Jamie123

By this rule there should be no government-controlled law enforcement. Since police prevent crime they deprive would-be criminals of their free agency not to commit offences.

It puzzles me how many Americans are against it. In Britain we have the National Health Service, which is (as far as I can see) much the same as what Obama is proposing. People criticise and moan about the NHS, but at least it is available to everyone, regardless of their means. It's existed since the 1940's, and my generation grew up with it as a basic assumption of life. It seems appalling to us that the US - a country superficially so similar to ours - should not have its own equivalent. But of course I'm a product of the environment I grew up in. Americans will no doubt find my thinking just as appalling and shoot me down in flames for saying this.

You don't have to travel to see all of them. Many secular historians mentioned Jesus and His early followers. (Try reading Tacitus' Annals, Book XV.) Josephus even mentions Jesus was a "miracle worker". This of course doesn't prove he was one, but it does prove that miracle stories date from that time - they weren't cooked up hundreds of years later like some people would have us believe.

The French philosopher Rene Descartes suggested that mathematical truths could be definitely "known" to be true, but he saw one problem: Sometimes we add up numbers wrongly, so how do we know that we don't always add them up wrongly? How do we know that 1+1 isn't really 3?Bit worrying really....

I've often heard that there was some "evidence of the Ark" on Mt. Ararat, but I understand it's been pretty much discredited, even by most Biblical literalists.

For once in my life I have someone who needs me Someone I've needed so long For once unafraid I can go where life leads me And somehow I know I'll be strong No idea why. I don't especially like the song.

I get choked up all the time about all sorts of stuff. One guy I can really relate to is that memorable X-factor contestant (X-factor is the British equivalent of American Idol) who performed Bat Out of Hell - complete with bat impersonations - and for his encore sang Puff the Magic Dragon and burst into tears in the last verse when "Jackie Paper came no more!" He's my hero!

One thing that really annoys me is the hypocracy of some dog lovers. Now I've nothing against dogs. I've nothing against people who like them. I'm quite fond of dogs myself. Well maybe not the small yappy ones so much, but dogs in general are fine. But what really annoys me is people who make a big song and dance over their dogs, scrunching up their faces in front of them and calling them pet names....and even this doesn't bother me *UNTIL* they start berating other people for enjoying the company of cats. "Oh, you like cats? How can you like cats? Cats are....no. No No No!!! I hate cats! Hate hate HATE! Now dogs...Oh dogs...Oh, snooky wooky diddums..." etc. It really gets my goat in a big way. It's sheer hypocracy, and I'm not saying that just because I tend to be a cat person. My wife generally prefers dogs though she did grow very fond of my cat Tabitha whom I had before we were married. I loved Tabitha very much. I had her a long time and she grew very old and frail, until last summer had to have her put to sleep. One day though, we plan to get a puppy and a kitten and have them grow up together, hopefully as friends.

There was a TV documentary a few years ago about how some fast food employees salivate on the burgers before putting them in the buns. (I kid you not!) Now that's something I don't want to watch!

Maybe one hoot, but I doubt it'd be splashed over the front pages of the tabloids. It would never sell!

I don't know why everyone made such a fuss over Tiger Woods. OK he was very very naughty, but he's not the only person ever to have committed adultery. As for fame being a "green light" for adultery, I should say the opposite. If I'd done the same thing, no one outside my family would give too hoots about it. It should be between him and his wife to sort things out.

Actually it's doubtful that a ship's captain really has the authority to perform marriages, though it did happen in The African Queen. (Catherine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart, 1951. Excellent movie.) Check out The Straight Dope: Are ships' captains allowed to marry people at sea?

I'm only guessing, but I think it might have been a fake!!! (Which only adds to the crime!)

Isn't that what Charlotte said to Wilbur?Greetings and salutations to you too!

Reminds me of something I heard about once: A shop selling Christian books and merchandise at a large Christian convention had a big cardboard cut-out of God, smiling and holding a shopping basket, standing outside the door. The person who told the story thought it was a disgraceful sacrilege but you've got to admit - it's funny too!

You're quite right. When I said "fixed" and "moving" I meant relative to the celestial sphere (the sphere of fixed stars), not relative to the Earth. Before Copernicus the prevailing view was that the entire sky rotated around the Earth. The planets - and the Sun was considered a planet (and still is by astrologers) - were those points of light which moved relative to this general rotation.If you're interested in this sort of stuff, an excellent book to read is The Fabric of the Heavens by Stephen Toulmin and June Goodfield (Amazon.com: The Fabric of the Heavens: The Development of Astronomy and Dynamics (9780226808482): Stephen Toulmin, June Goodfield: Books).

I didn't say they were stupid, but none of us can work beyond the information we have. It took many hundreds of years, and the accumulated reasoning of many minds to achieve the scientific understanding we have today. Yes they would have understood there was a difference, but if you'd asked them to explain they'd it have said something like "stars are fixed, planets move". You may have a point there: God might (for all I know) sometimes impart scientific knowledge that human scientists only "discover" years later. Isaac Newton for instance believed that Moses understood the heliocentric theory - though I think his evidence of this was a bit tenuous. (Newton had some funny ideas.) But let's consider this: (i) If Kolob is the name of a planet then it is an extrasolar planet orbiting another sun. (ii) It would therefore have a fixed position in our night's sky. (iii) In Abraham's day, the only known distinction between a star and a planet was that a planet moves (relative to the sphere of fixed stars) and a star doesn't. (iv) Therefore Kolob - even if it is a planet - would (in the language of that time) have been classified as a star.

That's an interesting question. Perhaps it's because of the different histories of the two books. Unlike the BOM, the Bible has never been out of circulation since the last parts of it were written. Moroni knew that his book was going to remain hidden for centuries and rediscovered in a very different age, when there would naturally be a lot of scepticism about its authenticity.

Do you really think Abraham have understood the difference between "star" and "planet" as we understand these words today? Yes...I'm sure God understood, but I seriously doubt He'd have burdened poor Abraham (with his Bronze Age understanding of astronomy) with such niceties. The modern word "planet" comes from the Greek "planetos"="wanderer". To the ancients a planet was exactly that: A star that wandered through the sky. The idea of stars being at the centre of planetary systems would have been undreamed of back then.

Why not use the "Famous Bayes-Moroni Prayer Analysis Calculator"? (I shan't provoke the mods by posting a link, but Google will find it for you.)Seriously though I've never really understood this "burning in the bosom" thing, but there is a particular feeling I've had twice in my life: The first time was when I was 20 and starting to get involved with the University Christian Union. The evening I had it (it was in January 1985) I counted as my "conversion" - though I later came to see it as just one in a long series of steps. The second time was a few years later when I was investigating Mormonism - though I never really identified it as pointing "towards" the LDS church in particular. I never joined the church, though I've always been interested in it. Two comments about this feeling: First it's impossible to describe it properly in words, and secondly it's difficult to talk about it without making it sound ridiculous. I think this may be what Peter Gabriel was describing in his song Solsbury Hill: In the last verse he attempts to put words to his feelings: which sounds like gobbldigook. It's like trying to bring apples from heaven to hell, or the Star of Astoroth from Naboombu. People don't describe these things because no words can ever really do them justice. (OKOK...I suppose it's possible Gabriel was just describing a hallucinogenic experience after taking drugs, in which case I'm talking nonsense.)

Interesting: One of the first missionaries I ever spoke to told me that (a girl, of course!) but more-or-less immediately took it back. I expect it's urban mythology...though I suppose if polygyny exists in heaven there will need to be more women than men.

Being judgmental, definitely! There is nothing worse than judgmental people. They are bad, bad bad bad bad, and I really can't tolerate them! They're almost as bad as BMW drivers!

I'm working on it!

I've always understood that the removal of a hat - as a sign of respect - is a male thing only. Years ago women would wear hugely elaborate hats held on by hat-pins. (You can still see such hats at Ascot on Ladies' Day: BBC - Berkshire - Sport - Ladies Day at Ascot photos.) Imagine the trouble of taking them off every time they went inside, or met someone they wished to greet? Male headgear like bowlers, top-hats, boaters etc. tend to be much simpler and easier to take off.

Can anyone spot the flaw in this logic?