Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words. Here, we focus on learning and teaching, which is why we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges while I don't think Wikipedia has helped anyone do so.
(in reference to obsessive compulsive disorder)
The term is routinely used in liberal psychobabble propoganda attacks against Christianity by undermining the doctrine of Priesthood of all believers and its derivative the Protestant work ethic.
There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much?
Joaquin, "Allahu" has to mean "Allah", not God. The Muslim chant, which is what this is from, is to Allah, not God.
["Andy, the word "Allahu" means in Arab "God". It comes from: Al-lâh. "Al" means "the" and "ilah" means "god""]
Joaquin, I have an open mind about this, but Muslims chant to "Allahu" and they're not chanting to "God", but to "Allah".
["Neutral means 0% conservative bias and 0% liberal bias. It's not a compromise, it's complete neutrality."]
Karajou: It's already proven in all walks of life that liberals are either liars or lunatics, so any percentage of liberalism in the project just isn't going to happen.
["That's exactly my point. Neutral means 0% of BOTH liberalism and conservatism....There's a very "us vs. them" mentality on this site that disturbs me greatly."]
Andy Schlafly: I doubt that "disturbs [you] greatly." More likely you don't like it when someone points out liberal deceit. That disturbs many liberals greatly.
[Wouldn't a Neutral Bible project be more useful?]
Stated another way, conservatism is freedom from liberal bias. A conservative Bible is one that is 100% free of liberal bias. Not 50% liberal bias, not 10% liberal bias. 0% liberal bias.
[re: error in translating the bible]
Logically, there are three sources of error: imprecision in the original language (e.g., Greek), imprecision in the modern language (English), and liberal bias in translating between the two.
It takes some getting used to, but I like "Holy Force." The term may appeal even more to teenagers. It may also gain traction with the physics-students-headed-for-atheism crowd.
[Matthew 6] verse 22: Translating the reference to the dancer as a "bimbo" (or something similar) seems to fit the context. I wonder if the Greek word ever meant that. This may be a case where the Greek itself is inadequate and there may be richer options in English to choose from. It seems obvious what was meant and thus justified to convey what was meant despite inadequacies in the Greek
Wearing all black as a teenager is suggestive of anti-Christian beliefs. Other examples in this entry illustrate that. I welcome more evidence, but am not going to play dumb amid liberal denial by others.
Your entry that you link above takes a small step towards the truth, yet ignores how deadly anti-Christian animus is, and how many self-described atheists suffer from it. It's not a mental illness, but a belief system that results from being misled.
Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood
First, admit that liberals do deify government officials, which is undeniable. Second, liberal insistence on using the incorrect term "President's Day," which is contrary to law, defies any other explanation.
[I have friends and relatives from many parts of the political spectrum, and I can't think of any of them, liberal or conservative, who would give any president god-like status, or who worship government officials.]
You deny far too much, Hsmom. Join the "Economist" in losing credibility by refusing to admit that liberals deify government officials.
[More posters disagree]
Lots of vague denials here, yet no one will admit how liberals deify government officials, as communists did for Stalin and Lenin in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. To liberals, the "President" is an object of worship (or extreme scorn in a few cases). A liberal views the President as somehow above everyone else, and "President's Day" is in honor and recognition of that deification, despite the law expressly stating otherwise. Pathetic, I know, but atheists don't have the real God and this helps fill their vacuum.
[More disagreement]
ShawnJ, you lose all credibility when you say that you "disagree that liberals deify government officials." What you do think the deification of Lenin, Stalin and Castro is about? Or do you deny that deification also?
I repeat: atheists don't have God, and something inevitably fills that vacuum. The presidency plays that role for many liberals. Honor and worship!
Recall that the language of Mesopotamia was cuneiform, based on wedge-like characters. Can you imagine such primitive writing conveying the concept of "Holy Spirit" or "sin" or "redemption" or "faith"? It was an inadequate language, far too primitive for the needs of the powerful concepts of Christianity.
About 5 million live in the D.C. area and 700,000 work in in downtown D.C. itself each day, but only about 500,000 had used the Metro in time for the inauguration.[9] Was there a net exodus from the city for the inauguration?
(Though abstinence is the best prevention, it's still a good idea to take the HPV vaccine due to the chance of rape.)
Do the math on your scenario and I'm confident you'll find that risk to be less than the risk of being struck and killed by lightning.
(Actually, there's a a 0.6% chance of a woman being exposed to an STD through no fault of their own versus 0.016% of people being struck by lightning.)
Your data are from a one-sided source that combines rape with attempted rape, a misleading statistical trick (which is it, rape or not?). The same source claims that 3% of men are raped, which is absurd.
The vaccine protects against only a tiny percentage of STDs, and you haven't factored that in either. When you do an objective analysis, you'll see that the risk of being struck by lightning is higher, which is hardly a risk anyone incurs costs and risks adverse effects to avoid.
(A discussion about "Hollywood Values")
Andy: I've never seen a movie "demonize" drug use. Every movie I've seen that has drug use portrays it as something "cool" people do. As to your support of decriminalizing drugs, well ... that serves to prove my point. A big fan of Hollywood types yourself?
BenHur: *Huge list of movies where drugs ruin lives, cause people to die, and are generally portrayed as bad*
Andy: Liberals think they can fool people by citing unusual examples to deny a correlation. It's indisputable that Hollywood values are highly correlated with drug use, and that movie portrayals of drug use range from something that cool people do to something that is funny. Can anyone think of a movie that presented a sympathetic figure who was then senselessly murdered or seriously harmed by someone hooked on drugs? I can't. Hollywood is in denial about the harm caused by drugs, often to innocent third parties.
(Emphasis added.)
It only takes one counterexample (to disprove evolution). Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance