"Evolution is a theory that could become invalidated tomorrow if a test came along that gave results outside of what Evolutionary Theory has predicted. In other words, the process of conducting science could be the undoing of evolution in an instant, and scientists would welcome that. You are right, Evolution is not an absolute, not at all. Evolution is a theory used to explain what the facts tell us about life on this planet and biodiversity."
This is a nice statement, but, as Ben Stein has shown it is not true. When anyone with any sort of academic credentials leans towards Intelligent Design they summarily dismissed from teaching positions. This hypocrisy in its highest, err lowest form.
There are so many, Anthony Flew is one scientist I can think of, that have jettisoned their evolutionist presuppositions because of the direction the evidence has taken them.
If evolution is not an absolute, then why are evolutionist so dead set against Intelligent Design? If evolution is just a theory, then why are evolutionist so dead set against having it debated in the marketplace of ideas?
XJW4EVR
JoinedPosts by XJW4EVR
-
53
CREATIONIST TEACHERS
by badboy in1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.
-
-
XJW4EVR
-
108
Gay Marriage - The War for Equality
by Inquisitor ini've just read lola28's thread "for those against gay marriage".
i thought i should present a clear message on what i think the gay marriage issue is all about.
the trouble with most discussions on this issue is that it gets clouded by a plethora of side-issues, non-issues, cave-men chest-thumping and medieval puritanism.
-
-
XJW4EVR
Here is an interesting article from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. I think he does a very good job of refuting a number of the arguments given on this thread in favor of homosexual marriage. Any thoughts?
Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses
Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments.
May, 2004
American is entangled in the most heated battle of the culture wars to date. Many consider it a Waterloo. State supreme courts and city governments, senators and congressmen, community leaders, celebrities, and even clergy all have mounted a powerful offensive in support of gay "marriage." What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization.
Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights
"We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination."
There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples.
The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, "Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have." No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.
The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.
The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals--non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers--share those benefits, either. Why should they?
If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she--and they--are still covered).
These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council sums the issue up nicely:
"Gay citizens" already have the same right to marry as anyone else--else to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.
"They said the same thing about interracial marriage."
This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. "That’s the same thing you said about the last guy," he snaps. "Yes," the clerk replies. "We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke."
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions ("In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either."). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.
"We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want."
Columnist Ellen Goodman writes, "The state is on shaky ground when it tries to criminalize sexual relations of the consensual living arrangements of adults." In San Francisco, a giddy newly "married" lesbian celebrates, "Now we’re not second-class citizens; now we can have a loving relationship like every other married couple we know." Another opines, "Anybody who is in love and wants to spend the rest of their life together should be able to do it." [emphasis added in all]
These remarks reflect a common misconception: Same—sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do--express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.
Homosexuals can even have a wedding. Yes, it's done all the time. Entire cottage industries have sprung up from Hollywood to the Big Apple serving the needs--from wedding cakes to honeymoons--of same-sex lovers looking to tie the knot.
Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone--of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference--from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.
Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.
And respect is precisely what homosexual activists long for, as one newly licensed lesbian spouse makes clear: "It was a moving experience after a truly lifelong commitment, to have a government entity say, ‘Your relationship is valid and important in the eyes of the law.’" Another admits, "This is about other people recognizing what we have already recognized with each other for a long time." And another: "I didn’t start out feeling this way, but that piece of paper, it’s just so important I can’t even put it into words. It’s so important to have society support you….It’s about society saying you’re recognized as a couple."
Ironically, heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying every liberty of matrimony without the "piece of paper." Suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why? Not because it confers liberty, but because it confers legitimacy. Note this telling passage from Time magazine’s "Will Gay Marriage be Legal?"
Ultimately, of course, the battle for gay marriage has always been about more than winning the second-driver discount at the Avis counter. In fact, the individual who has done most to push same-sex marriage--a brilliant 43-year-old lawyer-activist named Evan Wolfson--doesn’t even have a boyfriend. He and the others who brought the marriage lawsuits of the past decade want nothing less than full social equality, total validation--not just the right to inherit a mother-in-law’s Cadillac. As Andrew Sullivan, the (also persistently single) intellectual force behind gay marriage, has written, "Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form social approval imaginable." [emphasis added]
Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. Columnist Jeff Jacoby summed it up this way in The Boston Globe:
The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically--by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.
The Meaning of Marriage
The controversy about same-sex marriage churns principally around the definition of marriage. Activists deny the traditional view, that marriage is about children. Instead, marriage is an ever changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society. There is no essential connection with children. Rather, at the core of the enterprise are two people in love.
"Marriage is about love."
Understandably, love is a predominant theme in discussions about marriage. "As long as people love each other," one person asserted, "it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love."
Initially, this seems hard to deny. In our culture, love is often the immediate motivation for marriage. On reflection, though, it’s clear that love and marriage don’t always go together. In fact, they seldom do.
If marriage were about love, then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it.
Further, if love were the sine qua non of marriage, no "for better or for worse" promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.
The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love.
Yes, love may be the reason some people get married, but it isn’t the reason for marriage. It may be a constituent of marriage, but it isn’t the purpose of marriage. Something else is.
"Marriage is constantly being redefined."
The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.
There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the genetically aberrant, and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage has still been marriage. And spouses have always been male and female.
To say something has changed is to say some core thing has remained the same. When an old curtain is changed into a work smock, or an irresponsible bachelor becomes a conscientious dad, something stays the same, the cloth and the man, in these two cases.
In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?
"Not all marriages have children."
Initially it is easy to resist any suggestion that "marriage" and "family" are essentially connected with "offspring." Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.
This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.
In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.
Ironically, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike confirmed this while lining up to wed at city halls on Valentines day. "After seven years and the birth of a baby," the L.A. Times reported, "Robert Manzo and Anna Parker decided to make their union official for 9-month-old Kyle, who they believe should have the legal protection that a marriage gives to a family."
More than 300 miles away, Kathy Palmer-Lohan stood in line in San Francisco with her partner, Laura, who was seven months pregnant. "We’re having kids," Palmer-Lohan said, "and [marriage] gives some formality to the relationship and the family structure.
"Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please."
What is marriage? There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question: Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural "teleology") or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.
It is not possible, however, that marriage is a social construction. Here’s why.
Columnist Dennis Prager has observed, "Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex." I agree with Prager’s position on marriage, though I take exception with one of his words.
I don't think marriage has been defined by cultures. Rather, I think it has been described by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of the those in favor of gay marriage.
The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.
Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts, as it were, and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.
Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage. This alone answers our question, "What is marriage?"
Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of cultures. Families--and therefore marriages--are logically prior to culture.
If the definition of marriage is established by nature, then we have no liberty to redefine it. In fact, marriage itself wouldn’t change at all even if we did. Philosopher Francis Beckwith has wryly observed, "Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn’t make it food." Linguistic tricks can’t change what nature has already determined something to be. Neither ashtrays nor same-sex marriage provide the nourishment intended by food or families, respectively.
The fact that same-sex couples can legally adopt changes nothing. This, too, subverts the purpose of marriage by robbing families (and children) of a vital ingredient: mothers and fathers. By licensing same-sex marriage, society declares by law that two men or two women are equally suited to raise a child, that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to healthy child-rearing. This is self-evidently false. Moms and dads are not interchangeable.
Marriage begins a family. The purpose of family is to produce the next generation. Therefore, family is designed by nature for children. This description alone is consistent with our deepest intuitions, which is why every culture since the birth of time has recognized this. No other characterization fits what societies have been doing for millennia.
Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.
Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.
Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.
Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their "lifestyles" without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand. -
1
Interesting Research From George Barna
by XJW4EVR ingeorge barna is a christian pollster based in ventura, ca.
i heard about this yesterday, and thought i would share, and garner your opinions on his findings.. .
-
-
XJW4EVR
Not sure what happened, but that was NOT what I wanted to link to. Here is the information I wanted to post:
Who’s That Knocking on the Door? Research Examines the Faith of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses
May 12, 2008
(Ventura, California) - Two religious groups, in particular, are known for knocking on people’s front door to discuss religious beliefs: Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. While both groups consider themselves to be Christian, many organizations have labeled each a cult in response to some of their unorthodox beliefs and practices. A new study from The Barna Group explores the religious and demographic background of these two groups and shows that they differ significantly from the born again Christian population in a variety of respects.
A Profile of Jehovah’s Witnesses
About the only perspective that Witnesses share with the larger body of born again Christians is a belief that their religious faith is very important in their life, a view held by nine out of ten people from both groups. After that point of concurrence, the gap widens.
It begins with the fact that only 7% of Jehovah’s Witnesses meet the criteria for being born again. Most Witnesses say they have made a personal commitment to Christ that is important in their life, but only one out of every ten of those adults base their hope of salvation on a confession of sins and acceptance of Christ as their savior. Interestingly, the issue is not that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in earning their way to an eternal reward: in fact, they are significantly more likely than born again adults to reject the notion of salvation earned through good works.
While more than nine out of ten born again adults believe that God is the omnipotent and all-knowing creator and ruler of the universe, just three-quarters of the Witnesses (76%) concur with that view.
Witnesses are almost 50% more likely than born again adults to strongly believe that Satan exists (61% versus 42%, respectively). They are more likely than born again adults to argue that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth (77%, compared to 63% among born agains). They are also much more likely to have a firm conviction that sharing their faith with other people is a personal responsibility (74% compared to 54% among all born agains). They also have widespread faith in the Bible, with a higher proportion (88%) contending that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (71% among born again people).
In terms of their faith practices, Jehovah’s Witnesses are comparatively more likely to gather in small groups during the week (75% do so, double the incidence among born agains). They are also significantly more likely to read the Bible during the week (83% do so) but are also more than twice as likely to be unchurched at the moment (28%, roughly double the born again proportion).
Demographically, Jehovah’s Witnesses are substantially different from the born again community in that they are less likely to get married; much less likely to hold conservative political and social views; and are a decidedly downscale group (only one-third as likely to have graduated from college, and their household income levels are one-quarter below the born again average). The Jehovah’s Witnesses community is predominantly non-white (62%) and is shockingly removed from the political process: only 29% are registered to vote, compared to 87% among the born again constituency.
A Profile of Mormons
The Mormon faith perspective parallels the prevailing born again view in various ways. For instance, more than nine out of ten Mormons have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that they describe as being important in their life; nine out of ten say their religious faith is very important in their life; and two-thirds affirm the sinless life of Christ on earth.
However, there are significant variations from the views of the born again population, too. Comparatively few Mormons believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its principles (32%). A majority believes that a good person can earn their way into Heaven. They are less likely to view God as the all-knowing, all-powerful creator and ruler (83%). They also are more likely to believe that Satan exists (six out of ten), and that they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others (64%).
Compared to the born again body, Mormons are more likely to attend church services in a typical week (73% do so) or to attend a Sunday school class (nearly double the born again average). They are also more likely to volunteer at their church in a typical week.
Demographically, they are concentrated in the western states (76% of Mormons live in those states); remain overwhelmingly white (85%); three-quarters are married (versus about 61% of born agains); and are more likely to be conservative on social and political matters. They also have annual household incomes that are about 8% higher than the born again average.
One controversy surrounds the fact that one-third of Mormons (31%) meet the born again criteria. A number of evangelical leaders assert that although Mormons seek a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, their refusal to trust wholly on God’s grace and forgiveness through Christ as the only means to salvation disqualifies them from being born again.
Religion and the Fine Line
George Barna, who conducted the research and presented the findings, noted that in the religious world seemingly small matters can make a big difference. "All three of these groups claim to be Christian, uphold the importance of faith and spirituality, are active in their churches, generally believe in the same God, and accept the holiness of Jesus Christ," Barna commented. "Beyond that, there are huge difference related to central doctrines such as the means to eternal salvation or the reliability and authority of the Bible. Millions of adults, however, shut the door when Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses come visiting without having any real idea what they or we believe - or caring enough to pursue such insights."
Barna indicated that such front porch interactions could stimulate unexpected benefits. "It’s no secret that Americans spend little time thinking through the deeper applications and implications of their beliefs. In a society confronted with challenging issues such as immigration rights, gay marriage, war, and environmental crises, our positions on such matters should come from a well-conceived and deeply embraced theology of life. Sadly, most Americans react on an emotional level rather than from a worldview that is based on thoughtful convictions. Perhaps having a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness ringing our doorbell and pushing us to explain or defend our beliefs could be a catalyst for an even deeper process of discovery - especially if we enter the conversation knowing that we probably have some substantial disagreements on core elements of faith."
About the Research
This report is based upon telephone interviews conducted by The Barna Group with a series of nationwide random samples among adults, from which interviews with 323 Mormons and 186 Jehovah’s Witnesses were isolated for analysis. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample of Mormons is ±5.6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample of Jehovah’s Witnesses is ±7.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.
The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) conducts primary research, produces resources pertaining to spiritual development, and facilitates the healthy spiritual growth of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-monthly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna website www.barna.org.
© The Barna Group, Ltd, 2008.
Copyright Disclaimer: All the information contained on the barna.org website is copyrighted by The Barna Group, Ltd., 1957 Eastman Ave. Ste B, Ventura, California 93003. No portion of this website (articles, graphs, charts, reviews, pictures, video clips, quotes, statistics, etc.) may be reproduced, retransmitted, disseminated, sold, distributed, published, edited, altered, changed, broadcast, circulated, or commercially exploited without the prior written permission from The Barna Group, Ltd.
Thoughts?
-
1
Interesting Research From George Barna
by XJW4EVR ingeorge barna is a christian pollster based in ventura, ca.
i heard about this yesterday, and thought i would share, and garner your opinions on his findings.. .
-
-
XJW4EVR
George Barna is a Christian pollster based in Ventura, CA. I heard about this yesterday, and thought I would share, and garner your opinions on his findings.
-
230
"Why does America always bomb other countries?", my son asked tonight.
by digderidoo infirst of all i do not want to turn this into an american bashing thread, that is not my intention at all.. i would like to hear americans opinions as to what my thirteen year old son asked me tonight.. on the way back from swimming tonight my two sons (13 and 11) and myself started talking about wars.
my 11 year old was the first to bring it up talking about wwi & ww2.
we had an interesting conversation about it, then the subject got onto nuclear bombs.
-
-
XJW4EVR
How one forgets Britain is still viewed in the world as a big bad country only in deep decline. The US has just started it's decline. Also France was considered during the 60's and 70's and is still to a lesser extent especially by the American right.
France? Please! France stopped being a world power when it invented those famous tanks with one forward moving gear and six reverse gears.
Britain's role as world power ended in the late 40s and early 50s.
The only power that I see as removing the USA from its perch is China, and a possible conglomerate of Islamo-fascist nations led by Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
-
88
Has a song "GRABBED" at you pulling your soul in?
by FreedomFrog init doesn't happen to me much but when it does i can't get enough.... i was driving home from a friends house trying to figure out how to work out my finances/home/college/kids and then the song "eye of the tiger" came on.. i've heard this song many times.
this was one of my fave's growing up but it didn't catch my soul like it did tonight.
i was in awe to the point of needing to hear it 6 times already.
-
-
XJW4EVR
I have always been partial to Amazing Grace. The first time that I ever recall hearing it was in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. It was played for Spock's funeral. It "grabbed" me at my soul, and has never let go. I have a number of different versions on my IPod, from bagpipes to acoustic guitar. However until yesterday I have never been so moved by a version of Amazing Grace as I was by this one.
I understand that many of you may not appreciate the religious overtones of the following video in which Wintley Phipps describes how John Newton may have been inspired to write one of the greatest Christian hymns.
-
35
Favorite Heavy Metal Hair Bands
by Maryblondgrl inskid row....who can forget the angelic beauty of sebastian bach....and the gorgeousness of drummer rob affuso???
?
-
-
XJW4EVR
I never thought of Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Pantera, Megadeath and Mettalica as "hair bands". Maiden & Priest were classic heavy metal bands. Pantera, Megadeath & Mettalica always seemed to me to be the progenitors of "speed metal".
The classic "hair bands" to me were Poison, Dokken, Cinderella, Motley Crue, Europe (The Final Countdown), Twisted Sister, Quiet Riot, Ratt. -
42
your personal favourite books that freed you from the JW's
by ninja in1/captives of a concept.....fantastic....thanks don...you freed my mind completely .
2/visions of glory...barbara harrison....fantastic insights......(god can't kill arnold) .
3/jehovah lives in brooklyn.....ricky francis.....he sums all jw's up brilliantly....love this book .
-
-
XJW4EVR
Visions of Glory
Jehovah of the Watchtower by the late Dr. Walter Martin
Crisis of Conscience
Why You Should Believe in the Trinity by Robert Bowman
Thirty Years A Watchtower Slave by William Snell
1984 by George Orwell
I list 1984, because I read it before I read any other book that was anti-WT. In that book I was able to identify the "Newspeak" of the WT, and the "Big Brother" within the parameters of the WTS. I am curious if anyone else was able to make this connection also? -
230
"Why does America always bomb other countries?", my son asked tonight.
by digderidoo infirst of all i do not want to turn this into an american bashing thread, that is not my intention at all.. i would like to hear americans opinions as to what my thirteen year old son asked me tonight.. on the way back from swimming tonight my two sons (13 and 11) and myself started talking about wars.
my 11 year old was the first to bring it up talking about wwi & ww2.
we had an interesting conversation about it, then the subject got onto nuclear bombs.
-
-
XJW4EVR
"However, it appears that only America is stuck with the big bad country label. Why is this the case
America has the fire power to do whatever it pleases, irrespective of the international community will."
Yes, I agree. Great Britain could have had that same fire power had it won the Revolutionary War. It didn't and America grew to the super power it is now. All any of the former world powers has to do to dethrone America is rise up, and takes its place among that pantheon of nations. -
15
GIVE ME YOUR INFORMED OPINION........
by Terry inas you well know, the chief difference between the left (democrats/liberals) and the right (republicans/conservatives) comes down to one thing.. the size of government and the role of government.. with that in mind i ask for your informed opinion.. 1.what does government do that isn't wasteful, inept and costly that the private sector can't do better?.
2.why do people disagree on the role of government when there are thousands of examples of where government fails to provide?.
3.do you think government automatically becomes efficient, orderly and manageable when your preferred party takes office?.
-
-
XJW4EVR
"1.What does Government do that isn't wasteful, inept and costly that the private sector can't do better?"
The military at the federal level, though there are problems here, too. At the state & local level, law enforcement & fire protection. Another poster mentioned roads. I recently saw a PBS program that focused on the rebuilding of a portion of freeway in the Bay area of California. The bridge, that collapsed, was built in 1/3 of the time allotted, and is considered safer than the two pieces that this section connects. This occurred by cause the private sector was allowed to function with the minimal oversight of the state government.
"2.Why do people disagree on the role of government when there are thousands of examples of where Government fails to provide?"
I think that the reason their is disagreement is because people think that the wrong people are running the government program. Case in point, some liberal actor (I forget his name) was quoted as being outraged over some military jets flying over the first Clinton inauguration. Then he caught himself, and said something to the effect that the military was okay now that a Democrat is Commander-in-Chief.
"3.Do you think Government automatically becomes efficient, orderly and manageable when YOUR PREFERRED PARTY takes office?"
I no longer believe that due to my study of American political history. Both parties are a pox on American politics. Neither one has all the answers to the issues that America faces.