Rooster7

Excellent point Ed. Just like lobotomies were once commonly practiced - calling something a "medical procedure" does not make it noble or even humane. And in the case of abortion I believe it is murder (whether or not the participants realize it or not)..

Excellent point Ed. Just like lobotomies were once commonly practiced - calling something a "medical procedure" does not make it noble or even humane. And in the case of abortion I believe it is murder (whether or not the participants realize it or not)..

Merlyn, Being an atheist, I imagine it was really easy for you to over simplify my response and to form that conclusion. Regardless, whatever thought pops into your head, it surely must be the right answer. Some folks might think that's a nice place to be - answerable to only one's self. As for me, I prefer to bow down to a Holy God.

I don't claim to have a full understanding of God. The Bible clearly teaches that God's ways are not man's ways. Would I kill children if God commanded me to do so? I would try to do whatever God might command me to do. That does not mean my obedience would come easily or even that I would succeed. But if I did rebel, I would be wrong. God's righteousness is absolute and unquestionable. I am not going to conjecture as to why God commanded Joshua to kill everyone in that city. However, I know that God has ultimate control over everyone's destiny. So, while we may morn the passing of ou

The whole idea of Oliver North expounding on values and morals is ridiculous. The above is offered by a man, who does not recognize an immutable foundation or force for his own morality. Ridiculous indeed! Regardless of what Oliver North may or may not have done, the compass he proclaims is true. It's much superior to the ponderings of any man or any collection of men - something no atheist can honestly declare. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I could provide you with links to many essays by learned people who assert the same thing, but I doubt you would give them credence. Sounds like youre taking this a little personally. Let me assure you, I know many learned people as well and they do not share your view. And interestingly, I doubt you would give them much credence. So why even go there try arguing the points presented. Christianity never really crossed my mind, but it seemed unfair to drag Jews into your argument when they would, in reality, want to have nothing to do with putting "God" on our money. I dont p

DanKroh, Let's keep the argument meaningful. I agree: Orthodox Jews may have a problem with God's name being printed on money (or anywhere else for that matter). And, if it pleases you, I will also acknowledge: "In God We Trust" has not been adopted by Christians or Jews as their official motto. But, I can't seriously believe that my original post led you to believe that I thought otherwise. The above red herrings which you seem to want focus your argument upon, are not substantive to the discussion. I intended to make two simple points: 1) In God We Trust ha

DanKroh, Still trying to get the story right... IN GOD WE TRUST Your description of events implies that the inspiration behind these words was mere political appeasement, meant to encourage a generation confronted with the Cold War. While not an official motto, most Americans embraced those words nearly 100 years before Stalins reign. In God we trust is not a transitory sentiment brought about by the fear of communism or panic stirred by McCarthyism. It was, and has been, the motto of Christians and Jews for thousands of years - and was adopted by this country because it refl

I like Oliver North. I agree with many of his sentiments. And let's the get the story right and complete: According to the U.S. Dept. of Treasury, the motto 'In God We Trust' came about not at the time of the Constitutional Conventions, but due to increased pressures to recognize God on coins and money during the Civil War. In April 22, 1864, Congress passed an Amendment authorizing the motto to be placed on the two-cent coin. It appeared on various coins throughout the years, and appeared on paper money in 1957

Rooster will weigh in with his predictable lightening rods. Guilty as charged, Im sure. I like to cut to the chase. If you breakdown most of these issues - it comes down to a few core beliefs (i.e. Does God exist? Who is God? Is human nature good or bad? What is our purpose in life?). In you have a good idea as to what you believe (in regard to the aforementioned questions) and especially if you are confident in the answers, then you too will be fairly blunt in your reaction to most other questions and just as passionate as I (and many others). So if I offend, I apologize to th

Newbie Den Leader, Just so you dont misinterpret where I am coming from, I am on your side of this debate. However, in response to this: In my particular scenario, we have reminded the church leaders that the Scouts are not required to be members of the church in order to be in the Pack. Are you aware that the church leaders are able to change that policy at will? That is to say, as the CO, they are free to establish a policy which would restrict membership to boys who are tied to their organization (i.e. families belonging to the church, boys attending a particular public or

Some Christian churches even require an interview with elders before being accepted into the congregation. What would be the purpose of that except to restrict membership? Yes that is the point, to restrict the membership at least this is the rationale for many Presbyterian churches. However, that does not mean one cannot attend their church services, participate in fellowship, or join a bible study. So why would a church stop someone from becoming a member? Two things happen when one becomes a member: 1) The church publicly recognizes that person as a believer someone who be

GB, You may believe as you will, but you have damned me to hell. No one chooses a faith so they can have the satisfaction of saying to someone else, you are damned to hell. My heart, mind, and soul, tells me that the bible is true. I read it, and God speaks to me. Whether I am the only one or billions believe as I do matters not to me. I know who Christ is, what he has done for us, and I understand why we should all be on our knees accepting his gift. With that said, I did not write the Gospels I just believe them. So if the Gospels speak to you and the news does not appear to

funscout, Although Christians oppose the practice of homosexuality, we should never reject a Homosexual in our church. We are taught that you can hate the sin, but should still love the sinner. Besides, it doesn't make sense to turn away those who don't live up to the Christian ideals. After all, what is church for? It is to allow a fellowship with each other and with God, in order that we can HELP each other grow spiritually. In general, I agree. No one is qualified to be in the church if one must be without sin. However, I think there is a line to be drawn that is biblical. If

BrentAllen, I absolutely agree with your post. Too often - parents, teachers, and other adults try to become a peer to children - it's not the right way to go. That's not to say we cannot be friendly, but there's a line that adults should not cross - and there's a line that a boy should not cross.

Saddam was a bad guy. Duh! So are quite a few others scattered around the planet. We haven't made a move on N. Korea. We haven't rescued the people of Iran. We haven't liberated Myanmar. And there are plenty more. We didn't take Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. Are we to take on all enemies at the same time? Is this the WWF? He was a bad guy back when we were supplying arms to him and he was an ally. That didn't seem to bother us then. So its black and white when it comes to U.S. diplomacy? We either declare war or we fully support our allies? Please you really have

SR540Beaver, Yes, individuals allude the police all the time. They are one person out of millions of US citizens and they have the ability to move across 48 states at will. Now, if the police were looking for say 1,000 people as a group, it would be much harder to allude detection. Except were not looking for 1,000 people or even one person, were looking for an inanimate object which has no going needs to address. Barrels of chemical or biological weapons do not require upkeep. Let's remember, Saddam was supposed to have bunkered "stockpiles" of WMD's and factories to produce t

So you have quotes from the Presidents inspection team stating that its impossible for there to be any hidden WMDs in Iraqthat theres no way to hide them in the ground undetected. And by the way, this has nothing to do with doing the job right. It has to do with our limitations. I know we all like to believe that the US government can control all events as long as we have the right administration overseeing it but lets get real for a second.

From all indications, it was all destroyed prior to the war. Perhapsbut what makes WMDs so easy to find? We have fugitives in this country that have managed to allude being detected by millions of law enforcement agents. These are individuals who presumably need water, air, and food and eventually must go about in the public to find the same. Whos to say what might be buried in the desert? With billions of oil revenues to spend and a neglected populace, you find it so improbable that Hussein found a way to hide these weapons indefinitely for a rainy day? Dont you think these people

In affect, its the same thing. If no one can say something positive about the council, then lets assume that jkhny is a reliable source and all these horrible things he's saying must be true. Remarkably close to guilty until proven innocent to me.

Seems to me that Rooster pretty much represents the other side of what might be called the "screaming Bush hater" side of the coin. That would be the side that lovingly supports Bush regardless of his actions and can see no wrong in anything he does. I doubt very much that theres anything I can say that would change your mind in regard to that conclusion. However, the facts are, while I do like Bush a lot, I never said the port deal was a good idea. It may be a horrible idea. Its too early for me or anyone else to really know. Still, I happen to believe that our president, his admini

Lisabob, To tell you the truth, Im not sure where I stand on this port deal myself. Unlike you though, I feel the administration has done an excellent job of analyzing this countrys enemies, as well as its allies, and have made good decisions in response to the same. In regard to this particular issue, I am waiting to hear more. Most of this thread has not been very informative unless you believe cherry picking headlines and quotes from equally uninformed, yet speculative reporters and overexcited political commentators is an effective way of getting an intelligent synopsis. Frankly,

You know what really burns my butt - Folks who purposely tell only half the story. Folks who are so intent on being right that theyre willing to mislead others just so they can claim their victory. Case in point: From the AP - WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent. The department's early objections were settled later in the government's revi

I can ingest and provide rejoinders to arguments that are founded on reason. This thread is not about reason. Its merely a vehicle to bash Bush. Thats the way I see itbut hey, who am I just another ultraconservative Republican thats trying push my bigoted and repressive Right Wing Christian values on the likes of Backpacker.

John, youre wasting your breath. This thread is a case study for mob mentality. Whenever theres cause for concern (real or imagined, great or small) or a possibility to misinterpret events (which is quite possible for the truly well informed, much less those who chase headlines) the disgruntled and disillusioned always seek their prey. At the end of the day, they must have their pound of flesh. If respect for the truth, much less for ones leader, be a casualty - do you really think it matters to them?