Evidence for God from Science

You may have lame candidates because of a long history of voter apathy. You won't fix the problem by not voting, it will only get worse. If you do nothing, do you really expect things to improve? If your car breaks down, do you wait for it to heal or do you take action and fix it?!

We may have lame candidates because of a long history of voter apathy? If you think that, then I guess I shouldn't say anymore to you regarding this. That is terribly naive on your part, IMO.
We get to choose from candidates that each political party nominates. If they continue to choose horrible candidates, then we are limited in who we can vote for.

If your car breaks down, do you wait for it to heal or do you take action and fix it?!

FL, you really are naive to American customs. In America when our cars break down, we go buy another one.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:And, no, I don't respect your position on voting. You are part of the problem.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:You may have lame candidates because of a long history of voter apathy. You won't fix the problem by not voting, it will only get worse. If you do nothing, do you really expect things to improve? If your car breaks down, do you wait for it to heal or do you take action and fix it?!

Voter apathy alone will not fix things, so I will vote for what I agree with (and I rarely agree with the talking heads that get nominated). If you say voting is the only way to make change, you're horribly mistaken. But as I've said before, if voting REALLY is the only way to get my voice heard or have a chance to fix anything, then this system is pretty much useless. Nice try comparing a political system to a car. I have a direct say in the condition of my vehicle. Voting would be more comparable to deciding "should I smash my rearview windows and repaint the exterior red? Or should I smash the turn signals and repaint the exterior blue?"

If I don't vote, I don't support either evil. I instead promote ideas I believe are beneficial (which neither candidate stands for in a frightening majority of the time) to positively influence others, and thus encourage a more educated vote, and not a mindless "well, I guess I HAVE to choose between these two scumbags." I want to help new ideas get rolling to improve society; voting doesn't promote new, better ideas in any whatsoever. People assume it has to be the way it is now, when the way it isn't working (disagree if you want, if you can prove it). Be my guest and prove that there's a strong correlation between voting and poor candidate choices when so many are essentially giving these people permission to run our lives by voting for them and so many don't intelligently question their motives.

Pick your poison; they're both poison. Might I remind you that you started this. Can we get back to the topic at hand, without you brining up this totally unrelated topic so consistently? At least discuss it in a more mature fashion.

... but while we're on the subject, how about some humor?

When I see the stuff about Chik-Fil-A over the news, all I can think is "Leave Chik-Fil-A alone! Their chicken strips are amaaaazing! "

That may be true of English-speaking Canadians who often compare themselves to Americans. I am not an English-speaking Canadian. I like Americans and would never belittle such a great country that has done so much for the world and for the advancement of Christianity. I think it is sad that individual Americans unwittingly participate in the destruction of their heritage by not participating in the electoral process. Shame on you.

When this country was founded, it wasn't founded on popular vote. Only white, male, property owners could vote.

The current election process (nominee process) regarding the POTUS is a sham. If you feel better shaming someone because they don't want to participate in a sham, then have at it.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Perhaps I should have said, ''America has done more to promote Christianity and Christian values than any other nation in the world.''

I made a mistake, above. The state which has done the most in the world to promote Christianity is The Vatican. Apologies to Byblos.

RickD wrote:We may have lame candidates because of a long history of voter apathy? If you think that, then I guess I shouldn't say anymore to you regarding this. That is terribly naive on your part, IMO.
We get to choose from candidates that each political party nominates. If they continue to choose horrible candidates, then we are limited in who we can vote for.

Hmmm...this sounds like the Which came first, the chicken or the egg? conundrum. You have bad candidates because few people care, and few people care that you have bad candidates. Hygrade - the wiener makers - understood this a long time ago when they coined their slogan, Fresher because more people eat them. More people eat them because they're fresher.

Stygian wrote:Nice try comparing a political system to a car. I have a direct say in the condition of my vehicle. Voting would be more comparable to deciding "should I smash my rearview windows and repaint the exterior red? Or should I smash the turn signals and repaint the exterior blue?"

Excellent analogy! You've expressed your dilema nicely. Now, depending on which way you lean politically, choose. Go for smashing the turn signals because it is less dangerous. Doing nothing means you have no car anyway.

jlay wrote:When this country was founded, it wasn't founded on popular vote. Only white, male, property owners could vote.

The current election process (nominee process) regarding the POTUS is a sham. If you feel better shaming someone because they don't want to participate in a sham, then have at it.

You chose the process, live with it. Of course, the British Parliamentary system is superior to your republican system modeled on France's. Look what a mess you're in now! But you troublemakers started it all by throwing that tea into Boston Harbor.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:You chose the process, live with it. Of course, the British Parliamentary system is superior to your republican system modeled on France's. Look what a mess you're in now! But you troublemakers started it all by throwing that tea into Boston Harbor.

Actually good point. We Americans like to brag on our liberty, but can you imagine starting a bloody war over taxes today? People got all bent over our involvement in Iraq being over oil. I'm like, this country was founded because of a war over taxes. Oil is as good a reason as that. Oh, and the whole Christian nation thing. Whatever happened to "submit yourselves to the governing authorities."

To be fair, it's not totally accurate to say that America started a revolution just because they wanted out of some taxes. That might be the easy reason to state today, but it's not even close to that simple.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Excellent analogy! You've expressed your dilema nicely. Now, depending on which way you lean politically, choose. Go for smashing the turn signals because it is less dangerous. Doing nothing means you have no car anyway.

Well... you totally misunderstood my analogy. Not voting is merely refusing to damage my car. Wouldn't it be smarter to not do... either? Voting allows other people to vote for how my car gets damaged, not only me. Even if one option is 'less dangerous,' I refuse because I think we should look for alternative systems. Don't assume you gave some sort of "Hah! I got you!" line, because I already stated comparing a car to voting is a flawed analogy already.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:You chose the process, live with it. Of course, the British Parliamentary system is superior to your republican system modeled on France's. Look what a mess you're in now! But you troublemakers started it all by throwing that tea into Boston Harbor.

Yeah... this really requires a whole new debate...

jlay wrote:We Americans like to brag on our liberty, but can you imagine starting a bloody war over taxes today?

Taxes was the only reason?

jlay wrote:Oh, and the whole Christian nation thing. Whatever happened to "submit yourselves to the governing authorities."

Yeah... especially the governing authorities that don't allow freedom of religion. We should totally submit ourselves to those, too, right?

this country was founded because of a war over taxes

Er, there had ALWAYS been taxes. No, the deal was Britain just arbitrarily saying we will tax this and that (ever more aggressively), we will do this, do that - all, often, ruthlessly so - and all without REPRESENTATION. Americans had no input into the ruthless and greedy rule, of what to Britain was merely another point on its big map of colonial assets. America was just one more income flow to finance the follies of wars and mayhem of King George and co., all the while those of the noble classes lived in astonishing comfort whilst they drained the colonies across the ocean of their fruits and labors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e-0ffPEWUI

I found this interesting. Thoughts, anybody?

OK, Well lets dig into it.

People constantly say that America is a Christian nation. (I disagree) They speak of the faith of the founding fathers. (FFs)
There is no question that the USA was founded by a war that was about taxation without representation. See: Boston Tea Party. Is taxation without representation the right thing? No. Is it worth fighting a war over? Not if one is living under a biblical worldview. You have far more oppressive regimes in the 1st century, yet you will find NOTHING in the scripture to support rebelling against the government authorities, especially regarding warfare.

We have just as much if not more out of control government today. Yet, when you hear of a group stirring up trouble today, no one looks at them in light of the FFs. They look at them as crazy, fringe, wacko nut jobs.
FWIW, I have no problem with the FFs fighting the war. My problem is when people conflate America with Christianity, and the look at the constitution as a "god breathed" document. Or, speak as if our FFs were working for God. The reality is that these men had to champion a cause that was their own, not God's. Although often you will hear the lines blurred.

Er, there had ALWAYS been taxes. No, the deal was Britain just arbitrarily saying we will tax this and that (ever more aggressively), we will do this, do that - all, often, ruthlessly so - and all without REPRESENTATION.

And so what? Rend unto Caeser......

Er, there had ALWAYS been taxes. No, the deal was Britain just arbitrarily saying we will tax this and that (ever more aggressively), we will do this, do that - all, often, ruthlessly so - and all without REPRESENTATION.

And so what? Rend unto Caeser......

Not justifying the actions of the early Americans, just stating their motivations. And I would agree that rebelling against an established power WAS wrong - certainly to take up arms or any actions that were overtly rebellious. There may well have been better ways to address the British, as aggressive and arrogant as they were, so as to come to understandings and cooperation. But as always, the hotheads on both sides turned a snowball into an avalanche.

And hypocritically, those on both sides of the conflict thought nothing of enslaving other human beings for free labor, or of grabbing Indian lands. Very interestingly, at the end of the French and Indian war, so as to avoid future conflicts with the Indians and to dissuade alliances of other nations with them (against Britain), the British government (in 1763) forbade and further settlements west of the Appalachians - to the great consternation of poor settlers, railroads and land speculators.

And so all these Americans were upset over their British overlords, but thought absolutely nothing of invading countless Indian nations, taking their lands with worthless treaties, etc. Oh, and before any one thinks political correctness has overtaken me, the INDIANS themselves were guilty of these very same things (enslavement, constant warfare, invasions, conquering lands of others - oh, and this went on as virtual sport with their surrounding tribes). Oh, and as my rant against political correctness, just go to the National Indian Museum in D.C. and you'll see virtually NO mention of warfare between tribes, massacres BY Indians ON Indians (not to mention on others). Warfare and aggression were ways of life for many tribes, some notoriously feared because of it - but you'll find no mentions of this are to be found at the NIM, as if to preserve the myth that native peoples were so much more noble, peace loving and spiritual, at least as compared to the evil Europeans around them. Complete PC hogwash! The corruption of mankind knows no national, geographical or genetic boundaries.

I approve this message.

Buak? Buak buak? Buak buak buak, buak; buak buak, Buak. Buak!

-