As the saying goes, if it's gonna be that kind of party, I'm sticking it in the mashed potatoes.
Mel Kiper on Nebraska
- Thread starter jeans15
- Start date
- Status
Being raised Catholic/Presbyterian/Baptist/etc. has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not you are a Christian. If people believe that, they probably aren't a Christian, they weren't listening in church, and/or their church failed in educating them as to how a person becomes a Christian (unfortunately, very commonly the latter).Really kicking myself for reading this entire thread and I usually try to stay out of these.
BUT I had to chuckle on this one. If you're going to attack the people of Christian faith at least know what you're saying. Pretty sure being raised a Catholic means I'm a Christian. Where does the "or" come in?
I am a conservative constitutionalist and I think even I would surprise myself as to what I would OK government spending money on if we had a balanced budget. Given the current deficit and debt, I'll never have to be tested in that regard.
Total fail.
If what you are trying to say is people claim to be Christian all the time simply by being a member of a church but not applying the teachings, then you're spot on. Or if you are saying you don't have to be raised in a church to be Christian, there is truth in that as well, although you do need to get it from somewhere; you don't just choose to be Christian without studying the bible.
But being raised in a Christian denomination actually has more than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a person's faith. This is such an ignorant statement, I don't know how to respond. You have to be taught the tenants of the Christian Faith somehow, and in most cases it occurs within denominations. Can a person ignore what they are taught? Absolutely, especially if it makes one uncomfortable, which is why many nominal Christians abound in this country. But to say being a member of a particular denomination has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being a Christian... Wow.
Maybe you didn't do a good job explaining yourself?
Sounds to me like you understood the post just fine, then decided to go ahead and pick nits anyhow.
I might have to keep checking in on this thread today even though I'm at work. I'll get the popcorn.
Respectfully disagree. When someone says being a member of any Christian denomination has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being a Christian, I believe a little clarification is warranted. I gave my potential take on what was intended, but unless I hear from MKR, who knows what was meant?
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I am so frustrated. The go to-move is to send an email to a mod demanding a safe space. There shall be internet justice! Talk football!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) Why shouldn't the kid at Burger King make a million bucks a week? Wouldn't that raise his standard of living?
2) 48.3% of all statistics are completely made up. You can see some of them in this thread that have been accepted as gospel.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Did you guys see that gun-toting redneck right-winger that went cray cray on the UCLA campus yesterday?
Stupid white rednecks, always itching to shoot people.
Stupid white rednecks, always itching to shoot people.
If he was on the football team, we need to blame the coach. Otherwise, it's not the guy's fault he went cray cray, it was his genetics or society that made him do it.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
This is the part of the thread where the offended party posts a cute picture, or video. Either that or personal insults.
The following step will be to call anyone they disagree with a racist. And...... thread.
The following step will be to call anyone they disagree with a racist. And...... thread.
I thought Beav and I were having a very nice discussion about our differing views.
I'm just waiting for Mr. Science Guy(OkeyDokeyNU) to explain the 2 questions I posed or strip down for his Cersei Walk of Shame on his way back to the kiddie pool!
Just
What was the premise of that? That sea level rise from polar ice melt isn't happening fast enough? I'm not really sure what you were getting at on that.I thought Beav and I were having a very nice discussion about our differing views.
I'm just waiting for Mr. Science Guy(OkeyDokeyNU) to explain the 2 questions I posed or strip down for his Cersei Walk of Shame on his way back to the kiddie pool!
Okeydokey tried to go all science on me so I just posed a couple questions on Page 2 or 3 to him that I'm sure his science can explain. I have more on Climate I'd like simple answer to as well if he wants to chat respectfully as we have been.
I'm sure he's just busy...or decked out in his Che garb at Krispy Kreme...another reference from above.
I saw something about Al Gore and beaches, but I wasn't really sure what exactly the questions were.
You understood what I was saying just fine, but then added to my statement things I didn't say to make some other point.
The following behaviors are a list of acts that do not make one a Christian:
- Going to church
- Having Christian parents
- Being "raised in a church" (which was the original termonolgy used that I objected to)
- Reading the Bible
- Doing "Christian things"
- Saying "Christian things"
One becomes a Christian by admitting their sin is punishable by death by God, and then by asking for the ultimate forgiveness and putting their faith, hope, and life in the hands of Jesus Christ, who died for the very purpose of serving as a bridge between your sinful life and the perfect life God desires from you. This can happen anywhere, anytime, by people who have never seen, let alone been part of, a Christian church.
Big Al promised, data showed, various beaches would be underwater by March of this year yet he went and bought a 10MM Mansion on one of those coasts. I patiently waited with my properties down in Destin and no change to the coastline. That was only part of the promised calamity. I just figured everything was melting and that would be pretty easy for him/her to prove.
I then asked a philosophical question that science should be able to answer. If not, then it is not science but merely conjecture(maybe?)
Well, I'm not familiar with what Gore has or has not said that may be stupid or sensationalistic, but I did find this graph:
I've not heard anyone say coastal areas will be inundated that soon. Basically my stance on it is this: There is warming, and that's not good. We may not be able to control the weather, but it makes sense to move away from things we know exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
I don't really know what's to argue about the data clearly indicating that temperatures are generally increasing. I also don't know what's hard to grasp about "If you take all that ice that's frozen on the poles right now and not in the water, and you melt it into the water...there's gonna be a higher water level."
Here's my burning question: If climate change is a hoax, what is the point of the hoax? It's a hoax in order to do what?
Australia - 20$ minimum wage, government provided healthcare, government provided college, government provided unemployment, one of the top 15 wealthiest countries in the world, ban on automatic and semiautomatic guns, murder rate was 1 per 100,000 in 2014. Damn socialist liberals.
Yes...and they can fuel a Global Economy. Damn Economics!!! Why not bring up Scandinavia? You know I'll post the articles that show what a mess they are and how their homogenous societies are collapsing due to immigration.
Are you proposing zero immigration to make this work?
I love the Micro scenario rebuttals.
Hell, my household runs a great as a dictatorship! Let's do that!!! See..easy!
So, about that Mel Kiper, he's got a great head of hair for a man his age.
A good dictatorship can be better than a bad democracy. -give that some thought.
Communism can work in some countries as well, but that doesn't mean that would work in the USA.
As long as a group of people have common goals and government officials dont abuse their power then communism, socialism, etc can work and work well. That's why it works in Australia. It used to work in the Scandinavian countries but with the recent immigration surge it's starting to fold.
Socialism will never work in the US as a whole because we're too diverse of a country with too many people who have different goals.
I'm going to regret getting involved here and I intend for this to be my second and last post in this thread, but Australia ranks third on the economic freedom index, a good deal ahead of the USA. This means that the economy is significantly less regulated than it is here. Taxes and regulations both hurt the economy, but between the two, burdensome regulations tend to do more damage than high taxes. I have serious disagreements with social democracy, but it can be administered in ways that more or less work (Denmark) or it can be administered in ways that create severe economic dysfunction (Greece). I don't think that even the best social democracies are necessarily better than what we have here, too often Americans visit Europe and create a fantasy version of it, never realizing that European countries have a number of problems and difficulties. The best of them are good places to live, but they aren't perfect. If you wanted to turn the USA into a full social democracy, you would have to do more than raise taxes and create a more robust safety net, you would also have to cut the bureaucracy to the bone, eliminate the vast majority of financial and business regulations, and completely restructure the redistributive apparatus.
Now, no matter how well we administered the new social democracy, we would still have a hard time getting it to work as well as it does in other countries. The reasons for these are many, but to focus on a few: our country is large, with vast tracts of sparsely populated land which require administrative expenses one doesn't encounter in Northern Europe, or even Australia. These countries tend to be more ethnically and culturally homogenous than we are. While our diversity is a great source of strength, it is an obstacle to the sort of social coordination needed to get people to give up a great deal of personal autonomy, as these nations become less homogenous, they are beginning to face the same challenges. There is also the matter of the degree to which the US subsidizes these countries' welfare states by relieving them of the bulk of their defense costs, if Scandinavian countries had to foot the bill for their defense, they would have to give up a good deal of their benefits. Ultimately, we can never be Sweden, Australia, Denmark or whatever other nation is offered up.
Now, no matter how well we administered the new social democracy, we would still have a hard time getting it to work as well as it does in other countries. The reasons for these are many, but to focus on a few: our country is large, with vast tracts of sparsely populated land which require administrative expenses one doesn't encounter in Northern Europe, or even Australia. These countries tend to be more ethnically and culturally homogenous than we are. While our diversity is a great source of strength, it is an obstacle to the sort of social coordination needed to get people to give up a great deal of personal autonomy, as these nations become less homogenous, they are beginning to face the same challenges. There is also the matter of the degree to which the US subsidizes these countries' welfare states by relieving them of the bulk of their defense costs, if Scandinavian countries had to foot the bill for their defense, they would have to give up a good deal of their benefits. Ultimately, we can never be Sweden, Australia, Denmark or whatever other nation is offered up.
I would strongly disagree with this, actual socialism or communism could not work anywhere, no matter how competent the rulers were. Economic coordination is impossible without a functioning price system, so a Communist or true Socialist economy would be an absolute basket case (Venezuela barely qualified as a real socialist country.) Simple comparisons of East Germany to West Germany offered terrific evidence of this. China hasn't really been purely socialist, let alone communist since Deng arose in the aftermath of the Gang of Four era. Hell, even the Soviet Union only had real communism for a couple of years after the Bolshevik revolution, it worked so poorly they had to implement the NEP. The countries offered up as examples of successful socialism call themselves socialist the same way a kid who listened to heavy metal and drew pentagrams on things in the 80s called themselves satanists, it's a pose; they are capitalist countries with really expensive and generous welfare states. There are very few instances where even part of the commanding heights of the economy are state owned (Norway's oil comes to mind), really even the old Fabian model has been in retreat in Northern Europe since the 70s when it became apparent it wasn't tenable. Okay, now I'm out. For real. I hope.
Great response, but I don't believe that true or pure communism was really implemented in the Soviet Union or China. It couldn't even if they wanted it to because again those countries are way too large and the population is too large for communism to actually work. I agree that they tried and after the Bolshevik revolution that was the closest they came to true communism, but they really weren't that close to actually having it fully implemented.
**Sorry I'm not that well versed in Chinese history especially the Gang of Four era.
I'm totally against communism trying to be implemented in the US because it won't work and trying would just destroy our economy. My point is that communism could actually work, but only in very specific country demographics, size, location, etc, etc. I didn't mean to imply that communism could actually work in the US.
Also my other point in my original comment is that it's dumb to say, "Well (insert economic and political system) works in this country so it would work here."
Let the good times roll again.Nebraska's made its 90's run while a Clinton was in office. Let's do it again!
Since this is still going.....don't be that guy. Yes, we could go into a deep rooted discussion about Christianity and what it really means. But to say that being raised Catholic etc has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being Christian is just being "that guy".
Tell me being raised Jewish, Muslum, Buddist etc has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Christianity and I'll be on board.
Totally agree with this. At the same time, this can happen within the church and denominations as well. I took issue with you not recognizing that, by definition at least, a person who claims to be Catholic is also Christian. sure it's more Han just saying it. It's more than just sitting your butt in a pew. You have to believe in your heart that you are a sinner in need of a savior. Many believe this outside of the church. But I would be willing to bet my entire fortune that many within the church, denominations even, also believe this, as a direct result of their time spent in the church. To say what you said rubbed me wrong.
That is all.
- Status
