unixknight

Yeah I don't think one has to necessarily oppose taxation to oppose Socialism in general. It's true that some services are better when socialized, like police and fire departments... certainly the Military... but there are good, articulable reasons for it. When Socialism becomes the dominant economic system, history teaches us that hilarity ensues, but also it means there's no room for Christian values like charity. And that's not to say we need to make sure to have a poor class so that others can benefit spiritually by giving to them. It's just that when people rely exclusively on the State for everything, the State takes the place of God in peoples' minds.

I've lost count of how many times I've seen Jesus Christ held up as an example of a Socialist thinker, just because He multiplied the fish and bread to feed the crowd. (Tell you a secret, unless Jesus Himself is around, that solution's not gonna work so well the rest of the time.) This boggles my mind. The Savior didn't really spend much time, that we know of, talking about economic systems, but I do know that the things He did teach don't seem to fit so well with Socialist thought. In addition to the Commandments as @LeSellers mentioned, He also talks about wisely investing resources (The parable of the 3 servants and the talents), He was a carpenter who I'm pretty sure didn't work for the government, and while He did discourage people from trying to become rich, that was because of the way money distracts from spiritual thought, not because wealth is an inherently bad thing.

So it would seem... though I still give props to both for these tidbits: "There's only one God ma'am. And I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that!" -Captain America, The Avengers In Man of Steel, Clark seeks counsel from his pastor. (Who is Lutheran. Hehe. Superman's totally a Lutheran.)

So it would seem... though I still give props to both for these tidbits: "There's only one God ma'am. And I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that!" -Captain America, The Avengers In Man of Steel, Clark seeks counsel from his pastor. (Who is Lutheran. Hehe. Superman's totally a Lutheran.)

In a controversial move in one of the continuities recently, Superman had American citizenship but renounced it, calling himself a "citizen of the world." I found that to be as stupid as making G.I. Joe a multinational anti-terrorist unit.

In a controversial move in one of the continuities recently, Superman had American citizenship but renounced it, calling himself a "citizen of the world." I found that to be as stupid as making G.I. Joe a multinational anti-terrorist unit.

As I understand it, they're going to one of the continuities where she is a literal daughter of Zeus. There's a standalone Wonder Woman movie coming out that will tell the story.

This. Wonder Woman is Amazonian or Greek depending on the version of the continuity you're looking at. In any case, she's Mediterranean, not American.

This. Wonder Woman is Amazonian or Greek depending on the version of the continuity you're looking at. In any case, she's Mediterranean, not American.

Matt Walsh has an interesting piece on this issue.

You might try the Duckduckgo search engine. It has safe search on by default.

No that was actually a "fist bump." A "fist pump" is when you put one fist in the air and pump it down and up in celebration, such as when We pull into a gas station with the needle on 'E' and make it all the way to the pump before the engine dies...

Good one. It's nice when Hollywood treats the Bible with something other than contempt.

Heh I meant don't judge me for liking Red Dog... Back in the day, every time I told someone I liked it, they looked at me funny and wrinkled their nose.

Whenever someone uses the word "consensus," run. There is NOT a consensus on this issue and even if there were, it would mean precisely nothing. There was a time when scientific "consensus" told us that cigarettes were beneficial to our health, along with opiates, cocaine and laudanum. There was one a scientific "consensus" that Mars was covered in canals and there was life on the Moon. "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus." —Christopher Hitchens "Consensus" is a word people use to show off their membership in the popular kids club. We had a debate about this matter on my wargaming club forum. In the course of this, I started to look into the way in which temperatures are measured to produce the data used to prove Global Warming in one particular study. Turns out, the temperature monitoring sensors are often not well maintained, and are sometimes left in direct sunlight or near heat vents from nearby buildings that weren't there when the sensor was first installed. It was unbelievable to me just how sloppy the temperature data gathering was, and yet when I pointed out these glaring problems, the Global Warming alarmists on our forum just disregarded these problems and insisted I take the data as reliable anyway. .... and they accuse our side of being unscientific. Meanwhile they massage the data to claim "consensus with." Then there was that case a few years ago when a British team fiddled with the source code for an atmospheric prediction model. I found a copy of that source code and looked at it for myself, as I am a professional software engineer. What I saw was code that was written to disregard actual historical temperature data and substitute a series of numbers that would produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph to show planetary temperature increases coincidental with industrialization. If there's such a reasonable "consensus" and the planet is indeed warming the way they claim, then why would it be necessary to cheat to show it? Shouldn't it be self-evident? If man-made Global Warming is so obvious and such a certainty, then someone please explain to me why these kids of falsehoods are necessary? Because that, right there, is why I'm a skeptic of Global Warming. I'm a computer programmer, not a meteorologist or climatologist, so I can't claim to be able to analyze all that data (such as it is) and give an educated conclusion, but I know B.S. when I hear it, and I know cheating when I see it, and I know what software code looks like when it's been monkeyed with. If Global Warming is true, then there's no reason at all to lie. If the people who make these claims are lying, then their claims are false. I find it laughable that I'm accused of "Science Denial (TM)" because I am skeptical of Global Warming even when I point out that science has nothing whatsoever to do with the alarmism.

Back before I converted I had a thing for Red Dog. (Don't judge.) Budweiser was my second choice because it was similar, but with less flavor. I really don't miss it but I can understand why people would.

That flying sequence is definitely a defining moment for this kind of cinema, and was pretty amazing. Superman Returns captured a little of that magic but it bothered me the whole time because Lois was basically cheating on her fiancee by going on this flight, and Superman was totally trying to re-seduce her with it. Seemed out of character for both of them.

I suppose their answer would be either: -It's no improvement, because indulging in sexual desires is somehow more free thinking and enlightened than our dark age puritanism. or -There's no God and therefore all these rules are purely arbitrary and based on someone's own homophobia, and thus to follow them can't be an improvement. Take your pick. It's all based on the notion that morality is only valuable if it's entirely secular.

I have a friend who is LDS and he's attracted to men. He controls his temptation and is doing pretty well. Once, I was talking to a co-worker who is homosexual and I mentioned this friend. The co-worker's response: "What a shame he has to suppress who he really is." I found that remark incredibly annoying - and revealing. It never even occurred to this guy that my friend is being EXACTLY who he really is, and who he wants to be. He's choosing the Gospel over self gratification, a sign of incredible character and self discipline. I think the real shame is an entire demographic whose most important self-identifying characteristic is the set of people they want to have sex with, and find it troubling when someone aspires to greater spirituality and discipline.

This, right here, is where all the controversy is encapsulated. The argument isn't about whether mankind has anything to do with it, but rather whether or not it's significant. IMHO, Erring on the safe side isn't good enough when the debate is framed as such an absolute. "The debate is over." We're told, even though that's demonstrably untrue. When I see climatologists faking and manipulating data, that's a huge red flag for me. If mankind's damage to the planet were so significant and so obvious, then there should be no need at all to massage data sets.

Good point. And they say it's the Conservatives who fear Islam...

Indeed, the Spring birth makes much more sense... though maybe that should be 2010th, since the calendar was adjusted at some point and it was found to be 6 years off, placing the Birth of Christ in AD 6. (Counter intuitive, I know, but the alternative would have been to adjust current dates by 6 years and that's way more complicated.)

What reason would that be?

IMHO: Clinton's primary motive is personal power. She became a senator from New York, a state she wasn't even from, as a way to gain political clout and a stepping stone to the White House. She feels entitled to the nomination and, if reports are accurate, was enraged in 2008 when some unknown IL senator "stole" her shot. Now she thinks the Democrat nomination, and the White House, are hers by right. This is a perfect example of why people who crave power shouldn't have it. I don't like Bernie Sanders' politics but at least the guy seems to be coming from a more honest position (for a politician). I won't vote for him under any circumstance, but I'd rather have him over Hillary Clinton.