Since we're sharing, I voted for Obama/Biden yesterday. Intelligence, vision, charisma, judgment. That, and a progressive economic policy.
Who bombed the World Trade Centers in the 1990s?
Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 50.
Who hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 American citizens?
Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 50.
Who is Barack Obama?
A Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 50.
Are we seeing a pattern?
Who is Barack Obama?
A Muslim male between the ages of 17 and 50.
John, that is simply not true. I don't know who told you that, but they were either lying or lied to themselves.
It was an email forward that was going around. That's the other reason I don't vote. How to separate fact from fiction?
I personally wouldn't vote for him (if I were to vote) because he wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban, despite piles and piles of evidence that it did absolutely nothing to slow down crime.
An armed society is a polite society.
Why I like Sarah Palin's choice...
1. I had significant worries that John McCain was going to try to destroy the conservative element in the Republican Party (aka 'the base'). He has gone out of his way in previous years to be offensive to conservatives.
2. McCain supported things like the McCain-Feingold "Incumbency Protection Act" which limited free speech by campaign financing. Since I'm close to a 1st Amendment absolutist thats bad, very bad.
3. Palin is a real conservative, a happy warrior. One saying I've made before is "RINOs lose, real conservatives who are happy and bold win."
4. She seems to represent the standard conservative of the R party. Strong national defense, sound values, and capitalism are the three main points of an American conservative.
5. American conservatism is the political style that most respects the Founder's vision, and has the best chance of preserving it.
6. She not only talks the talk, but she lives it. Unlike most pols, she doesn't have to get her picture taken out hunting. She is the Real Thing, at least much more so than most other pols.
7. She busted the corrupt Republican party in Alaska, and seeing as the national party of R's is corrupt, I hope she can do likewise.
8. She's got grace and style and wit.
9. She's not afraid of the Dems.
10. She's goal oriented,a nd tends to accomplish her goals.
11. 80% approval rate in her state....that's phenomenal.
12. Obama hung around a domestic terrorist. The Weathermen tried to murder a judge and his nine year old child. To say William Ayers is scum is to insult scum.
13. Obama got 150 million bucks to donate to help the Chicago schools...with zero effect.
14. When asked if he would favor a tax even if it brought in LESS money, he still favored it.
15. The way his surrogates have attacked an ordinary American, Joe the Plumber. Get your jackboots cheap!
16. The way he said he would be the post-racial candidate, but played the race card despite the R's avoiding race.
17. If Palin is not experienced enough to be Vice President, then Obama, who is less experienced, is not enough to be President.
18. "Typical white person"
19. Its said that his pastor for 20 years was a Black Liberation theology pastor. I'm not an expert, but one of the founders of this said that they didn't want God if he didn't fight on the blacks side against the whites.
I've heard it alleged that this pastor is strongly racist, and I admit this is distinctly possible.
20. Most liberal senator in the Senate...and liberalism is a failed ideology.
I voted once. The thing that I remember was an issue on tax on soda pop. It was my understanding that voting no on this would eliminate tax on soda pop, and it would be untaxed like every other food item. I was completely for that, so I voted no. I heard on the radio that it failed by exactly 7 votes.
Went to the convenience store to get some soda, gleefully happy that it was no longer taxed. The clerk rang it up, with tax. I protested, saying that the pop tax had been voted down. There was no tax on pop anymore. The clerk showed me a newspaper. The pop tax was for school funding. Using the tax money collected from the sale of soda to help fund schools. I was one of the 7 voters who voted that down. I haven't voted since. It's too hard to figure out.
I have too little time this month to get into much detail here.
Harry, I am surprised at the foundations for your objections, because they are factually erroneous. Your dates for the Gospels are much too late--late nineteenth century theories discredited by twentieth century scholarship which are still maintained in certain theologically liberal circles because the alternative is to admit that the documents are as reliable as such experts as Bruce Metzger assert. Your notion of how the canon was established is rank speculation which flies in the face of the evidence. You have bought the idea that Paul and Jesus are teaching different beliefs--those who say so seem not to understand what either of them taught.
As to those Christians who give Christianity a black eye, well, as I've written elsewhere, we too have our munchkins, powergamers, and rules lawyers, and would rather not admit that they are part of our group. They may be the most vocal and observable, but they do not represent the majority of us.
I am tolerant. That means that I believe that certain unproved statements are true and will defend those statements in a reasonable way, but accept that not everyone will agree with me and that I must live cooperatively in a world in which some hold very different beliefs or opinions. Tolerance is coexisting amicably with people you believe are wrong about something that matters. The modern liberal concept of religious tolerance is actually a belief that all religions are nonsense anyway, so it shouldn't ever matter to anyone what anyone else believes. I do not consider that tolerant.
Eric cited C. S. Lewis; I will do so as well. History is littered with intellectual efforts to disprove Christianity. In every case, they are straw man arguments: the one making the attack defined Christianity in a way no Christian would have recognized, and then demolished the beliefs he, the attacker, had attributed to that faith. This is not surprising, really, and it is in some ways the fault of the church--from generation to generation, century to century, we have worked to restate the Truth in forms that would be grasped by the people of that time, but too often we have then elevated those restatements to replace the Truth itself, locking sections of our fellowship into statements whose meaning was a response to a moment in time and space, which can no longer be understood absent that context. It is the misunderstandings of Christianity, by those within and without, that lead to these confusions. What you have rejected is not Christianity, and your reasons for doing so are not based in fact as you think.
I recommend Lee Stroebel's book The Case for Christ if you wish to get some solid modern scholarship about the New Testament. (Stroebel is not a scholar but a journalist who in the course of the book interviews some of the world's top scholars and organizes their information concisely.) I will also offer to give you one of the proof copies of my forthcoming book Do You Trust Me?, which shows how it is that the religions of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul are all really the same religion, and that Christianity is not a changed Judaism but a return to that which Judaism was always intended to be from the beginning.
--M. J. Young
Oh--and Judeo-Christian theology is not patristic. When God created Man in "His" own image, He created the one creature both male and female, later dividing the female portions to a separate creature. God is both male and female, as the ancient rabbis recognized. We use masculine pronouns to describe Him because languages descended from Protohittite, from Sanskrit to Greek to Latin, all use masculine pronouns for persons of unknown or unspecified gender and for masculine-concept objects, feminine pronouns specifically for women and feminine-concept objects, and neuter pronouns for neuter-concept objects but never for persons.
--M. J. Young