Someone needs to explain to Hussein Obama, that “Sim City” is just a silly game one plays!!! It was never intended to be a fundamental precept of economic policies!!!
July 5, 2012 at 6:51pm
Howard Cossell had his career destroyed when he voiced the exact same sentiment. As a collegiate athlete we didn’t compete as black or white, just best at the position. We “Joked” with each other regarding “white man calves” or a “NI–a butt”. I laughed until I cried when my roomate told me one day “the myth of the well endowed black man died when he was born”. Now with the ability to manipulate DNA will it be alright to breed exceptional athletes? Or superior mental abilities?
We must remind ourselves the concept of breeding superior offspring was never limited to the slave trade. It has existed amongst all races. It existed mainly to perpetuate the financial holdings of the ruling classes. One wanted strong sons in order that they would survive childhood, and as adult males to protect the physical holdings from ones enemies. Strong daughters to grow to make alliances through marriage. Hence bloodlines (ie breeding) were considered essential. Our society does the same thing today only more subtley. Our society deals in appearences. Income averages have a direct correlation to ones appearance.
Well said. It's interesting that you bring this point up. The vanity of men that believe in their own power and race has a long history of failures we are never told about. I know that we are told not to trust the bible, but it seems to point out that those who trusted in themselves were pretty much doomed to failure. One example is when the Hebrew slaves took the promise land away from the superior nations of that time. When they relied on God they would win and when they relied on themselves they failed. Kind of makes sense to me that I might inherit some traits of my earthly father but hopefully not his vain pride and arrogance's to think I'm my own maker. I hope my heavenly Father would slap some spiritual sense into my self-righteous brain.
July 5, 2012 at 12:32pm
I have pictures of my son on the mantel. When I look at that picture it reminds me of him. When I want to talk to my son, I don’t talk to his picture and expect it to answer, because I know he is not in the picture. I call him on the phone. I have a crucifix on my wall. When I look at it, it reminds me of what Jesus did for us. When I want to talk to Him, I call Him with prayer. In the same way that a crucifix is not a “graven image”, a mosaic depicting a story to remind us of God’s words cannot be considered a sin.
July 5, 2012 at 11:59am
Emotional connectivity??? Isn’t that just a sales pitch to add value to “art” produced by artists with minimal talent?
July 3, 2012 at 5:45pm
To argue “(New) Modern Christianity is based on Love” tells us the individual making that statement has very little knowledge of not just the literal words written in the Bible, but also the historical and traditional aspects of Christianity. To reject a moral authority of the Judeo/Christian faith based on ignorance is a disservice to yourself and those you try to influence. That ignorance is reflected in the weakness of your other arguments.
We are warned to be watchful against false prophets, unbelievers and charlatans that would lead the faithful astray. That our faith is not a blind faith but a faith based in truths.
Ancient ideas?? Do you reject 2+2=4 because ancient men figured it out?? So why do you reject societal truths (moral standards) becuase ancient men figured out through history that if a society acted this way it would prosper, and if it acted differently that society would fail?
I find the saddest part of all is you feel more for the “war torn” now than you did before. Your statement suggest that while you may have been surrounded by christian believers in your youth and you may have grown up calling yourself a christian, you never received a full understanding of the christian faith.
July 3, 2012 at 11:56am
Phillyatheist: Let us remind you of 1) Fort Hood, 2) 9/11, 3) The drug cartel beheadings in Mexico, 4) Rawanda, 5) Uganda, etc. And remember Pol Pot’s Khmer rouge (1.5 Million deaths)? Joseph Stalins Great Purges (2-3 million deaths) or the most famous Adolf Hitler (11 million deaths in concentration camps)??? All of these people justified their acts using their own morality. According to you these things were not “Killing sprees” or Mass Murder??
Rather than saying MichiganPatriot is simple minded because he has a superior knowledge, I would suggest Phillyatheist get checked for “Attention Deficit Disorder” if you cannot recall the simplist of Historical facts.
June 24, 2012 at 7:05pm
Since our rights are endowed to each citizen by a “Creator” an atheist disagrees with the very basis of our constitution.
That basis establishes the highest authority as the Creator over man and man over government. An avowed atheist answers to nothing for his acts in this life. It’s bad enough with a “Black Liberation theologist” in the white house.
June 22, 2012 at 2:06pm
These acts are nothing compared to the truly heidonistic acts that occur at the “pride” rallys. We are all born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong. As we commit wrongs against that self knowledge we begin to dislike ourselves. As Christians we learn to forgive ourselves and then do better. Others, unfortunately, try to justify their actions and thus begin to dislike themselves more and more until dislike becomes hate. Rather than acknowledge the hatred of themselves, they turn that hatred towards that which shines the light on their wrongs.
For 40 yrs we have tried to allow the gay community to exist with little or no social condemnation. We have allowed a mere 3% of the population to establish the moral code of our country. Yet their hatred still exists.
If your child, or brother , or sister were doing something that was wrong would you not speak to them. It’s time we as a society returned to the moral authority established over thousands of years of human existence for the greater good of ourselves, our country and the gay community.
June 22, 2012 at 1:17pm
first you must understand the Bible is two parts. The New Testament which are the teachings and life of Jesus Christ and the Old Testament. The Old Testament which comes from the Jewish writings, are part of the Bible which teach the historical, traditional (oral History) and prophetical aspects of the life of Jesus Christ. In order to understand the teachings of Christ, one must understand the world as it existed at that time. Death was a common everyday experience, whether by disease, infection or unnatural acts. When 75% of the children died before the age of 5 and the average life expectancy for an adult was 35, the world placed little value on a childs life until they reached adulthood, and in a time of war the enemies life meant nothing, and the enemy included women, infants and children.
So we have two problems with your question. The first, you are trying to equate Christian moral standards of todays world in peace to standards of a world in war 10,000 yrs ago. The second problem is trying to set moral parameters on an omnipotent being. Your question is similar to the Pharasie “if you are the son of God, come down from that cross”. Is it a moral act for a father to allow his son to die a horible death when that father could prevent it?? Only He knows all the ramifications of that single act that you would consider immoral.