Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Muslim go BOOM!

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 15, 2014 7:22 PM
"For any rational person, a “belief” must have support, reason, evidence for that belief" Well, for one thing, no - a belief does not need to have support. It's right there in the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe To support that belief, which I share in, ask yourself: would a just God condemn billions upon untold billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, and other peoples to Hell simply because they never encountered the teachings of Christ? That they just had the bad luck to be born in the wrong place or the wrong time and to have absolutely no chance to escape eternal torment? Because if we take the verses about Jesus being the ONLY WAY out of Hell at face value, then we don't have any scriptural way to say those untold billions are any place but Hell. The only alternative as I see it is to think that there may be other ways to salvation.
In response to:

Slaughtered 'Sons Of Anarchy'

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 4:23 PM
"That is the point. They would have gone over the head of the audience Sons of Anarchy is directed to." The point we're trying to make, actually, is that when you say Shakespeare wrote to "appeal to a sophisticated adult audience," you are wrong. He did have a sophisticated adult audience, certainly, but most of the people who saw his plays had far less education and literacy than the average Sons of Anarchy viewer. If the average groundling back then could catch his puns, it wasn't because they were smarter than the average TV watcher nowadays; it's just because Shakespeare wrote in the language of his day.
In response to:

Slaughtered 'Sons Of Anarchy'

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 11:20 AM
Ah, beat me to it. Part of Shakespeare's lasting popularity is that his works had plenty of appeal for both highbrow and lowbrow, educated and uneducated audiences. Romeo and Juliet has lovely poetry in it and some nice discussion on the nature of love, but it's also got a lot of sex jokes.
In response to:

Slaughtered 'Sons Of Anarchy'

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 11:08 AM
"Sadly, brain-damaged TV critics compare Sutter to Shakespeare, which should have the Bard spinning like a top in his grave." Have you ever read Hamlet? Or Romeo and Juliet? Or Macbeth? Or ANY of his tragedies? They almost uniformly end with massive battles or a spree of graphic, pointless deaths (and you can believe they would have been graphic and bloody on the stage of the Globe). I know Bozell's career requires him to be a culture warrior, but what culture is he fighting for exactly? Great literature abounds with great violence.
In response to:

You Will Live Forever

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 1:00 PM
I have no idea. I try to lead a righteous life, but I know I'm a sinner and I don't know how the final calculation is going to be done. I believe in Christ, but I have problems with the "Belief in Jesus is a requirement to not get tortured for eternity" line because of the untold billions that are condemned to eternal agony in that reasoning. I understand that God's justice is above and beyond my own human definitions of justice, but the idea that there are tens of billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, aborigines, etc. burning in Hell for eternity because they never heard of the only thing that could save them from Hell - that just doesn't work for me, but that is the traditional outlook and I don't know of any way to contradict it with biblical evidence.
In response to:

You Will Live Forever

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 9:36 AM
Where do you think Ghandi is, Matt? Where is every good man, woman, and child who had no belief in Jesus - who, because of the circumstances of their births, really couldn't have been expected to believe in Jesus?
In response to:

You Will Live Forever

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 9:29 AM
He did, but he's not updating the Book of Life hourly. He knew before you were born whether it was going to be Heaven or Hell for you, and it's a question of His grace rather than your works and life choices that will make the difference according to many interpretations.
In response to:

You Will Live Forever

alank1980 Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 9:16 AM
How about the billion people in India? Do they have an excuse? Or the pre-Columbian native Americans? Not trying to be a jerk, but there was a time when the universally accepted stance was that all those people were going to Hell because they weren't Christian. I find that really hard to reconcile, and I'm not sure how those who belief faith in Christ is the only way out of Hell manage to reconcile it.
Actual quotes from Joanne Simpson: "“There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. “What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.” Ahluwalia also urged erring on the side of caution for the possibility of climate change in the speech you quote. Otherwise, thank you for your thorough response. This is pretty much what I was looking for.
"They not only ignore, but never even mention, one of the things driving the weather this year, which is, a big El Niño." That's because WEATHER and global CLIMATE are two different things. WE are having a colder-than-average season; the WORLD is having a warmer-than-average season.
Where are the "real" scientists, then? The idea that global warming is a hoax, that practically all the climatologists in the world are in cahoots, and that they only keep agreeing on global warming and climate change because they want to keep their access to grant money just doesn't make sense to me. Can we REALLY not think of anyone, any big, powerful, and moneyed interests in the world, who wouldn't love to provide a job for climatologists willing to "tell the truth"? The tobacco companies had no trouble finding experts willing to discredit mainstream scientists; surely the big oil companies could do at least as well. And why would the liberals put all their chips on some made-up weather hoax when they could put their chips on peak oil instead, which is just as scary and much harder to argue about?
Previous 11 - 20 Next