• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

Storm Rider

Contributor
  • Content count

    5,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Storm Rider last won the day on October 19 2015

Storm Rider had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,659 Excellent

1 Follower

About Storm Rider

  • Rank
    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Herndon, Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

3,128 profile views
  1. It will be interesting when the 1st world nations really get the blazes kicked out of them in war or whatever what all these wonderful atheistic platitudes about life will serve the people and how quickly they return to God. I am going to bet on history and say that the pendulum swings and always goes back and forth. Yes, religion will strengthen again.
  2. There is a high degree of debate on how prevalent those relationships were in ancient Greece and within which segments of society was it practiced. Further, the stigma of the passive partner was always present within the society depending upon the age of those involved. But back to the topic, are there any examples of ancient societies that did not believe in God having/producing a moral society as theistic societies would see as moral? I don't remember studying such an example.
  3. Pete, can you point out which ancient atheist society did not go around killing people for whatever reason they could develop to achieve their own objectives? You see, all atheist, or primarily atheist cultures, today are the by-product of moral concepts derived from religion.
  4. You entered this comment in a response to one of mine - it may help if you read each of my comments. I don't see anything in what you have said that I disagree with or that conflicts with anything I have said. Cheers,
  5. Cal, what makes your position difficult for me to understand is that I have never heard of or read any study that stated gay men have very few sexual partners. Do you know of any? Of the studies you have heard of or read how many of them actually clearly stated that gay men have far more sexual partners than....anyone. It is this behavior of the gay lifestyle that engenders a negative response. Having stated that I am not excusing heterosexual males from being promiscuous. Who has not read in newspapers decades ago about some basketball player having slept with thousands of women? But, it seems like the relative comparisons is that gay men have indiscriminate sexual encounters, on average, far more than any of their counterparts - male or female. Why? If this is accurate why would you tire of those who criticize this behavior? Me thinks sometimes you are trying to get others to only use rose-colored glasses when discussing the gay lifestyle. And, I still think you are right about a great number of things - in other words, we have far more in common than not. When the topic of sin comes up there are no innocent humans and none of us should fear identifying what sin is and what it is not. After that we really do need to remember that we love one another honestly and sincerely. I feel I do that far more often than not.
  6. Stemmel, I just disagree on using the term "rude" to describe blunt, direct language. Simply because a person gets their feelings hurt has nothing to do with being rude - it is only a terminology issue for me. I don't have a problem accepting that someone gets their feelings hurt - but it is not due to rudeness in this instance. I agree with you on the racial issue. I think the Brethren can be wrong and have been wrong in the past. However, just because you, me, or the Brethren have been wrong in the past does not equate to being wrong all the time. I think you have to really, REALLY stretch to conclude the scriptures do not condemn gay behavior. What makes you think our society is so much more enlightened simply because we have accepted it as normal? By what standard does that indicate it is actually acceptable? Why are they right and all of history be wrong? What changed to make it right? No, I am no savior and I have never claimed to be, but I do know sin. I know the guilt one has from all sin. Please, don't try and tell me that gay behavior or any other sinful behavior is not sin.
  7. First, I think you are confusing the term rude - based on the definition I don't see how it is rude to condemn homosexual behavior. You seem to conflate rude with causing "harm" to another. That is not what rudeness is and never has been. What you seem to be saying is if what an individual says hurts another's feelings should.....whatever. The best example that I know of is the Savior response to the woman caught in adultery. He would not condemn her - he continued to love her - but his counsel was go and sin no more. There is no need to constantly condemn a gay individual for living a gay lifestyle. When asked about our thoughts - it is go and sin no more. The racial issue and the choice of living a gay lifestyle have nothing in common. A person's race is strictly related to one's DNA and there is no scientific foundation that supports such a claim for gay people.
  8. Tacenda, you have become afraid of the reality. Think about it for just a few moments; throughout history this was a condemned behavior by all major civilizations. Why? Please do not think they were stupid; before doing that pick up some of the books written by these people from thousands of years ago. It is anathema to take the position that we cannot know what sin is because in the knowing we condemn sinful behavior. Who would want you to be confused about what is and what is not sin? Please answer this. Definitions can change with anyone; they moment an individual wants to create a definition, boom, we have a new use for a word that has had only one meaning for THOUSANDS of years. Not last week; not fifty years ago, but thousands of years ago. A marriage has been the union of a man and woman for the creation of posterity. Full stop. It has never meant - two people love each other so they are married regardless of their sex/gender. Today we use the word marriage for any relationship between anyone that wants to be together for longer than it takes to go to the courthouse. Shazam, you are now married. Just because society today is using this term more loosely does not mean that it is okay or that somehow it has become acceptable to God. Understand, I support civil unions for everyone that wants one. I don't care for your sex, your preference, etc. To me a civil union grants some beneficial rights in our tax system and social system that I feel should be given to all. Marriage just is not a word that fits (and yet I use the term gay marriage often). No, Tacenda, I do not buy into the argument that the marriage between a man and woman is a sin or has ever been considered a sin. I will not put my head in the sand; I will not equivocate in my understanding and knowledge of scripture or the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will not call white black or black white. I will not call good evil or evil good. Why do you?
  9. USU78 - but those are helpful terms to beat down the ignorant pigs that pose as Christians, but really just hate those who are gay. Shaming is only acceptable if it attacks anyone against the Sacred Cows of the identity politics. I saw an article that I only briefly scanned between a conflict between two actors. The gay actor berated the straight actor for a tweet he made. Of course, the straight actor came back and corrected his attempt to shame him. No, little Johnny, using the terms abomination or perversion are not rude - they are direct and they are blunt and they are not political correct, but their use is not rude. It is true that in common conversation when we are seeking mutual understanding in a social setting we may each choose not to use them. However, in a discussion of scripture all we have to do is quote the scripture and let the scripture speak for itself. No, the mere fact that I will not berate anyone for the use of proper terminology in a specific conversation does NOT mean that I hate my gay friends or that I don't love them. In the exact same way that I don't any other sinner. Attempting to dress up any sin is like attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. At the end of the day, that is not a silk purse. It is and will always remain a sow's ear.
  10. I think Strappinglad has an excellent point. The USA thinks they need to do original research to discover the answer for both healthcare and education. I don't quite understand when other countries have excellent examples and all we need to is emulate their systems. No blue ribbon panels, no consultants paid millions of dollars - just do it. Our government is a bit of a racket I think. Every department defends its turf; they spend outlandishly for fear if they don't their budgets will be cut; and they think putting "consultant" in front of the name means you are getting the brightest and the best. Sorry, children, it does not work that way. I have met some extremely bright consultants in my lifetime. However, in the Trust department of a major bank in which I worked early in my career I would not have given two wooden nickels for the product one of the biggest consulting firms in the nation put out. I strongly suspect it is even worse in government. Strappinglad, do you know of an example of a national health care system that is not going broke or not a significant spender of the public purse? Over the last 30 years I have read of a lot of complaints that these nations cannot support their then current social systems. There is a balancing act when the public purse is not bottomless.
  11. The most difficult thing for doctors and, more importantly, society is to define when is it time to stop providing care for someone. As someone that had/has a disease that destroyed my liver - and without any action on my part that contributed to the disease - I feel it is necessary to understand that no society can pay exorbitant health costs for the unluckiest among us. In reality, in a society that understand they cannot do all things for all people, I probably should have just been given palliative care and allowed to die. It is not like death is such a terrible thing. When I had by transplant I recognized that every dollar spend on my care was impacting each and every other member of our HMO. I received care, but at what price to others? This needs to be discussed and society and individuals need to understand that it is not possible to provide ongoing, expensive care for all of us. In order for a healthy society to exist more easily then some of us who are really sick may need to be allowed to pass on by withholding care, that may be possible, but is just too expensive to deliver. Of course, the danger of this is that the poor and the weak will be targeted as being allowed to die and the rich and powerful will mysteriously be identified as being affordable to provide the care. The impetus needs to be put into developing care that is inexpensive for all yet with an understanding that we have a limited supply of dollars to devote to healthcare. Can the government actually be successful in providing a single payer system? All I have to do is visit a DOL in any state and realize that is a daunting task that should terrify each of us. Can you imagine going into a doctor's office and being treated like the DOL treats us? Yet, what we have now is clearly not working for those who pay for the system to function. It is a very tough problem with zero easy answers.
  12. I had a liver transplant in 1999 due to a rare liver disease. When I was diagnosed with the disease I joined an HMO. Over some 20 years my premiums went from $175 per month for me alone to over $1100. HOWEVER - i had a minimal prescription co-pay and a doctor appointment copay. After that it paid 100% of my annual expenses. With Obama care the HMO canceled my policy because it did not meet the new requirements i.e. my personal insurance policy did not pay for OBGYN, child dental, and I cannot remember what all. What has resulted is that my medical costs are not affordable. I do not get the preventative testing that I used to get; I don't get the blood tests that I used to get; I have stopped taking some medications, and I have lost touch with my doctors. I can understand the benefit of providing coverage to a lot of other folks, but my coverage was destroyed by Obama care. The insurance market today is ridiculous and not helpful. I see no reason why we cannot purchase our drugs in Canada. I want a single payer system where the prescription costs are negotiated for everyone. The Health industry is a scam because of the government messing around with it. The insurance market is a racket that wants a monopoly and wants to make exorbitant profits. It never surprises me that insurance companies are found in some of the biggest and best buildings in every city. They are not in business to help citizens, but to make as much money as they can in a marketplace that decides on the life of death of its customers.
  13. MiserereNobis, I think you are missing the point. My point was the simple fact that anyone stole land, which that person stole in the first place does not equate to empowering the middle group to be recognized as the harmed party. Indians fought over land use constantly - it was part of their culture. The fact that a new tribe came in a used their land does not empower the Indian, and more so the bleeding heart liberal (that old label still rings and fits), to say they are the most wronged party. History is about the taking of land use from others. Those who are weak eventually lose their land and those who are strong....eventually become weak and lose their use of the land. I am just not enrolled in the idea that a specific people was the only one, or the first one, harmed in history. As you say - everyone can whine about losing their land, their benefits, etc. The whole reason others came to this land is to find a better way of life; one that was not offered them in their previous country. For me it does not disallow or it does not mean that a people can cry foul, but they cannot cry innocence either. It puts the whole thing in perspective. What you did to others someone has done to you is another way of saying it.
  14. This type of argument always puzzles me. It presumes that the Indians were the first humans in all the lands in which they were found. They never took land from another Indian and no humans existed before them - this allows this form of ownership to have merit. Of course, they were not the first humans in this land.....nor did they always respect the land rights of their fellow Indian tribes and peoples. So then, the argument hold no water - it has no merit. Humans have been making use of any land they could control since the beginning of time. This requires that some people lose control of land and some people take control of land. Did the European explorers take control of land here on this continent? Of course - the same as the Indians did before them. What's new?
  15. MN, I think it is inappropriate to take a very small slice of "today" when the history of the West is thousands of years old. It is appropriate to think of our culture as having ebbs and flows, periods of strengths and weaknesses. To me I see this as a very cloudy time. Our universities are filled with the teaching that the West is evil, hateful, racist, blah, blah, blah. They capitulate the contest because they only look at the worst of our entire history. Conversely, they do no critical analysis of any other culture past or present....unless it is Israel and of course that nation be damned as evil, hateful, and needing to be chastised for their racist ways. Though the Western Civilization has excelled relative to other civilizations, it is not without its warts, and it is not that other Cs don't have their merit.