User Profile: bbmills

Member Since: July 02, 2013


  • July 23, 2013 at 11:14am

    Godwin’s Law proven correct once again

  • July 22, 2013 at 6:56pm

    Obama has messed this up big time. First, he abandoned a single-payer system in the name of political expedience. And now, he won’t even enforce the law he did get passed. The ironic thing about this is that the employer mandate was the worst part of the bill. Congress could make the law better by cutting that part out. There was never any rationale for employers’ providing health insurance. The political reality is that the law is not going to be repealed unless Republicans gain control of the presidency and both houses with a super-majority in the Senate. Yet Republicans continue to proceed as if full repeal is just around the corner. That ship sunk with John Roberts’ deciding vote and Obama’s reelection.

  • July 22, 2013 at 6:40pm

    On second thought, it’s also possible that you just really hate the Democratic Party and think they are a bunch of liars and thieves, and that their commitment to caring for the poor is nothing more than a disingenuous ploy to keep themselves in power. If that is your position, I would not even try to persuade you otherwise. I would only add that the Republican Party is merely the other side of the same coin. It’s a big centralized govt and both sides fight to control it. To the victor goes the spoils. In that sense, our democracy couldn’t be less Christian, and I would be obliged to agree with your sentiment.

  • July 22, 2013 at 5:51pm

    Good point and well said

    Your sentiment is exactly what I’m getting at. You make it clear that you do not want to live in a society where the government has any claim to your wealth in the form of taxes, even if that money will be used to care for the poor and needy. I get that. It’s a political philosophy. Maybe you don’t think any form of non-voluntary taxation for anything is acceptable. I get that too. Maybe you’re an anarchist. Fine by me. What I was getting at is that there seem to be certain things that are acceptable to care passionately about for conservative Christians right now–namely, abortion and gay marriage. It is my opinion that the “political” devotion to those issues has warped what should be a Christian’s primary worldly obligation–to care for the poor and needy and preach the Gospel. I would rather live in a society where people have health care whether they can afford it or not, so that is something I support politically. You (apparently) would rather live in a society where the govt cannot tax you at all involuntarily, and where the moral duty of an individual is entirely separate from the proper function of the government. I would hope we could agree to disagree on those issues and still recognize each other as Christians (and presumably Americans). If we cannot, then I am wrong, and politics really does trump religion. But I hope it doesn’t.

  • July 22, 2013 at 3:22pm

    Maybe I shouldn’t say it’s *the* essential message of the NT, because that could cause honest disagreement. I’ll just say that it is abundantly clear that one of the core teachings of Jesus is to love your neighbor as He loves us. There is no way you can subtract that out of the NT and still have the Gospel. So maybe I should say it’s one of the essential messages of the NT.

  • July 22, 2013 at 3:11pm

    It’s not that I disagree with John 3:16. It’s that I don’t see how the two things can be separated from one another. Once you know that God so loves the world, doesn’t that make you want to love your neighbor in the same way God loves you?

  • July 22, 2013 at 3:09pm

    1. Love God
    2. Love your neighbor as God loves you

    Those are Jesus’ two commandments.

    Maybe it’s open to interpretation?

  • July 22, 2013 at 2:37pm

    There does seem to be a difference in the OT and NT. Why else would Christ have been necessary, if not in some way to provide a correction to the misunderstanding that had prevailed? For example, in the OT if a woman was raped, the punishment for the man who raped her was that he had to marry her. That doesn’t exactly sound like the kinds of things Jesus taught in the NT, and I don’t think it’s something a Christian should believe today. I think you can make a persuasive argument that it wasn’t God that changed, but that our understanding of HIM changed with the incarnation of Jesus. However, there is a clear difference in both the literal laws of the OT and in tone regarding forgiveness and unconditional love when compared to the NT.

  • July 22, 2013 at 2:21pm

    A religious “progressive” can also mean the kind of person who believes the true message of Jesus, the Word of God, has been misinterpreted over the years as the Church has become increasingly mixed with secular authority. This kind of religious progressive might see it as of utmost importance to feed the poor and help those in need because that is what Jesus taught us to do. For this type of person, it might be their sincere opinion that the best way to accomplish what Jesus wants from us is to attempt to build some type of government program that will accomplish that end. The conservative may see this as folly, but a person could come to hold this belief without in any way contradicting what Jesus taught. After all, the essential message of the Gospel is to love your neighbor. Our political system causes enough strife and discord as it is. Please remember that it is possible for someone who follows Jesus to come to a different political conclusion than you do about things like welfare and healthcare. This is not directed at anyone in particular; I just get frustrated when people act like if you are a “real Christian” then you must have a certain political orientation. Nothing could be further from the truth IMO.

    Responses (15) +
  • July 22, 2013 at 7:45am

    On the other hand, it kind of shows how little gay marriage affects heterosexuals.

  • July 21, 2013 at 9:04am

    I could be wrong about Cruz though. He could be liberals’ worst nightmare. I’m not sure how people nationwide feel about he separation of church and state. He seems to not feel like that is of very much importance. Might rub people the wrong way.

  • July 21, 2013 at 8:57am

    Really this just goes to show how much we underestimate the cultural differences between western societies and those of most societies in the Islamic world. Just like the Scandinavian woman in Dubai who was sentenced to jail for having sex outside of marriage after she was raped. These are differences that cannot be bridged by mutual understanding.

  • July 21, 2013 at 8:48am

    I wish them the best in the next election. It is always going to be hard for someone like Cruz to make the case on a national stage for the role religion should play in someone public life. Paul will probably have a better chance as he can express his libertarianism in a secular context.

    Responses (3) +
  • July 21, 2013 at 7:43am

    @mfhorn3 I second that. @thoughtfarming has hit the nail on the head. “Sociojournalism” is exactly what it is!

  • July 20, 2013 at 8:37pm

    Why compare a peace talk to the Holocaust? If Israel doesn’t want to accept the pre-1967 borders, they don’t have to. They are the stronger and more prosperous country. They have 4 options: 1) the status quo. 2) peace plan with two states. 3) absord the palestinians into a single state 4) conquer and expel the palestinians. 4 would be declaring war with every Arab nation, which would only make the current problem worse no matter how successful Israel might be militarily. 3 is unacceptable to Israel b/c they want to maintain a Jewish majority. So it’s either 1 or 2, and it’s almost entirely Israel’s decision. They can either keep things the way they are and be threatened constantly or they can help to create a Palestinian state that *might* make them more secure. Israel’s not stupid. They are going to do whichever option they feel is in their best interest. The Jewish people would never let someone do what Hitler did to them again. And it’s ridiculous to suggest that the US president would desire that.

  • July 18, 2013 at 6:15pm

    That’s a tough standard. I remember him saying that he prayed and he always felt like the answer was void. I felt the same way when I prayed. I felt like I was talking to myself. I grew up growing to church and have always tried to live a Christian life. But when I’ve really opened myself up to God, even praying to the point I cried, I have never felt like there was a “person” who could hear me, and I definitely never felt like there was a response. Eventually, I accepted life on life’s terms and got on with mine. I feel like I did everything I could do to have faith and pray and be obedient to the teachings of Jesus. My two cents. I still try to be a Christian in terms of behavior, but I don’t have faith in the supernatural aspects of the religion. For example, I don’t believe in miracles like walking on water or turning water into wine. I would love to be wrong, honestly. It was a big disappointment to me at the time.

  • July 18, 2013 at 6:07pm

    I agree that you can’t start with God doesn’t exist if that is what you are trying to prove. But to start with the premise “if God exists…” isn’t any better. That’s the point in question. You would have to start with things both sides agree on, like the existence of humans and trees and stars. If you can go from some set of accepted to the beliefs to the conclusion that God exists, I would like to hear it. Just so you know, I don’t think you can go from there to God doesn’t exist, either, which is why I’m agnostic.

  • July 18, 2013 at 6:02pm

    You might not want to take that leap. The truth is that some believers can be very hostile to people who believe in evolution (telling them they’re going to hell, etc). People of all sorts and can be extremely mean to one another. It’s one of the reasons I’m skeptical about religion.

  • July 18, 2013 at 5:36pm

    believing the things they do.

  • July 18, 2013 at 5:33pm

    Hi everyone. I don’t see any evidence that there is a God. I think this is probably the basic position of most atheists/agnostics. Scientists try to understand what they can about how the world works by using the evidence available and dismissing hypotheses that are not well-supported by the evidence. That’s all it is. Scientists are going to continue to use whatever method they can to make claims that can be evaluated by other scientists. The results that survive are accepted as factual knowledge about the world, with the caveat that there could be contrary evidence or a better explanation. The point I am trying to make is that all science really says about God is that there isn’t any evidence for the existence of that type of being, and that there doesn’t seem to be any obvious way to test for that hypothesis. If you have evidence for the existence of God that you find compelling, please share it with me. Answers like “Look around” or “Have you ever witnessed the birth of a child” make me think that it is really a feeling that people have that make them believe in God. But people who do not believe in God also have powerful feelings when they look at the wonders of the universe, or fall in love, or witness the birth of a child. My entire point is only this — the reason atheists and agnostics do not believe in God is that there isn’t any evidence. Scientists shouldn’t claim to be able know everything, but they do have evidence based reasons for believing the thing

    Responses (2) +