Astralinre

Deloria, what can I say, but "Yeehaw!" Country music is a beautiful thing. It's been a long time since I've posted on here, but OT is where I really learned how to write and argue. I learned how to think about, articulate, and defend my faith and my political views. I learned how to understand and accept the views of others. We had some great people on here back in the day, and I'm thankful to them for countless good discussions and a lot of fun. I haven't found too many familiar names on here, but shoot me a PM if you want to catch up! // Astra

Horizontally challenged? You bigot. How dare you use a term with such negative connotations. They are simply nutritional overachievers.

Airport officials subjecting you to a cavity search for having more than three ounces of toothpaste on your person. >_<

Hi, y'all. it's good to see some familiar faces around here. *waves to Barihawk, Lateralus, insane, and warrior* I don't have time to go through all ten pages, so forgive me if I'm repeating somebody. At the risk of missing out on some great tangential debates, I'm just going to give my opinion on the original post. In my experience and observation, whether or not someone believes in God is a decision that has nothing to do with logic. This is not to say that theism or atheism is illogical; merely that people do not embrace them for logical reasons. When you get right down to it, most people choose belief or disbelief because they have a need, a wound, a tendency, an emotion, a hunch, a desire, a hope, an anger, or some such thing. There is nothing wrong with this. Logic is a wonderful thing; humans, however, are extra-logical beings. Logic is useful, even vital to us, but it is not all-encompassing. We have non-logical needs and desires, and these are usually at the core of why we choose our most basic assumptions, whether we realize it or not. Now, once we have those assumptions, we use logic to try to justify them or disprove contrary ones, but that does not make the assumptions themselves the result of logical processes. (It's entirely possible that there be an occasional person who has to his assumptions based purely on logic, but I have yet to meet one.) This, I think, is why so few people ever change their views in theism versus atheism debates: Those positions are results of the human heart, not human logic. There may be a current correlation between IQ and disbelief, or education and disbelief, but also consider that this correlation has not held true in every period of history. Plenty of brilliant astronomers, physicists, doctors, poets, lawyers, rulers, generals, and business men have believed in God. Plenty of them haven't. I maintain that it is irrelevant. // Astra

You Raise Me Up - Celtic Woman Danny Boy - Celtic Woman Roll on Mississippi - Charlie Pride You're the Inspiration - Chicago If You Leave Me Now - Chicago The Final Move - Chris Rice When Did You Fall - Chris Rice One of Those Days - Chris Rice Wind and Spirit - Chris Rice One Boy, One Girl - Collin Raye My Sacrifice - Creed Desperado - The Eagles Can't Help Falling in Love - Elvis The River - Garth Brooks The Dance - Garth Brooks That Girl is a Cowboy - Garth Brooks Allison Miranda - Garth Brooks I'd Rather Have Nothing - Garth Brooks Belleau Wood - Garth Brooks The Impossible - Joe Nichols Remember When It Rained - Josh Groban You Raise Me Up - Josh Groban So She Dances - Josh Groban My Confession - Josh Groban Broken Vow - Josh Groban Canto Alla Vita - Josh Groban Home to Stay - Josh Groban I Hope You Dance - Lee Ann Womack Walking in Memphis - Lonestar Spoken For - MercyMe The Phantom of the Opera Can't Stop Loving You - Phil Collins Son of Man - Phil Collins Strangers Like Me - Phil Collins Forever and Ever, Amen - Randy Travis Deeper than the Holler - Randy Travis Seven Spanish Angles - Ray Charles, Willie Nelson I'll Still Be Loving You - Restless Heart Unchained Melody - Righteous Brothers From This Moment On - Shania Twain Eye of the Tiger - Survivor Burning Heart - Survivor Don't Take the Girl - Tim McGraw Should've Been a Cowboy - Toby Keith Boulevard of Broken Dreams - Tony Bennett Keeper of the Stars - Tracy Byrd Go Rest High on that Mountain - Vince Gill

If you're looking for 'literary richness', then sure, read the King James. But if you want accuracy, read the New International or English Standard Version. The King James, though good for its time, is rather outdated. The usage and meaning of words change over time, and since so many words in the KJV have changed definition and conotation, it's not very useful if you want to understand the original meaning of the text.

I know, but when you say things like that, especially on the internet, people are going to take you seriously. Even if you mean in it jest, plenty of young teenagers on this forum will believe it as if it were in their history text books, so I wanted to clear up the slander and misrepresentation. Who are you to say it's not his choice? He's the President, the American Head of State, and that doesn't give him the right to enforce his own policies? Is he not allowed to veto something he considers unethical? Not only that, but it would have forced American taxpayers to fund something many believed was unethical. Bush said that if the bill became law, "American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I'm not going to allow it." You act as if he's a moron for having convictions and acting on them. You've complained about him not representing the American people, yet there are millions of Americans - mostly his political base - against embryonic stem cell research, whom he is representing very well. Also, don't forget that Bush did allow federal funding of the 60 existing lines of embryonic stem cells in research facilities, and has increased funding for stem cells from adults, umbilical cords, and placentas - all of which hold great promise without destroying human embryos. Under Bush's policy, "federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research has grown from zero dollars in 2001 to $24.8 million now, with no cap on future funding." (USA Today) (As an aside, most of the successful research and cures being developed through stem research have been through adult stem cells, scraped from places as innocent as the patient's nose. Literally, the lame are walking through these therapies. Embryonic stem cells, however, are rarely used on human patients, because in animal experiments, they have too high a risk of forming tumors. Embryonic stem cells are designed to grow - and they do grow, which is a danger to the patient. Adult stem cells, however, are designed to heal, and they do a marvelous job of that when handled properly. I'll find you some sources if you like.) Once again, does the President not have the right to represent his potical base and his own morality? You may disagree with his stance on the issues, but does that make him a moron, or to your original point, a dictator? I understand why you believe it was unconstitutional, and I agree, though for different reasons. I believe that marriage laws are the business of the states, not the federal government, as per the 10th Amendment. Regardless, the attempts at banning it were proposed and shot down in Congress, and had nothing to do with Bush. First, what makes you think he hasn't read a word of the proposals? Even if he doesn't read them in their entirity, he knows what they say and what they do. Despite his appearance and some bad choices he's made, you don't get to be president by being an idiot. Second, he may not own the country, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and is surrounded by military advisors. Congress has to approve wars (which it has with Iraq) and it has to fund them (which, despite Democratic opposition, it has done), but it's not Constitutional for them to make military policy. You say Bush is vetoing the legislation blindly; how is that so? He plans on finishing this war, cleaning up the mistakes he made in the occupation, and setting up a solid, democratic, U.S. friendly government in Iraq, and Congress is opposed to his plan. Is it blind or ignorant of him to resist those who would destroy any chance at meeting his goals? Regardless of the wisdom or rightness of this war, your accusations are still nothing but hateful. It's fine to disagree with Bush, I disagree with him on some things as well. There's plenty of valid complaints about him, but you've yet to bring up one. All you've done is slander a man with baseless insults, and whether or not you meant it seriously, other people are going to be influenced by that false information.

I get as much physical activity as I can. I lift weights semi-regularly, swim when I feel like it, go for long walk (5-6 miles) rather often, do several hours of yard work a week, and do my day-to-day activities in whatever way exerts me most.

Wait, so Bush is a dictator because he exercises his constitutional right to a veto? Nevermind that the Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 majority - checks and balances, don't ya know. Furthermore, Bush did not veto a bill until 5 years into his presidency, and he has cast only 3 vetoes so far. Compare that to Clinton's 37, Reagan's 78, or Eisenhower's 181. Heck, it's a small number even compared to Andrew Jackson's 12. Even George Washington used the veto twice; is three really dictatorial? Furthermore, Bush cooperated very well with Congress for the first six years, mainly because his party was the majority. Throughout American history, the executive and legislative branches have worked well together when controlled by the same party, and been at odds when controlled by opposite parties. Does the fact that Bush doesn't cooperate with a party whose views run counter to his make him dictatorial? Gay marriage is a poor choice of examples, as the states, and not the federal government, make the marriage laws. As far as I know the only federal law that has anything to do with the issue is the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which defined marriage (for the purposes of federal law) as between one man and one woman, and was signed into law by Clinton. However, while it prevents the federal government from recognized same-sex unions, it does nothing to prohibit the states from recognizing them. Furthermore, the only federal attempt at banning gay marriage during Bush's presidency was by Republicans in Congress, and the proposal was shot down by the Congress. (You say a ban would be unconstitutional; they tried to make it constitutional with an amendment.) So now Bush is dictatorial because of a law signed by Clinton and an amendment proposed and shot down in Congress. Right. At last! we agree on something, haha. :P I've got a calendar of Bushisms - priceless! Criticize the quality of Bush's leadership and the success of his policies all you like. I defintely wouldn't call him a great president, and it's debatable whether or not he's even a good president. He's certainly made some mistakes in his presidency, and I disagree with several of his actions and stances. But don't let your dislike for the man make you irrational or hateful, and don't listen to or spread such unfounded accusations. You've yet to back up your charges with any substantial evidence; all you've done is slander a man. Vetoing three bills hardly makes Bush a dictator, and he's certainly no Hitler.

[hide] I'm not sure if statistics can convince me that my opinions and moral values are wrong. With my statements come a lot of assumptions as you and others pointed out. If people waited with sex until marriage and took their wedding vows seriously, I don't think we would see much STD's, rapes, abortions, prostitution etc. However, I'm aware that it's not always the case. The high divorce rates might be because of people marrying to soon and perhaps for the wrong reasons. I don't think people (who's against premarital sex) marry primarily in order to have sex, but it could be a factor leading towards a premature marriage. Other than that I don't have much to say really, I suppose I could find statistics favoring the bible belt but I don't see the point. Maybe I'm being too hypothetical and perhaps not realistic but I believe that the Bible's stand on sexuality is the right one. If I can't use stats to sway your opinion then there's no point really. I value that you see the bible as the way to live your life and values on marriage, but we need to be realistic about this. It's not a bandaid that heals all wounds. It works for some but for others not so much. If you can use the bible's morals and get no STDs, have a loving and healthy marriage, then all the power in the world to you. I just wanted to point out to you that people following the bible for a moral life isn't as foolproof as it's cracked up to be and that one can avoid all those nasties while not following the ethics as dictated by the bible. [/hide] However, I doubt that such polls take into account how consistently people follow their beliefs. In my experience, most people in the West have forgotten how to carry their beliefs to their logical conclusions, whatever those beliefs may be. We tend to have large discrepencies between our beliefs, thoughts, and actions. If that is the case, then it does not damage Korskin's point at all, since his hypothesis would say that those people's sexual practices were not consistent with Biblical views of sexuality.

I would consider a healthy marriage one in which all of my needs and all of my wife's needs would be met - physical, emotional, social, intellectual, and spiritual. Therefore, in the interest of her and my spiritual well-being, I would only marry a woman who shared my beliefs. Now, small doctrinal or practical differences can be worked through and compromised upon; rather, I'm talking about core religious beliefs which affect the way a person lives and thinks.

Dude, just get yourself some good country music like Alan Jackson. When you've lost love, there's no better sound than the cryin' of a steel guitar. And I'm sure you'll get to see her soon enough anyway. But until then, find Alan Jackson's Greatest Hits.

Like Zealot, I also want to be remembered for a dedication to Truth. Even more than that, I want to be remembered for having an infectious, supernatural joy. I have a great uncle like that. He's in his early 80s, and he is one of the most intelligent, loving, joyful people I've ever known. There is a light in his eyes that shines all the greater though his vision is fading and his body is failing. Just listening to him talk uplifts me and makes me smile. G.K. Chesterton was like that too. In fact, he's sometimes called "The Prophet of Mirth." I want to be remembered as someone who could brilliantly and humbly express truth, and always do it with joy. I want to leave a legacy of truth, love, and joy.

Let me attempt to push this thread back in the direction of the topic... I'm saving myself for wild, passionate, awkward, honeymoon sex. I want the woman I spend my life with to be the first and only woman I'm that intimate with. It's a way of showing her how much respect and love I have for her, and I plan on marrying someone who would give her future husband those same considerations. I believe that premarital or extramarital sex is unwise. Sex is a wonderful, beautiful thing, but it's also a powerful, dangerous thing. To use a fairly common analogy, fire is wonderful if you keep it in the fireplace. If you take it out of the fireplace, it burns down the house. Premarital sex takes a powerful physical and emotional connection and removes it from the fireplace of a commitment. Either that, or it cheapens it, reducing sex to a mere physical pleasure, a bodily function. Promiscuity takes something that I believe ought to be a grand adventure embarked upon by a husband and wife and removes the wonder, reduces it to a handshake. I'm not willing to play with fire outside of the fireplace, nor am I willing to reduce the fire to embers. I want a bright, blazing, beautiful fire that warms the house, rather than burns it. So I plan to keep the fire in the fireplace.

Washington and Wilson are my top two: Washington for his outstanding character and leadership, Wilson for his intelligence and principles. I'm also a fan of FDR and Lincoln. Both tried to hold America together the best they knew how. FDR was willing to test any idea to get America out of the Depression. (Feel free to debate the economic effectiveness of his policies. He still picked ideas from the minds of intelligent men and gave a nation hope in the midst of Depression.) Lincoln too held the country together. He may have disregarded the Constitution in some cases, but he saved the Union in the end. Nixon annoys me both as a President and as a person. I don't like anyone from the Gilded Age either. I'm not sure who I would classify as "the worst" though.

While I think it's stupid that the news networks are devoting so much time to her today, I have to admit that the whole ordeal has been hilarious to watch. Paris is now on her way to serving a 45 day jail sentence. :lol: \ Props to that judge, who didn't put up with any crap.

Considering God as the deity I think you are thinking of, it is impossible to kill something that has no life. SO you can't take the life away from God because God doesn't have life to begin with. Or if he's thinking of the Christian view of God, then God is Life itself, and I don't think it's possible to kill an infinite source of life. On topic, I would burn the book and not use it.

They're not going anywhere, you can read them when you get back :P I know, but I won't be able to get in on the discussions early on. :P

This sounds great, and it really makes me regret that I'll be out of town for the last 8 threads. :(

It's neither a right nor a neccessity. I guess you could call it a priveledge however why should the government decide what priveledges you can and cannot part take in? The government monitors other priveledges. For example, the government regulates driving licenses because driving carries safety risks. Drinking also carries safety risks, so why can't the government regulate it as well? I won't argue morality. However i will agrue practicality. In America, you are allowed to die for your country at 16, you are allowed to decide who runs your country at 18. Technicaly, most people would consider you an adult at 18 and so why is there a 21 age limit on alchohol? In my opinion it is ridiculous to entrust someone with the decision of joining the army or voting and not extending that to drinking. Unless whether or not having a beer is a more important decision than sacrificing your life for your country. Hypocricy, in my opinion. I would agree that there is a contradiction in the age requirements. I believe the solution is to lower the drinking age to 18 or to raise the military age to 21. There are proper, legal channels for doing this. I do not believe that the current laws are immoral, even if they are illogical, and if they are not immoral, they should be obeyed until they are changed. I don't think this, but surely if one thinks there isn't a problem with drinking under a certain age then it raises the greater moral principle of not restricting peoples freedoms unjustly. True. And if you'd like to play devil's advocate and present an argument as to why it would be "restricting peoples freedoms unjustly" then I'd be glad to discuss that tomorrow when I'm not so tired. :) Why would doing what you want to your body (in the cases where it doesn't affect other people) be a privilege? Is having sex a privilege that should not be exercised without permission? Adults do not need permission for sex. However, there is an age of consent for sex, because it carries physical and emotional consequences. There is no problem with consenting adults engaging in such behaviour, but children are not legally able to do so. It is the same with drinking. Certainly responsible adults should be able to exercise the priveledge of drinking, but should children? Of course, in many countries, children are able to drink, and many of those countries have lower rates of alcohol, drunk driving, and alcohol-related deaths than the U.S. So perhaps there is merit in allowing children to drink. However, I don't know that American attitudes towards alcohol would allow such responsible use for all ages. There would still be too much abuse of the system. I personally have no moral problems with responsible persons drinking in moderation, regardless if the person is 13 or 30. I don't necessarily condone the law as it stands. (Note that I myself am not a drinker, nor do I plan to be, simply because of personal preference.) My issue is simply with those who needlessly break the law, rather than legally change it or obey it.

I'll post what I wrote about this topic on DGI:

Because this forum is my internet home. I know the posters, I know the personality of the forum, and I just feel comfortable here. I've tried moving to other sites, but I always come back to TIF. I've been here for years. In that time, I've been challenged. I've made friends. I've learned how to defend my faith (and, conversly, how NOT to defend my faith), and I've learned to understand and respect people whose beliefs differ from mine. Besides,

Warrior has quickly become one of my favorite posters. I often disagree with him, but you can always have a good, polite, reasonable discussion with him. He's inquisitive and challenging, yet respectful. To the rest of my favorite posters, you know who you are. You're all AWESOME.

Well, their family has 5 sons and 2 daughters. As far as I know, neither of the daughters are on here, but I lose track of the guys and their alter-egos.

Good for you that you helped someone in need. Shame on you that you're telling people about it for ego-boosting praise.