
I don't think you read that correctly - snopes, the source, is quoting from the claim, repeated or originating with the Breitbart author, and explaining the quotes veracity. It's true the quote was written once by some guy no one ever heard of until now.
No actually, the Snopes article quoted the opinion piece published in Huffington Post written by Weinstein.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html
i failed to place the link in my second comment that I had planned to giving the source of the quotes from Weinstein.
In any case, including this man in a discussion involving religious liberty is seriously inflammatory. If I was still in the Army, I would be quite upset by that inclusion.
FYI Cariad, it appears you missed this.
Here is another quote from the article that SNOPES used from Huffington Post and Weinstein:
If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression.
Nice. Real nice, but totally fabricated, bereft of truth and quite insulting. No of course not, there is no attack against Christianity as once known in traditional America. None at all.
Dear Hemodoc,
I read your response. It made no sense. Snopes is an excellent site and is widely respected. Quoting in no way requires agreement. Both Bill and skg are correct.
Whether you responded or not is irrelevant to whether or not I am free to respond if I feel like giving my take on it. Your response displayed an alarming lack of reading comprehension and I think skg nailed it with his theory that there are one of two explanations for that.
Dear Cariad,
Here is my second comment which refers to ANOTHER quote form the same article that I was referring to in my first comment. Sorry, that I did not make that intuitively clear in the first comment that you take such umbrage. In any case, yes, I am quite stupid at times. Just ask my wife. What is your point?
There is a third alternative, I simply left my statement unintentionally ambiguous as to WHICH source I was referring. My second comment explains which source I was referring in my first comment. Do you wish to belabor this trivial issue further??? If you simply wish to trade ad hominems, sorry, not interested.
Have a great day.
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
Three responses to my last brief comment on what you consider a "trivial" issue and I'm belabouring the point?!
I found your reply to skg quite rude, laughing at his description of Snopes as an excellent source, and you never acknowledged that it was a snide remark based on less-than-careful reading, or writing, as the case may be. If you are trying to admit that you made a mistake in saying Snopes was not a good source, that is not at all clear from what you wrote. If you find it so trivial, that's up to you, I don't. Whether a source is trustworthy or not is always germane to political discussions. You seem to think that once you reply, everyone else should just drop the subject. I notice you never drop it. Far from it.
I have had a fantastic 3 days, actually. One for each of your replies to me! I'll probably post more about the fun we've been up to round here, but not in this thread.
Enjoy composing your lengthy reply to me! ;)
No thanks Cariad, I will simply speak to those that actually want to discuss something. Have a great day.
-
No thanks Cariad, I will simply speak to those that actually want to discuss something.
Uh, I think this qualifies as speaking to me. I love discussing all manner of things with people who seek an honest exchange of ideas.
Have a great day.
In the exact same spirit in which this was offered to me, I say the same back to you.
-
Here is another example of what has been happening to the military folks 1st amendment rights from Walter Reed banning Bibles to the VA denying God or Jesus spoken in veterans funerals.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/banning-bibles-out-of-line-congress-told/
Once again, the latest assault on traditional American values by the military is just the latest in a long list of events.
-
Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html)
This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."
Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.
-
Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html)
This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."
Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.
Not sure if you are referring to me in some manner about an alleged "victim status." Sorry, not at all. It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way. I am not a victim and I don't know any of my like minded friends who make such a claim.
As I pointed out a few posts back, it appears this a favorite allegation of several left leaning bloggers that I had not read previously. If you believe our message is one of victimhood, you have not understood what we are stating. In addition, you don't understand our Saviour who states:
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
The only thing we claim is sadness that people are moving further away from the Lord spiritually since I have no doubt that all things that are good come from above.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
So victims, no not at all in any manner since we have already inherited God's kingdom. But God has indeed given us the right to speak up about those things that are wrong and to defend that which is right. So, it is not the status of a victim that gives us all blessings, sorry, all blessings flow from God alone and none other.
-
If all good things come from God, then from where do the bad things come? I suspect that you will answer "from Man" or something along those lines, so then the question becomes "How can we solve our social problems through the Word of God?"
How will being a Christian address how to find our way back to being "traditionally American"? How will being a Christian restore the freedoms you feel are being lost? If more Americans became "Christian", how would that enable us to, say, break the partisan gridlock in Congress so that we could recover funding for programs like Meals on Wheels, which is surely a program that is Christian in its ethos? How would/should "being Christian" affect immigration policy? Or health care policy? Or economic policy?
Is there Scripture that leads you to such answers? Does the Bible hint at what should be done in Syria?
-
If all good things come from God, then from where do the bad things come? I suspect that you will answer "from Man" or something along those lines, so then the question becomes "How can we solve our social problems through the Word of God?"
How will being a Christian address how to find our way back to being "traditionally American"? How will being a Christian restore the freedoms you feel are being lost? If more Americans became "Christian", how would that enable us to, say, break the partisan gridlock in Congress so that we could recover funding for programs like Meals on Wheels, which is surely a program that is Christian in its ethos? How would/should "being Christian" affect immigration policy? Or health care policy? Or economic policy?
Is there Scripture that leads you to such answers? Does the Bible hint at what should be done in Syria?
Dear Moosemom, you have asked much in a short question.
How will we solve our social problems through the Word of God? Well, what does the Bible state is the cause of our problems? The answer from the Bible is our sinful nature. Since it is clear that not all folks will become born again Christians, we shall always have dissension and disobedience to God's Holy Word. In fact, if 100% of Americans became born again Christians over night, we would still have disobedience and dissension since after all, Christians are sinners saved by grace. At this point, we still have our sin nature. So, curing all of our social ills, no that won't happen no matter how many folks became Christians. However, it sure would be a good place to start.
Will we find our way back to traditional America? No I doubt it.
The problem with our politics is indeed that they are partisan. That was not how the founders intended. They set up a system where people were elected to represent the interests of those in their jurisdiction. It has been quite some time since men of good conscience voted for that which is right and not by what is politically motivated.
Economic policy. In short, much of our problems of economics stems from our deficit spending. Here is what the Bible states about that issue to Israel about 3500 years ago:
Deuteronomy 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
I think that states the situation quite clearly. It has been a LONG time since America had biblical economic policies.
The poor, the Bible is filled with admonitions to help the poor. The next verse from above is just one of hundreds if not thousands of verses.
Deuteronomy 15:7 ¶ If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.
This is an individual responsibility. It is all too easy to shrug our shoulders and give it to the government to help the poor, but God calls all of us as individuals to give to charity. By the way, have you seen the difference in charitable giving between Obama, Biden and Romney??
Healthcare, I would refer you to the history of healthcare in this nation. Before Johnson and his great society usurped power and control over healthcare, it was charitable hospitals that provided the majority of care to Americans. In fact, you can call that one more aspect of traditional America that is likely lost forever. However, we still have examples of charitable hospitals such as St. Jude and others doing a great work.
Immigration policy, the Bible calls us to obey all laws and regulations. I guess enough said about that.
Now, my wife has at least a dozen members of her family in the Philippines who wish that they could come to America but are not even allowed to petition since they don't own any property in the Philippines, they don't have a mother or father here that is a US citizen, or they have already married and have children. If you are going to talk about what to do with the Mexican issue south of our border, don't get my wife started on how unfair immigration policy is that favors this one nation and ignores the plight of her nation. In fact, we just got back from the Philippine consulate in LA where my mother in law got her dual citizenship with the Philippines restored after becoming a U.S. citizen in 2008. Yes, let's make our immigration policy fair to all peoples, not just those south of our border.
What to do with Syria?? Well, that one is a bit more involved, but God did set the borders and God does make provision to defend that which He has given. Now, going into an in depth answer to the question of Syria is beyond the scope of IHD. I will state that I believe America will be involved greatly in Syria as a result of my understanding of Bible prophecy and these events are not surprising. Glad to go into detail on that in a pm if you wish, but I believe we will be involved in Syria and it looks like the events may unfold soon but other than understanding the major players of endtimes events, the Bible does not specify specifically what we will see in the next week, month or year in Syria, but it would not surprise me at all to see a large US presence in Syria in the near future as well as Iran.
-
I know I have a bad habit of asking a lot in a short space. Thanks very much for your reply; there is a lot there, and I want to reread it all several times before responding.
Do you think that a more "traditional America" would have gotten involved in Syria? I am not sure why there are those in Congress who seem so adamant about getting involved. I'm not sure that God drew the borders for that particular state. It might have been the Brits. Why do you think that we'll have a substantial presence in Syria? Is it because that would be in some way against the Bible's teachings? Or the opposite? Sure, PM me with more answers if you'd like. Or maybe we should start another thread. I suspect that Syria is going to become a big problem because I'm not sure anyone knows who the enemy really is or might become.
Do you think that charitable hospitals could provide healthcare now to the majority of Americans? Was it the government that usurped power over healthcare, or was it the Profit Motive and the Corporatization of America? Or are they all one and the same? LOL!
In theory, I agree with you about the unfairness of current immigration policy, but I suppose if there were 12million undocumented Phillipinos in the US, things would be different. Still, I feel for your wife and her family and can understand their distress.
-
I know I have a bad habit of asking a lot in a short space. Thanks very much for your reply; there is a lot there, and I want to reread it all several times before responding.
Do you think that a more "traditional America" would have gotten involved in Syria? I am not sure why there are those in Congress who seem so adamant about getting involved. I'm not sure that God drew the borders for that particular state. It might have been the Brits. Why do you think that we'll have a substantial presence in Syria? Is it because that would be in some way against the Bible's teachings? Or the opposite? Sure, PM me with more answers if you'd like. Or maybe we should start another thread. I suspect that Syria is going to become a big problem because I'm not sure anyone knows who the enemy really is or might become.
Do you think that charitable hospitals could provide healthcare now to the majority of Americans? Was it the government that usurped power over healthcare, or was it the Profit Motive and the Corporatization of America? Or are they all one and the same? LOL!
In theory, I agree with you about the unfairness of current immigration policy, but I suppose if there were 12million undocumented Phillipinos in the US, things would be different. Still, I feel for your wife and her family and can understand their distress.
Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.
The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.
As far as Syria, I would be more than happy to pm you what the prophetic implications are from Bible prophecy of these movements, but no, I will not start another thread on that subject nor comment further here.
-
I will not start another thread on that subject nor comment further here.
:bandance; :2thumbsup; :yahoo; :clap; :rofl;
:waving;
-
<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.
-
<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.
Hey 85% plus is like a B+, it's only 30 to 50 million people facing an early death and or medical bankruptcy with no recourse, what's the problem? ::)
And people with ESRD have access to Medicare so why should I care about anyone else?
-
The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.
Well, I'm not sure that doctors before the 60's, particularly the old country docs, were performing transplants or dialysis, either. I doubt you'd be alive if is was the 60s. Those weren't the good old days if you had ESRD.
-
I will not start another thread on that subject nor comment further here.
:bandance; :2thumbsup; :yahoo; :clap; :rofl;
:waving;
YL, I thought you like things from the Bible??
-
Well, I'd like to hear, so PM me when/if you have the chance. I know you have better things to do than PM me about the Bible and Syria, so please don't feel obligated.
-
<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.
Hey 85% plus is like a B+, it's only 30 to 50 million people facing an early death and or medical bankruptcy with no recourse, what's the problem? ::)
And people with ESRD have access to Medicare so why should I care about anyone else?
Not what I stated at all Bill. Kaiser Foundation scored all the states on percentage of their populations. It ranges from it looks like 20% in couple of states with uninsured to a low of 8% in Hawaii just looking over it quickly. The average is around 15%.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/
Now, Obama took the whole pie instead of fixing the 15% with skyrocketing health care prices SINCE ObamaCare, a disaster brewing on implementation and serious cost over runs. Even the Dems are running away from it now including Max Baucus who was one of the architects of the plan.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/36159/sen-max-baucus-obamacare-s-biggest-advocate-now-warns-of-disaster
That jeopardizes many who currently have health insurance but will likely end up forced into the state exchanges. In addition, we have already been paying the unfunded mandates of hospital patients who are uninsured. A bandaid doesn't really cost $10.00 for one, but hospitals with Federally mandated treatment of ALL patients regardless of ability to pay have had to shift this cost over to the private insurers for years. Obama got his plan, now lets see what his plan does to not only the 85% who already had health insurance, but the 15% who need it. Amazingly, ObamaCare won't cover the entire 15% either.
So in short, ObamaCare will be a disaster to the current system for those already covered and it won't meet the goals for the 15% who were in need. In any case, we have heard the hype about this program for several years since it has enacted, now is the time for Obama to put it into effect and grant all the promises of its benefits. So far, it looks like it is headed for a very dubious opening day. The ball is in his court, let's see what he does with this. It doesn't look good so far.
-
<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.
I don't disagree. Never stated I did. The issue is whether Obamacare will actually fix those problems for the 15% who were uninsured?
Here is a comment from a economist that is not optimistic:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html
Forbes quotes from the CBO that as many as 12 to 20 million will lose employer based coverage:
Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance because of the perverse incentives under the program. Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage. In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/
So, will ObamaCare really improve the plight of those that are uninsured? The answer many are stating today is, we just don't know. We will see in a few short months how well it keeps all of its promises.
-
The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.
Well, I'm not sure that doctors before the 60's, particularly the old country docs, were performing transplants or dialysis, either. I doubt you'd be alive if is was the 60s. Those weren't the good old days if you had ESRD.
We weren't discussing the technological revolution in the last 50 years including dialysis of course. Today, we are waiting for new technology to bring home dialysis to more patients since we have not advanced very far past the 1960's technologies of dialysis care outside of the advances in the materials used of the components. NxStage announced FDA approval of higher dialysate flow rates with the NxStage System One. This is a game changer putting NxStage in a great position with an easy to use system, ultra-pure dialysate which others are struggling to obtain and coupled with higher dialysis flow rates in my opinion makes NxStage the system to beat as far as new technology coming on the market. Note, this is private enterprise bringing these innovations, not government programs.
America is quite far behind Europe with hemodiafiltration which many believe will help patients live a longer and higher quality of life. The status quo between CMS and the LDO's has not done anything to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of patients every year. Interjecting private enterprise competition through technological innovation will be the best way to break the current provision of dialysis stalemate with all of its dysfunction.
-
<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.
I don't disagree. Never stated I did. The issue is whether Obamacare will actually fix those problems for the 15% who were uninsured?
Here is a comment from a economist that is not optimistic:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html)
Forbes quotes from the CBO that as many as 12 to 20 million will lose employer based coverage:
Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance because of the perverse incentives under the program. Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage. In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/)
So, will ObamaCare really improve the plight of those that are uninsured? The answer many are stating today is, we just don't know. We will see in a few short months how well it keeps all of its promises.
Here is the whole quote that your bolded section seems to be based on. From a July 2012 CBO report (PDF LINK (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf)):
"The change in employment-based coverage is the net result of increases in and losses of offers of health insurance from employers and changes in enrollment by workers and their families. For example, in 2019, an estimated 11 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law, and another 4 million people will have an offer of employment-based coverage but will enroll in health insurance from another source instead. These flows out of employment-based coverage will be partially offset by an estimated 9 million people who will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under the ACA."
The Forbes article is an opinion piece by a contributor, not an employee, of Forbes. Peter shouldn't the fact that the author you are relying on to make your case is purposely trying to deceive you, cause you to reevaluate how and where you are getting your information? The author was purposely trying to deceive you to support the policy position he earns his living supporting (the author is an analysis at the Heartland Institute), are you concerned about that?
-
Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html)
This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."
Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.
Not sure if you are referring to me in some manner about an alleged "victim status." Sorry, not at all. It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way. I am not a victim and I don't know any of my like minded friends who make such a claim.
As I pointed out a few posts back, it appears this a favorite allegation of several left leaning bloggers that I had not read previously. If you believe our message is one of victimhood, you have not understood what we are stating. In addition, you don't understand our Saviour who states:
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
The only thing we claim is sadness that people are moving further away from the Lord spiritually since I have no doubt that all things that are good come from above.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
So victims, no not at all in any manner since we have already inherited God's kingdom. But God has indeed given us the right to speak up about those things that are wrong and to defend that which is right. So, it is not the status of a victim that gives us all blessings, sorry, all blessings flow from God alone and none other.
What the? ???
You just said you didn't want to speak to me. Yesterday. Is there a reason you think I was speaking to you?
It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way.
I assume this is a joke, the part about being puzzled. Gee, why does it keep coming up? Hmmm.... Bill O'Reilly whines about how rich white men have lost their iron grip on America.... could that have something to do with it?
I skipped the middle paragraphs in your message because I saw the proselytizing coming. The last paragraph tells me that you just didn't understand what the author was saying. I personally didn't find it that cryptic, but I do have years of literary and communication analysis behind me.
-
<quote>Actually, before ObamaCare, don't forget 85-90% of those in the US did just fine paying for their own private healthcare insurance or getting it through work. It was a minority of the total population that had issues. The overwhelming majority did not want this.</quote>
Where are you getting your figures from? This seems like a really high estimate. Far more than 10-15% of Americans are suffering from inadequate health insurance or no insurance at all. Personally, I probably wouldn't even have ESRD if I had been able to afford preventative care and caught my high bp before it caused irreparable damage to my kidneys. It's so much cheaper to pay for preventative care than treat chronic illness like ESRD. An annual exam and preventative care over all the years I was uninsured would have been a much smaller bill than daily dialysis, monthly visits to the nephs, all the meds and the occasional ER visit. I am not unique. Countless people suffer needlessly and die each year from perfectly curable ailments because of lack of access to affordable healthcare.
I don't disagree. Never stated I did. The issue is whether Obamacare will actually fix those problems for the 15% who were uninsured?
Here is a comment from a economist that is not optimistic:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/04/will_obamacare.html)
Forbes quotes from the CBO that as many as 12 to 20 million will lose employer based coverage:
Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance because of the perverse incentives under the program. Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage. In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/)
So, will ObamaCare really improve the plight of those that are uninsured? The answer many are stating today is, we just don't know. We will see in a few short months how well it keeps all of its promises.
Here is the whole quote that your bolded section seems to be based on. From a July 2012 CBO report (PDF LINK (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf)):
"The change in employment-based coverage is the net result of increases in and losses of offers of health insurance from employers and changes in enrollment by workers and their families. For example, in 2019, an estimated 11 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law, and another 4 million people will have an offer of employment-based coverage but will enroll in health insurance from another source instead. These flows out of employment-based coverage will be partially offset by an estimated 9 million people who will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under the ACA."
The Forbes article is an opinion piece by a contributor, not an employee, of Forbes. Peter shouldn't the fact that the author you are relying on to make your case is purposely trying to deceive you, cause you to reevaluate how and where you are getting your information? The author was purposely trying to deceive you to support the policy position he earns his living supporting (the author is an analysis at the Heartland Institute), are you concerned about that?
Bill, there are quite a few sources stating the same thing. Dealing with the facts at hand, the incentives in Obamacare will shift many currently on employer based group health plans over to the exchanges simply because it is a lot cheaper to do so. The fine is a lot cheaper than the health insurance. Employers will shift more folks to part time defined as 30 hours per week as well and many will choose to pay the fine instead of paying the ever increasing health care costs which are increasing dramatically ever since the Affordable Health Care Act was signed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html
If you don't like the source above, here is a post from the Kaiser Health News listing several sources stating the same thing, many are going to lose their employer based health insurance and shift over to the state exchanges, most of which have not even been set up yet.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx
-
I really love reading this thread.
(just so im CLEAR, and not taken wrong, i am NOT being sarcastic. its a fun read.)
really shows differences among like people.
its what makes the world go round.
I dont reply to any of this stuff because people tend to take me wrong, but i have to say, definitely some interesting points of view being had.
I like people watching :)
And MM, and Cariad, I want to say I love you guys! SO smart and well worded! (i wish i could be more like you guys!)
-
Bill, there are quite a few sources stating the same thing. Dealing with the facts at hand, the incentives in Obamacare will shift many currently on employer based group health plans over to the exchanges simply because it is a lot cheaper to do so. The fine is a lot cheaper than the health insurance. Employers will shift more folks to part time defined as 30 hours per week as well and many will choose to pay the fine instead of paying the ever increasing health care costs which are increasing dramatically ever since the Affordable Health Care Act was signed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html)
If you don't like the source above, here is a post from the Kaiser Health News listing several sources stating the same thing, many are going to lose their employer based health insurance and shift over to the state exchanges, most of which have not even been set up yet.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx)
The WSJ link is to an editorial behind their pay wall from a guy who works for the Hoover Institute, so again someone who makes their living selling Republican dogma.
The Kaiser link is to their Daily Digest – DIGEST – in other words not the considered opinion of Kaiser, rather a DIGEST of reporting by other outfits and once again if you actually look at the CBO report being discussed you can avoid the filter of people who are trying to generate clicks.
From the CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf))
Higher Enrollment in and Subsidies for Coverage Through Exchanges
CBO and JCT’s estimate of the costs of subsidies for insurance obtained through the exchanges and for related spending over the 2013–2022 period is now $32 billion
(or about 3 percent) higher than it was in August, mostly because of higher projected enrollment in the exchanges. Lower marginal tax rates under the American Taxpayer Relief Act will reduce the relative attractiveness of employment-based insurance for low-income workers and for their employers. CBO and JCT anticipate that the change in tax law will increase the number of people who shift out of employment-based coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act by 2 million to 3 million people, many of whom are expected to obtain insurance through the exchanges. Several other technical changes decreased projected enrollment in the exchanges. All told, CBO and JCT now project that 26 million people will be enrolled in the insurance exchanges in 2022, about 500,000 more than estimated in the August 2012 report.
Did you understand that? The lower tax rates that were made permanent (i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts for people earning less than $400,000) results in more people opting to go into exchanges than would be the case if the tax rates reverted to their 2001 levels.
And, like your previous link, the seven million number, while more correct than the Forbes contributor’s 12 million number, misses the context that it is not 7 million increase, rather it is a 2 to 3 million increase from what was already expected.
I also think that these “analysis” miss the true lead – per person Medicaid spending and per beneficiary Medicare spending is trending down in a sustained manner which makes past projections by Heritage, Hoover and the rest obsolete: simply extending historic pre2008 trend lines out 25 years is completely meaningless. To be meaningful the analysis has to contend with good news too.
-
Here is a link to an old but quite amusing article about Bill O'Reilly, (the original topic of this discussion being his pearl clutching about the loss of so-called traditional America).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/recycled/2006/10/oreilly_among_the_snobs.html)
This is an especially relevant quote, and writing from 2006 it makes the author look positively psychic. Here Kinsley discusses why O'Reilly would pretend to come out of a hard scrabble childhood when in fact he was decidedly middle class:
"Why fake a humble background? Partly for business reasons: Joe Sixpack versus the elitists is a good posture for any talk show host, especially one on Fox. Partly out of vanity: It makes the climb to your current perch more impressive. Partly for political reasons: Under our system, even conservatives need some plausible theory to qualify for victim status, from which all blessings flow."
Now in the America that I grew up in, yes, the real America, as real as any other's, it was considered shameful to look for ways to claim victim status and moan about how disadvantaged you were. And I note that the likes of O'Reilly are still happy to scold others who might reference their own oppression, but he feels perfectly justified to mine his own background for any hint that he may have had to struggle to make his way in the world. It's a bit nauseating, actually.
Not sure if you are referring to me in some manner about an alleged "victim status." Sorry, not at all. It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way. I am not a victim and I don't know any of my like minded friends who make such a claim.
As I pointed out a few posts back, it appears this a favorite allegation of several left leaning bloggers that I had not read previously. If you believe our message is one of victimhood, you have not understood what we are stating. In addition, you don't understand our Saviour who states:
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
The only thing we claim is sadness that people are moving further away from the Lord spiritually since I have no doubt that all things that are good come from above.
James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
So victims, no not at all in any manner since we have already inherited God's kingdom. But God has indeed given us the right to speak up about those things that are wrong and to defend that which is right. So, it is not the status of a victim that gives us all blessings, sorry, all blessings flow from God alone and none other.
What the? ???
You just said you didn't want to speak to me. Yesterday. Is there a reason you think I was speaking to you?
It has puzzled me greatly why this always keeps coming up when I simply discuss how America is evolving in a manner that is not becoming in any way.
I assume this is a joke, the part about being puzzled. Gee, why does it keep coming up? Hmmm.... Bill O'Reilly whines about how rich white men have lost their iron grip on America.... could that have something to do with it?
I skipped the middle paragraphs in your message because I saw the proselytizing coming. The last paragraph tells me that you just didn't understand what the author was saying. I personally didn't find it that cryptic, but I do have years of literary and communication analysis behind me.
Dear Cariad, I didn't say I wouldn't speak with you, just that I am not interested in trading insults with you. Discussion of the topic at hand is a different aspect.
Now, to your comments, there is ONLY one person here taking an opposing view from the "right." That is me. If someone else is participating from my perspective, then perhaps you were addressing those comments to them, otherwise, yes it looks like those comments were addressed at me unless you have someone else you were referring to.
Yes, puzzled was correct since I am not in any sense claiming a "victims" status in any manner. Far from it. Our Heavenly Father is in control of all things. I am quite aware of the conditions that this world is heading whether I like it or not. Victim, no, not at all. The Lord has already overcome the world.
Now as far as Bill O'Reilly, I have never heard his diatribe you are referring to but that is simply his own opinion, something we are all entitled to whether folks agree with it or not. If I was concerned about losing my grip on America, I would not have married two brown skinned women who gave me brown skinned children. Sorry, but losing an alleged racist control or an alleged white supremacy in America is not what motivates folks of my persuasion. That is simply a leftist accusation without merit.
I didn't understand the concepts of freedom and defending our constitution until I joined the military and saw up close and personal what that really means. Lots of folks of all colors and persuasions who understand the concept of defending our constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That is what our beef is, not some false alleged white supremacy complex. Race has nothing to do with it. It is instead about preserving our God given freedoms and the constitutional protections of those God given freedoms as our founding fathers in America so understood.
-
Bill, there are quite a few sources stating the same thing. Dealing with the facts at hand, the incentives in Obamacare will shift many currently on employer based group health plans over to the exchanges simply because it is a lot cheaper to do so. The fine is a lot cheaper than the health insurance. Employers will shift more folks to part time defined as 30 hours per week as well and many will choose to pay the fine instead of paying the ever increasing health care costs which are increasing dramatically ever since the Affordable Health Care Act was signed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html)
If you don't like the source above, here is a post from the Kaiser Health News listing several sources stating the same thing, many are going to lose their employer based health insurance and shift over to the state exchanges, most of which have not even been set up yet.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/February/06/cbo-and-employer-insurance.aspx)
The WSJ link is to an editorial behind their pay wall from a guy who works for the Hoover Institute, so again someone who makes their living selling Republican dogma.
The Kaiser link is to their Daily Digest – DIGEST – in other words not the considered opinion of Kaiser, rather a DIGEST of reporting by other outfits and once again if you actually look at the CBO report being discussed you can avoid the filter of people who are trying to generate clicks.
From the CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf))
Higher Enrollment in and Subsidies for Coverage Through Exchanges
CBO and JCT’s estimate of the costs of subsidies for insurance obtained through the exchanges and for related spending over the 2013–2022 period is now $32 billion
(or about 3 percent) higher than it was in August, mostly because of higher projected enrollment in the exchanges. Lower marginal tax rates under the American Taxpayer Relief Act will reduce the relative attractiveness of employment-based insurance for low-income workers and for their employers. CBO and JCT anticipate that the change in tax law will increase the number of people who shift out of employment-based coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act by 2 million to 3 million people, many of whom are expected to obtain insurance through the exchanges. Several other technical changes decreased projected enrollment in the exchanges. All told, CBO and JCT now project that 26 million people will be enrolled in the insurance exchanges in 2022, about 500,000 more than estimated in the August 2012 report.
Did you understand that? The lower tax rates that were made permanent (i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts for people earning less than $400,000) results in more people opting to go into exchanges than would be the case if the tax rates reverted to their 2001 levels.
And, like your previous link, the seven million number, while more correct than the Forbes contributor’s 12 million number, misses the context that it is not 7 million increase, rather it is a 2 to 3 million increase from what was already expected.
I also think that these “analysis” miss the true lead – per person Medicaid spending and per beneficiary Medicare spending is trending down in a sustained manner which makes past projections by Heritage, Hoover and the rest obsolete: simply extending historic pre2008 trend lines out 25 years is completely meaningless. To be meaningful the analysis has to contend with good news too.
Of course I "understood that." There are many who don't agree with that sentiment. We have heard all kinds of hype about this program for about 4 years now. The time to see what the Obama administration will accomplish is now coming to a head. Instead of shoring up Democratic support, it looks like a whole lot of Dems are heading for the hills so to speak because of the impending roll out disaster many see coming.
By the way, the CBO is not at all an unbiased source for this as well. There are many well known economists who question the CBO projections. In any case, we will see in the next 12 months how well Obama has put this together.
-
Of course I "understood that." There are many who don't agree with that sentiment. We have heard all kinds of hype about this program for about 4 years now. The time to see what the Obama administration will accomplish is now coming to a head. Instead of shoring up Democratic support, it looks like a whole lot of Dems are heading for the hills so to speak because of the impending roll out disaster many see coming.
By the way, the CBO is not at all an unbiased source for this as well. There are many well known economists who question the CBO projections. In any case, we will see in the next 12 months how well Obama has put this together.
I think I understand your process
- Step one – find article that supports opinion Obamacare is bad.
- Step two – link article that holds up CBO as source of information confirming Obamacare bad
- Step three - when shown what CBO report actually says disparage CBO as source since it does not support opinion Obamacare is bad
- Step four - stick with generalities and claim history will prove Obamacare bad
-
Dear Cariad, I didn't say I wouldn't speak with you, just that I am not interested in trading insults with you. Discussion of the topic at hand is a different aspect.
Now, to your comments, there is ONLY one person here taking an opposing view from the "right." That is me. If someone else is participating from my perspective, then perhaps you were addressing those comments to them, otherwise, yes it looks like those comments were addressed at me unless you have someone else you were referring to.
Yes, puzzled was correct since I am not in any sense claiming a "victims" status in any manner. Far from it. Our Heavenly Father is in control of all things. I am quite aware of the conditions that this world is heading whether I like it or not. Victim, no, not at all. The Lord has already overcome the world.
Now as far as Bill O'Reilly, I have never heard his diatribe you are referring to but that is simply his own opinion, something we are all entitled to whether folks agree with it or not. If I was concerned about losing my grip on America, I would not have married two brown skinned women who gave me brown skinned children. Sorry, but losing an alleged racist control or an alleged white supremacy in America is not what motivates folks of my persuasion. That is simply a leftist accusation without merit.
I didn't understand the concepts of freedom and defending our constitution until I joined the military and saw up close and personal what that really means. Lots of folks of all colors and persuasions who understand the concept of defending our constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That is what our beef is, not some false alleged white supremacy complex. Race has nothing to do with it. It is instead about preserving our God given freedoms and the constitutional protections of those God given freedoms as our founding fathers in America so understood.
What the flip, Hemodoc?!
If you did not get that this discussion is about Bill O'Reilly's racism, then you didn't even read the opening comment, nor bother to look in to just exactly what he said to spark this discussion. Just because you are conservative does not mean I was addressing you. The way you think everyone is forever talking about and to you comes off as arrogance, paranoia, or a bit of both. What Bill O'Reilly said was racist. I was addressing THE ACTUAL TOPIC with a piece that I very much enjoyed when I read it all those years ago, I thought it would give an extra bit of insight into Bill O'Reilly. NOT you. Bill O'Reilly. Unless you secretly ARE Bill O'Reilly and are prepared to admit that now, don't bother acting insulted toward my comments. There have been plenty of other conservatives in this discussion, so spare me the you-against-the-world stance.
-
Dear Cariad, I didn't say I wouldn't speak with you, just that I am not interested in trading insults with you. Discussion of the topic at hand is a different aspect.
Now, to your comments, there is ONLY one person here taking an opposing view from the "right." That is me. If someone else is participating from my perspective, then perhaps you were addressing those comments to them, otherwise, yes it looks like those comments were addressed at me unless you have someone else you were referring to.
Yes, puzzled was correct since I am not in any sense claiming a "victims" status in any manner. Far from it. Our Heavenly Father is in control of all things. I am quite aware of the conditions that this world is heading whether I like it or not. Victim, no, not at all. The Lord has already overcome the world.
Now as far as Bill O'Reilly, I have never heard his diatribe you are referring to but that is simply his own opinion, something we are all entitled to whether folks agree with it or not. If I was concerned about losing my grip on America, I would not have married two brown skinned women who gave me brown skinned children. Sorry, but losing an alleged racist control or an alleged white supremacy in America is not what motivates folks of my persuasion. That is simply a leftist accusation without merit.
I didn't understand the concepts of freedom and defending our constitution until I joined the military and saw up close and personal what that really means. Lots of folks of all colors and persuasions who understand the concept of defending our constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. That is what our beef is, not some false alleged white supremacy complex. Race has nothing to do with it. It is instead about preserving our God given freedoms and the constitutional protections of those God given freedoms as our founding fathers in America so understood.
What the flip, Hemodoc?!
If you did not get that this discussion is about Bill O'Reilly's racism, then you didn't even read the opening comment, nor bother to look in to just exactly what he said to spark this discussion. Just because you are conservative does not mean I was addressing you. The way you think everyone is forever talking about and to you comes off as arrogance, paranoia, or a bit of both. What Bill O'Reilly said was racist. I was addressing THE ACTUAL TOPIC with a piece that I very much enjoyed when I read it all those years ago, I thought it would give an extra bit of insight into Bill O'Reilly. NOT you. Bill O'Reilly. Unless you secretly ARE Bill O'Reilly and are prepared to admit that now, don't bother acting insulted toward my comments. There have been plenty of other conservatives in this discussion, so spare me the you-against-the-world stance.
Fair enough Cariad, I will simply not address your posts in the future. I address you respectfully and with reasoned answers and this is how you respond. I guess there is no further need to respond to your diatribes in the future.
Have a great day.
P.S. Plenty of other conservatives??? Oh really, I haven't noticed any in the last week since this thread opened up again.
-
Of course I "understood that." There are many who don't agree with that sentiment. We have heard all kinds of hype about this program for about 4 years now. The time to see what the Obama administration will accomplish is now coming to a head. Instead of shoring up Democratic support, it looks like a whole lot of Dems are heading for the hills so to speak because of the impending roll out disaster many see coming.
By the way, the CBO is not at all an unbiased source for this as well. There are many well known economists who question the CBO projections. In any case, we will see in the next 12 months how well Obama has put this together.
I think I understand your process
- Step one – find article that supports opinion Obamacare is bad.
- Step two – link article that holds up CBO as source of information confirming Obamacare bad
- Step three - when shown what CBO report actually says disparage CBO as source since it does not support opinion Obamacare is bad
- Step four - stick with generalities and claim history will prove Obamacare bad
Sorry Bill, no agenda here. I have never been a fan of Obamacare which you know and understand. Out of respect to you, I have not voiced that concern on my blog or in yours while I was writing for you.
So, no, I haven't gone so far as to have an agenda. I simply thought we were involved in a discussion on this issue. Is that having an agenda????
-
Fair enough Cariad, I will simply not address your posts in the future. I address you respectfully and with reasoned answers and this is how you respond. I guess there is no further need to respond to your diatribes in the future.
Have a great day.
P.S. Plenty of other conservatives??? Oh really, I haven't noticed any in the last week since this thread opened up again.
Oh, please. Please!
You do not address me respectfully. Calling me names like 'delusional', accusing me repeatedly of ad hominem attacks but failing to ever specify where those supposed insults are, trying to tell me what I am and am not allowed to discuss in these threads, insulting liberals but then crying that any criticism of *any* conservative is against you personally..... and on and on and on and on.
There are plenty of other conservative voices in this thread, but of course once I point that out you change it to "in the past week". In this thread alone you have accused people of talking about you when they weren't no less than 3 times. Maybe if you see yourself in the less-flattering posts that should tell you something, but it is certainly not my fault that you imagine that we are all picking on you all the time.
P.S. It is 10 at night here. I have already had a great day. I have them whether I get your permission or not.
-
I really love reading this thread.
(just so im CLEAR, and not taken wrong, i am NOT being sarcastic. its a fun read.)
really shows differences among like people.
its what makes the world go round.
I dont reply to any of this stuff because people tend to take me wrong, but i have to say, definitely some interesting points of view being had.
I like people watching :)
And MM, and Cariad, I want to say I love you guys! SO smart and well worded! (i wish i could be more like you guys!)
Oh, I almost missed this in the fray!
Thank you, GLM! I hope MM sees this, too, because personally your comment has made my week. You are a wonderful, witty, beautiful and strong woman just the way you are, and if you have trouble seeing that we'll just have to keep reminding you. :) I know what you mean about being frequently misinterpreted, it's a hazard of internet communication, but you add an irreplaceable voice to the forum, so don't hold back if you feel you have something to say. The people who matter will go to the effort to hear what you really want to say.
-
Thank you :)
I personally learned long ago that there are certain subjects that I am just better left out of lol Politics, religion, and some random here and theres being my top no-no's!
Mainly because no one ever agrees to disagree, and thats all I am about. I can see both sides to every argument, and I honestly think that pisses people off more than being one-sided!!! I dont like confrontation at all, so i just stay silent for the most part.
In my opinion, Its not really very logical to be one-sided on some of these issues. You, of course, can have an opinion, but to not be capable of seeing another person's side... thats something else entirely. And I have noticed that there is always going to be someone out there who will always believe the grass is blue, no matter how much you can prove that it is green...
-
Thank you :)
I personally learned long ago that there are certain subjects that I am just better left out of lol Politics, religion, and some random here and theres being my top no-no's!
Mainly because no one ever agrees to disagree, and thats all I am about. I can see both sides to every argument, and I honestly think that pisses people off more than being one-sided!!! I dont like confrontation at all, so i just stay silent for the most part.
In my opinion, Its not really very logical to be one-sided on some of these issues. You, of course, can have an opinion, but to not be capable of seeing another person's side... thats something else entirely. And I have noticed that there is always going to be someone out there who will always believe the grass is blue, no matter how much you can prove that it is green...
It depends on what you really want out of discussions like these. If all you want to do is to change someone's mind, good luck with that. If what you want is to appear to be learned and fascinating, then you'll end up just appearing fooling. But if what you really want is to discuss ideas and to actually LEARN something, then these discussions can be fascinating.
There is a difference between taking a side and presenting information.
If you define yourself solely by defending your position or wedding yourself to your opinion, you'll just feel personally insulted all the time.
However, if you are truly intellectually curious, then you can have great fun.
While you should always respect a person's right to their opinion, it does not follow that you must respect the opinion itself. However, still be polite.
I often agree to disagree. If I posted only with those with whom I agree, I'd be quickly bored.
If you see these conversations as "confrontational", then don't participate. If, however, you can remember that it's not all about you, then you might learn something and might also feel more comfortable sharing your thoughts ("You" meaning a general you, not you personally, GLM).
-
The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.
Well, I'm not sure that doctors before the 60's, particularly the old country docs, were performing transplants or dialysis, either. I doubt you'd be alive if is was the 60s. Those weren't the good old days if you had ESRD.
We weren't discussing the technological revolution in the last 50 years including dialysis of course. Today, we are waiting for new technology to bring home dialysis to more patients since we have not advanced very far past the 1960's technologies of dialysis care outside of the advances in the materials used of the components. NxStage announced FDA approval of higher dialysate flow rates with the NxStage System One. This is a game changer putting NxStage in a great position with an easy to use system, ultra-pure dialysate which others are struggling to obtain and coupled with higher dialysis flow rates in my opinion makes NxStage the system to beat as far as new technology coming on the market. Note, this is private enterprise bringing these innovations, not government programs.
America is quite far behind Europe with hemodiafiltration which many believe will help patients live a longer and higher quality of life. The status quo between CMS and the LDO's has not done anything to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of patients every year. Interjecting private enterprise competition through technological innovation will be the best way to break the current provision of dialysis stalemate with all of its dysfunction.
I certainly agree that private enterprise and competition can/does result in the technological innovation that can improve the care of dialysis patients! But when you speak of "traditional America", you often refer to the 60's as if it was a rosy time for all people, and I'm just saying that those were not rosy times for ESRD sufferers or for sufferers of so many horrible maladies that we can now treat, if not cure.
The debate of how much government is appropriate rages on, just as it always has and will forever. While it is PEOPLE who innovate, that doesn't mean that government can't help. Some biomedical research needs a lot of funding, and private sources don't always answer the call.
I wonder if in "traditional America", hospital charges are as mysterious as they are now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/hospital-prices-cost-differences_n_3232678.html
Is this something the government should address?
-
The cost over runs and overpayment to docs and hospitals in the early days of the Medicare program are well documented. Doctors before the 1960's were not in general in the highest income brackets, remember chickens, etc in payment especially for the old country docs.
Well, I'm not sure that doctors before the 60's, particularly the old country docs, were performing transplants or dialysis, either. I doubt you'd be alive if is was the 60s. Those weren't the good old days if you had ESRD.
We weren't discussing the technological revolution in the last 50 years including dialysis of course. Today, we are waiting for new technology to bring home dialysis to more patients since we have not advanced very far past the 1960's technologies of dialysis care outside of the advances in the materials used of the components. NxStage announced FDA approval of higher dialysate flow rates with the NxStage System One. This is a game changer putting NxStage in a great position with an easy to use system, ultra-pure dialysate which others are struggling to obtain and coupled with higher dialysis flow rates in my opinion makes NxStage the system to beat as far as new technology coming on the market. Note, this is private enterprise bringing these innovations, not government programs.
America is quite far behind Europe with hemodiafiltration which many believe will help patients live a longer and higher quality of life. The status quo between CMS and the LDO's has not done anything to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of patients every year. Interjecting private enterprise competition through technological innovation will be the best way to break the current provision of dialysis stalemate with all of its dysfunction.
I certainly agree that private enterprise and competition can/does result in the technological innovation that can improve the care of dialysis patients! But when you speak of "traditional America", you often refer to the 60's as if it was a rosy time for all people, and I'm just saying that those were not rosy times for ESRD sufferers or for sufferers of so many horrible maladies that we can now treat, if not cure.
The debate of how much government is appropriate rages on, just as it always has and will forever. While it is PEOPLE who innovate, that doesn't mean that government can't help. Some biomedical research needs a lot of funding, and private sources don't always answer the call.
I wonder if in "traditional America", hospital charges are as mysterious as they are now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/hospital-prices-cost-differences_n_3232678.html
Is this something the government should address?
Not at all Moosemom. Lets stick to the narrow point of this thread and the specific aspect we were discussing from YOUR questions on healthcare. I am glad that my grandchildren can grow up without the racism of the 50's and 60's. Is not that a blessing for everyone?
I oppose oppression no matter what form it takes whether in the organized racism against the blacks or in the loss of civil rights by our government in recent years not just under Obama, but Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. We see criminalization of ordinary behaviors more and more where people can easily commit felonies and not even have a clue that it is a felony.
Hospital charges come simply from the unfunded Federal mandates to care for all people no matter their ability to pay under EMTALA.
http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html?redirect=/emtala/
This was a law enacted during the Reagan administration to prevent patient dumping. However, it has cost hospitals millions of dollars and forced thousands of hospitals to shut down their emergency departments since that is how most of the people enter a hospital without the ability to pay. Many hospitals have closed because of this. I am not sure if in the end, EMTALA has done more damage to our health care system than it helped. In addition, with the number of ER's closed, access to emergency care is worse than it was before EMTALA.
As far as the government helping? Sorry, the government has a very poor track record on that front. The recent debacles with green energy companies under Obama is an example of wasting billions of tax payer monies.
The 1960's is an example of how private enterprise did in fact put dialysis treatment on the map. Remember, other than a small portion of folks treated in the VA, it was private funding for dialysis until 1973 and thousands of people were saved by Scribner's "noble experiment" as he called it. It was the government that failed to intervene during the 60's except for some state grants but the Feds did not impact care substantially until 1973.
When the Feds became involved, they also did so in such a way that the greed and avarice of the LDO's took over the industry and today, the LDO's in cahoots with CMS are giving us the worlds worst developed nation's outcomes. The government takeover of the ESRD program is filled with startling fraud and abuse and death and misery today from inadequate treatments. Sorry, but the ESRD program is not an example of wonderful outcomes with government control, just the opposite. The problem with dialysis lays squarely at the foot of CMS and congress who fail to monitor the LDO's or provide common sense and proven treatments such as extended dialysis to enough patients despite the lip service that they give to advocates.
It is my fear that the quality of health care for all patients under the government run Obamacare will end up with similar quality to that of the ESRD program which no one with their right mind would choose as their renal replacement therapy if they only truly understood the ability of home hemo and extended home hemo to reduce the "expected" side effects of dialysis. I never get nauseous, hardly ever get cramps, headaches, dizziness, or intradialytic hypotension. These "expected" complications are all iatrogenic and in most instances avoidable with modification of dialysis protocols. Instead, with the dialysis industrial complex in cahoots with CMS, people have fast, violent dialysis sessions to maximize LDO prophets. Is that how we wish to see all of our healthcare when Obamacare takes over control of everyone's healthcare.
I hope not and I pray not, but I believe that is exactly what will happen to health care in America and that is the concern of many of my friends who are physicians as well.
-
Well, now my questions have become less of "what is traditional America" and more of "what would certain aspects of life be like if we still lived in 'traditional America'".
So, Hemodoc, what do you think dialysis/healthcare would look like if the government in the form of Medicare/CMS had not intervened?
What do you think our healthcare system would look like if we still lived in "traditional America" but had modern America's health woes? (In traditional America, it was actually thought that autism was caused by "refrigerator mothers". )
If the ACA were to be overturned or for whatever reason not implemented, do you think that what we would be left with would be more in line with the values of "traditional America"?
Do you think there is no place for the NIH?
-
Sorry Bill, no agenda here. I have never been a fan of Obamacare which you know and understand. Out of respect to you, I have not voiced that concern on my blog or in yours while I was writing for you.
So, no, I haven't gone so far as to have an agenda. I simply thought we were involved in a discussion on this issue. Is that having an agenda? ???
Blog all you want but as always using primary sources is what makes a good and useful blog post. I didn't say you have an agenda, I pointed out that the articles you linked to to support your position, misrepresented what the CBO wrote. All the Obamacare articles you linked to commented on various CBO reports and purposely mislead the reader by strategic use of ellipsis (...) You seem quite unconcerned that the articles were designed to mislead which does make one wonder why.
-
Well, now my questions have become less of "what is traditional America" and more of "what would certain aspects of life be like if we still lived in 'traditional America'".
So, Hemodoc, what do you think dialysis/healthcare would look like if the government in the form of Medicare/CMS had not intervened?
What do you think our healthcare system would look like if we still lived in "traditional America" but had modern America's health woes? (In traditional America, it was actually thought that autism was caused by "refrigerator mothers". )
If the ACA were to be overturned or for whatever reason not implemented, do you think that what we would be left with would be more in line with the values of "traditional America"?
Do you think there is no place for the NIH?
Dear Moosemom, you know you have a habit of asking questions that no one can really answer.
But here goes nothing.
Traditional American medicine is focussed on the doctor-patient relationship following the protocols and philosophy of Sir William Osler, the father of modern internal medicine. The hallmark was a doctor acting in his patient's best interest and the decision making level was between doctor and patient only.
While I am a fan of integrated medicine, I must couch that opinion in the manner in which I was able to practice medicine at Kaiser. We did not have to get prospective approval for most of what we did. In that instance, the doctor-patient relationship was the point of decision making. Unfortunately, not all integrated medical systems run in that manner giving the doctors a wide range of freedom to decide without seeking prior approval.
Unfortunately, since we are heading into a European style medical system, we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance. Instead of NICE as the Brits have, we will have PCORI doing comparative effectiveness research. The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others. As a physician, there are times where we try lower effective treatments in patients who have failed to respond to other treatment modalities. In some cases, the patients respond well even though the data would suggest it is a bit of a long shot.
In England, many treatment options are limited by NICE which won't pay for many of the treatments currently available in the US. To change that policy, people have to lobby their representatives to over ride the NICE recommendations.
In such a system, we may find situations like the Brits where treatment failures will have fewer alternative treatment options available. Having politicians determine what should be determined by the doctor and the patient in private is not the way I would want to practice medicine.
-
Unfortunately, since we are heading into a European style medical system, we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance. Instead of NICE as the Brits have, we will have PCORI doing comparative effectiveness research. The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others. As a physician, there are times where we try lower effective treatments in patients who have failed to respond to other treatment modalities. In some cases, the patients respond well even though the data would suggest it is a bit of a long shot.
we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance
This would be shocking if it were true - other than Terri Schiavo [Edit] and reproductive healthcare give one example. As someone who has and continues to participate with several PCORI projects - from initiation through completion - I know you are not accurately describing CER or PCORI; please stop posting things that are not true. I feel obliged to point this out each time you do it.
-
Sorry Bill, no agenda here. I have never been a fan of Obamacare which you know and understand. Out of respect to you, I have not voiced that concern on my blog or in yours while I was writing for you.
So, no, I haven't gone so far as to have an agenda. I simply thought we were involved in a discussion on this issue. Is that having an agenda? ???
Blog all you want but as always using primary sources is what makes a good and useful blog post. I didn't say you have an agenda, I pointed out that the articles you linked to to support your position, misrepresented what the CBO wrote. All the Obamacare articles you linked to commented on various CBO reports and purposely mislead the reader by strategic use of ellipsis (...) You seem quite unconcerned that the articles were designed to mislead which does make one wonder why.
Bill, the bottom line is that the incentives in Obamacare favor employers paying the fines instead of the health insurance rates which have risen dramatically since the ACA passed. The articles I linked to reflected that fact and the CBO projection of 7 million to as many as 20 million who will lose their insurance and switch over to the exchanges.
-
Sorry Bill, no agenda here. I have never been a fan of Obamacare which you know and understand. Out of respect to you, I have not voiced that concern on my blog or in yours while I was writing for you.
So, no, I haven't gone so far as to have an agenda. I simply thought we were involved in a discussion on this issue. Is that having an agenda? ???
Blog all you want but as always using primary sources is what makes a good and useful blog post. I didn't say you have an agenda, I pointed out that the articles you linked to to support your position, misrepresented what the CBO wrote. All the Obamacare articles you linked to commented on various CBO reports and purposely mislead the reader by strategic use of ellipsis (...) You seem quite unconcerned that the articles were designed to mislead which does make one wonder why.
Bill, the bottom line is that the incentives in Obamacare favor employers paying the fines instead of the health insurance rates which have risen dramatically since the ACA passed. The articles I linked to reflected that fact and the CBO projection of 7 million to as many as 20 million who will lose their insurance and switch over to the exchanges.
That's the whole point. The report(s) didn't say that. The quotes from the reports that I posted didn't say that - the articles use ellipses to say that but that is misleading and has clearly caused confusion.
-
Unfortunately, since we are heading into a European style medical system, we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance. Instead of NICE as the Brits have, we will have PCORI doing comparative effectiveness research. The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others. As a physician, there are times where we try lower effective treatments in patients who have failed to respond to other treatment modalities. In some cases, the patients respond well even though the data would suggest it is a bit of a long shot.
we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance
This would be shocking if it were true - other than Terri Schiavo give one example. As someone who has and continues to participate with several PCORI projects - from initiation through completion - I know you are not accurately describing CER or PCORI; please stop posting things that are not true. I feel obliged to point this out each time you do it.
Bill, I am also on PCORI teams as well. Back to my comment which I don't believe you read accurately: "The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others."
That is indeed a legitimate concern voiced by many, especially within the physicians community. So I am not sure what you believe I have described inaccurately.
-
Unfortunately, since we are heading into a European style medical system, we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance. Instead of NICE as the Brits have, we will have PCORI doing comparative effectiveness research. The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others. As a physician, there are times where we try lower effective treatments in patients who have failed to respond to other treatment modalities. In some cases, the patients respond well even though the data would suggest it is a bit of a long shot.
we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance
This would be shocking if it were true - other than Terri Schiavo give one example. As someone who has and continues to participate with several PCORI projects - from initiation through completion - I know you are not accurately describing CER or PCORI; please stop posting things that are not true. I feel obliged to point this out each time you do it.
Bill, I am also on PCORI teams as well. Back to my comment which I don't believe you read accurately: "The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others."
That is indeed a legitimate concern voiced by many, especially within the physicians community. So I am not sure what you believe I have described inaccurately.
Then you know that PCORI is a real thing that has an actual mission and is constrained by federal legislation to conduct research to provide information about the best available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make more informed decisions. PCORI’s research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options. PCORI does CER through data mining and retrospective analysis, it isn't a plot to substitute politician's judgement for a physician's.
-
Unfortunately, since we are heading into a European style medical system, we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance. Instead of NICE as the Brits have, we will have PCORI doing comparative effectiveness research. The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others. As a physician, there are times where we try lower effective treatments in patients who have failed to respond to other treatment modalities. In some cases, the patients respond well even though the data would suggest it is a bit of a long shot.
we will now have politicians telling doctors what to do at the patients bedside just as happens in the NHS in England for instance
This would be shocking if it were true - other than Terri Schiavo give one example. As someone who has and continues to participate with several PCORI projects - from initiation through completion - I know you are not accurately describing CER or PCORI; please stop posting things that are not true. I feel obliged to point this out each time you do it.
Bill, I am also on PCORI teams as well. Back to my comment which I don't believe you read accurately: "The issue is whether the CER outcomes will become limiting to those treatments that do not have significantly better benefits than others."
That is indeed a legitimate concern voiced by many, especially within the physicians community. So I am not sure what you believe I have described inaccurately.
Then you know that PCORI is a real thing that has an actual mission and is constrained by federal legislation to conduct research to provide information about the best available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make more informed decisions. PCORI’s research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options. PCORI does CER through data mining and retrospective analysis, it isn't a plot to substitute politician's judgement for a physician's.
Come, come Bill. Let's talk turkey. You and I both know that PCORI is not a decision making organization, they conduct CER just as you state. However, the question remains how will ACA deal with CER? As I noted, the ACA is shaping much of its details based on the NHS in Britain. The NHS has a governing body called NICE which stands for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Their job is essentially rationing health care to Brits, simply cutting to the chase. They use comparative effectiveness research of their own.
The ACA has an advisory board called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. The IPAB was designed specifically on the NICE model in England. This is perhaps the MOST controversial aspect of Obamacare and is where the "death panels" originated for those in opposition. The AMA which supports ACA in general strongly opposes this provision and has lobbied to repeal it.
https://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/independent-payment-advisory-board.page
So, no, I never stated PCORI was in some sort of alleged conspiracy. I did voice my legitimate concern on how the government will use that information. The IPAB is a very controversial and potentially dangerous part of Obamacare and the AMA has good reason to oppose this. So, no conspiracy at all. Just real, legitimate concerns. I would suggest all learn what the IPAB is all about and urge their representatives to repeal it since it has powers even over congress that must have a 60 vote senate majority vote to over ride the IPAB "recommendations."
Even the left leaning Huffington Post is against IPAB:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-thorpe/negatively-affect-patient-access_b_3188202.html
So, no conspiracy, just legitimate concerns from both the left and the right. IPAB is a uniquely unifying issue.
-
I happened to be paying attention during the whole death panel nonsense and remember it was the republican reaction to the proposal to pay physicians for providing voluntary end of life counseling. It was complete and utter nonsense then and it is complete and utter nonsense now. This is the first time you've mentioned the IPBA in this thread so yeah another effort you can misconstrue. I don't think talking turkey means what you think it means.
-
I happened to be paying attention during the whole death panel nonsense and remember it was the republican reaction to the proposal to pay physicians for providing voluntary end of life counseling. It was complete and utter nonsense then and it is complete and utter nonsense now. This is the first time you've mentioned the IPBA in this thread so yeah another effort you can misconstrue. I don't think talking turkey means what you think it means.
Sorry Bill, are you somehow denying that the IPAB exists by implying my comment was utter nonsense???? Just who is it that is making an effort to misconstrue???? Is the AMA opposition utter nonsense???? Is the Huffington Post commentary utter nonsense????
Talk turkey (mainly American)
to discuss a problem in a serious way with a real intention to solve it If the two sides in the dispute are to meet, they must be prepared to talk turkey.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/talk+turkey
For those here in IHD that support AARP, I would recommend learning about the IPAB and ask AARP why they want more power to this unelected group while the AMA, Huff Post and many, many other concerned people and groups want the IPAB abolished.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/health/option-strengthen-the-independent-payment-advisory-board-AARP-ppi-health.pdf
-
I don't think you understood what I wrote - I am denying that talk of the death panels in 2009/10 had anything to to do with the IPAB - when you wrote:
"This is perhaps the MOST controversial aspect of Obamacare and is where the "death panels" originated for those in opposition."
you were misstating the origin of the death panel nonsense.
In addition I am saying that you keep changing what it is you are objecting to - first it was people moving from EGHP to the Exchanges and then it was CER and PCORI and now it is the IPAB.
And my point is that your post is not an example of talking turkey it is an example of obfuscation, which is an intransitive verb meaning to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
-
:urcrazy;
Bill: I stopped arguing with Hemodoc. When you make a valid point he just completely ignores it or changes the point of the conversation. :stressed; He has admitted to being a Troll. He said he has made posts just to upset people. ::) I know for a fact that he has posted complete lies. :o When he gets frustrated he resorts to name calling and tries to be patronizing.
So glad there is one less person "packing" in southern California! :yahoo;
I have been following this thread and just shaking my head. ::)
-
I don't think you understood what I wrote - I am denying that talk of the death panels in 2009/10 had anything to to do with the IPAB - when you wrote:
"This is perhaps the MOST controversial aspect of Obamacare and is where the "death panels" originated for those in opposition."
you were misstating the origin of the death panel nonsense.
In addition I am saying that you keep changing what it is you are objecting to - first it was people moving from EGHP to the Exchanges and then it was CER and PCORI and now it is the IPAB.
And my point is that your post is not an example of talking turkey it is an example of obfuscation, which is an intransitive verb meaning to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
Bill, yes of course you are correct. Sarah Palin made a comment about death panels and the language authorizing end of life counseling which is a standard part of medical practice. She was deservedly criticized by both the left and the right for that absurd comment.
However, the "death panel" discussion resurrected itself after the IPAB and it is actually referred to that in many right wing blogs today. Whether you like it or disagree with it, death panels is in wide use for the IPAB today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/who-wants-to-sit-in-the-hot-seat-on-a-federal-health-care-panel/
Now, conversations evolve in a natural flow. I noted that CER is now in vogue but the question was how that information will be used. You juxtaposed something about PCORI in some sort of alleged conspiracy allegation on my part and I then clarified as we both know that PCORI only does research, it is the IPAB that has the decision making power. So that was in response to your allegation of some sort of conspiracy which I never ventured. Just legitimate questions about a huge program taking over the entire health care industry in America. Not sure why you appear not to want an honest discussion of controversial issues.
-
:urcrazy;
Bill: I stopped arguing with Hemodoc. When you make a valid point he just completely ignores it or changes the point of the conversation. :stressed; He has admitted to being a Troll. He said he has made posts just to upset people. ::) I know for a fact that he has posted complete lies. :o When he gets frustrated he resorts to name calling and tries to be patronizing.
So glad there is one less person "packing" in southern California! :yahoo;
I have been following this thread and just shaking my head. ::)
Dear YL, I have nothing against you and if I have in anyway offended you, I humble beg your forgiveness. However, all that you state about me is patently false. No name calling, no lies, just an honest discussion about a very controversial government takeover of our health care system. Is that not the purpose of the a discussion forum????
-
:urcrazy;
Bill: I stopped arguing with Hemodoc. When you make a valid point he just completely ignores it or changes the point of the conversation. :stressed; He has admitted to being a Troll. He said he has made posts just to upset people. ::) I know for a fact that he has posted complete lies. :o When he gets frustrated he resorts to name calling and tries to be patronizing.
So glad there is one less person "packing" in southern California! :yahoo;
I have been following this thread and just shaking my head. ::)
Dear YL, I have nothing against you and if I have in anyway offended you, I humble beg your forgiveness. However, all that you state about me is patently false. No name calling, no lies, just an honest discussion about a very controversial government takeover of our health care system. Is that not the purpose of the a discussion forum????
Wrong again! EVERYTHING I posted was the absolute truth.
-
:urcrazy;
Bill: I stopped arguing with Hemodoc. When you make a valid point he just completely ignores it or changes the point of the conversation. :stressed; He has admitted to being a Troll. He said he has made posts just to upset people. ::) I know for a fact that he has posted complete lies. :o When he gets frustrated he resorts to name calling and tries to be patronizing.
So glad there is one less person "packing" in southern California! :yahoo;
I have been following this thread and just shaking my head. ::)
Dear YL, I have nothing against you and if I have in anyway offended you, I humble beg your forgiveness. However, all that you state about me is patently false. No name calling, no lies, just an honest discussion about a very controversial government takeover of our health care system. Is that not the purpose of the a discussion forum????
Wrong again! EVERYTHING I posted was the absolute truth.
No problem YL. Have a great day.
-
I don't think you understood what I wrote - I am denying that talk of the death panels in 2009/10 had anything to to do with the IPAB - when you wrote:
"This is perhaps the MOST controversial aspect of Obamacare and is where the "death panels" originated for those in opposition."
you were misstating the origin of the death panel nonsense.
In addition I am saying that you keep changing what it is you are objecting to - first it was people moving from EGHP to the Exchanges and then it was CER and PCORI and now it is the IPAB.
And my point is that your post is not an example of talking turkey it is an example of obfuscation, which is an intransitive verb meaning to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
Bill, yes of course you are correct. Sarah Palin made a comment about death panels and the language authorizing end of life counseling which is a standard part of medical practice. She was deservedly criticized by both the left and the right for that absurd comment.
However, the "death panel" discussion resurrected itself after the IPAB and it is actually referred to that in many right wing blogs today. Whether you like it or disagree with it, death panels is in wide use for the IPAB today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/who-wants-to-sit-in-the-hot-seat-on-a-federal-health-care-panel/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/who-wants-to-sit-in-the-hot-seat-on-a-federal-health-care-panel/)
Now, conversations evolve in a natural flow. I noted that CER is now in vogue but the question was how that information will be used. You juxtaposed something about PCORI in some sort of alleged conspiracy allegation on my part and I then clarified as we both know that PCORI only does research, it is the IPAB that has the decision making power. So that was in response to your allegation of some sort of conspiracy which I never ventured. Just legitimate questions about a huge program taking over the entire health care industry in America. Not sure why you appear not to want an honest discussion of controversial issues.
Of course the Republicans are resurrecting the Death Panel canard, I'm sure they think that since it worked once it will work again. And I don't remember anyone in the Republican political leadership disabusing Palin of the talking point at the time, I remember the Republican leadership running with it.
The latest talk about the IPAB is in the same vein, sowing canard seeds to harvest during next year's Congressional campaigns. The IPAB is an important enough topic I'll start a new thread and this one can return to discussions of tri cornered hats and such.
-
The IPAB is an important enough topic I'll start a new thread and this one can return to discussions of tri cornered hats and such.
"...tri cornered hats and such." LOL!
It would be great if you would start a new thread. I've never heard of IPAB or CER or PCORI or those other bits and bobs from the alphabet.
TTFN
-
TTFN
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
I enjoyed your ta-ta's :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
Aleta
-
I don't think you understood what I wrote - I am denying that talk of the death panels in 2009/10 had anything to to do with the IPAB - when you wrote:
"This is perhaps the MOST controversial aspect of Obamacare and is where the "death panels" originated for those in opposition."
you were misstating the origin of the death panel nonsense.
In addition I am saying that you keep changing what it is you are objecting to - first it was people moving from EGHP to the Exchanges and then it was CER and PCORI and now it is the IPAB.
And my point is that your post is not an example of talking turkey it is an example of obfuscation, which is an intransitive verb meaning to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
Bill, yes of course you are correct. Sarah Palin made a comment about death panels and the language authorizing end of life counseling which is a standard part of medical practice. She was deservedly criticized by both the left and the right for that absurd comment.
However, the "death panel" discussion resurrected itself after the IPAB and it is actually referred to that in many right wing blogs today. Whether you like it or disagree with it, death panels is in wide use for the IPAB today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/who-wants-to-sit-in-the-hot-seat-on-a-federal-health-care-panel/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/who-wants-to-sit-in-the-hot-seat-on-a-federal-health-care-panel/)
Now, conversations evolve in a natural flow. I noted that CER is now in vogue but the question was how that information will be used. You juxtaposed something about PCORI in some sort of alleged conspiracy allegation on my part and I then clarified as we both know that PCORI only does research, it is the IPAB that has the decision making power. So that was in response to your allegation of some sort of conspiracy which I never ventured. Just legitimate questions about a huge program taking over the entire health care industry in America. Not sure why you appear not to want an honest discussion of controversial issues.
Of course the Republicans are resurrecting the Death Panel canard, I'm sure they think that since it worked once it will work again. And I don't remember anyone in the Republican political leadership disabusing Palin of the talking point at the time, I remember the Republican leadership running with it.
The latest talk about the IPAB is in the same vein, sowing canard seeds to harvest during next year's Congressional campaigns. The IPAB is an important enough topic I'll start a new thread and this one can return to discussions of tri cornered hats and such.
Actually, no need Bill. I will simply let all to their own beliefs. It seems discussing diverse opinions on IHD is a no go any longer with the exception of Moosemom alone. Good luck with the upcoming Obamacare implementation.