hmbld

Thanks for the reply, when I did look it up it sounded very much like two different things, which made me realize I probably don't understand what humanism is referring to after all.

What is humanism, and is there a term that covers the popular concept of when people state things like, "you have to love yourself first before you can love others" or some variation of the make yourself happy, its all about me.

Your argument is based on a few women who push the equality thing? I don't know how to say this other than to be direct; I thought you always argued from what is stated in the bible? Does the bible state that men and women are equal in everything, or are there gender roles? I don't mean women are inferior, I mean, isn't preferential treatment of women correct?

Anybody read Bruce Wilkinson's book The Prayer of Jabez? Any opinions?

While I want to applaud Congress in over riding an Obama veto, I can't help but wonder if Obama is right in this particular case. Can citizens of other countries sue the U.S. for all the deaths we cause in interfering with the world?

Hello Shiny! Well, you point is true, however at the same time, I also see much good in the posting here. Such as your point number 2, when verses are taken out of context, it may be a great example to teach what the proper context is. Whether the op opens up to the correct context or not, perhaps many like myself who doesn't post a whole lot, are reading and learning. There are many great people here who are patient and kind and let us learn from there wisdom. We are all wrong at times, yet I think even with the few things you brought up are true at times, overwhelmingly, (or maybe its just the good I concentrate on), there is a lot of great people and conversations here!

Just saying thanks G.E. Great thread, I had a misunderstanding of the boundaries book, and in reading this thread I am reconsidering it. I appreciate the interesting work your doing here.

I'm not sure why you stressed this line by underlining it, unless you view someone is promoting the denial of rights here. I've supported their right to seek justice in the court system versus some of the protesters are acting in a lawless state when they attack and threaten people legally doing their job. In some instances they are being portrayed as victims of violence when that may not be the entire truth, some facts are being left out. I'll further state that I do support all treaties being followed, and I am aware they are not. I am also aware of how debilitating it is for someone to view themself as a victim all their life. We are all victims of injustice as some point,

Who is opposing the people at standing rock? The law officers? The private land owners? Not the media. Not me. They can have their day in court. I oppose their violence, and playing the victim.

Great point! We are here and now, let history be history and move on. If my ancestors were wronged at any point, does it matter? Every person of every race could play the victim on how their ancestors were wronged.

Yeah all the oil my grandparents dumped on the ground when they changed oil and all the oil that has dripped onto the roadways, well, it came from the ground so I guess it wanted to go back to the ground!

Peoples all over the world have been invaded and lose their land. This is the United States now, everyone has equal opportunity to work, and especially here they have opportunity to hear the truth of God. Creating a system where people feel they are victims and are owed something makes them dependent, not independent. Big oil gets their way in a lot of situations, nothing to do with a peoples race.

See, I think everyone should be treated equally, as citizens of our country. The past is the past. There are farmers of all races who are forced to sell their land for the building of roads, cities, pipelines, etc. Race should not play a part, there is a system, whether just or not, that all must follow. Breaking the law, trespassing, threatening violence and then claiming to be a victim only works when the media plays along with the offenders.

I think you are mistaken, at least about some of us who believe we must be led by the Holy Spirit rather than a set of strict laws, on your assessment that we "are free to do as you please". Rather, I think following a set of strict laws is closer to doing as you please. Trying to meet some unattainable goal, and maybe not judging, but certainly making others feel judged that they can't get all these rules sorted out right.

Though I fail often, I pray that I might be follow the leading of the Holy Spirit more and my opinions less.

I may not be understanding everything, but according to Got Questions, Zion is a physical place, and scripture also uses Zion in a spiritual sense: http://www.gotquestions.org/Zion.html What is being said that you consider very dangerous, and why?

The court system is not perfect, yet it is the legal way to fight something. Violence, threatening workers is unacceptable. To stray into dangerous waters, it seems the creation of some separate entity within the borders of a nation has done much to hurt the welfare of the members of this said entity. Hanging on to treaties and the hurt from them being broken is not doing anyone any good. The native americans are not being deprived of their rights to their traditions. Why are there separate classes of United States citizens?

I think control is man made theory of authority, derived from our own desire to feel powerful, or better than, (sin) verses humbling oneself to be a servant in a position of authority, where the authority is only to guide, to benefit the ones under authority, Please explain where we are directed to control another person, verses controlling ourselves.

The premise is that the violence is against the native tribes, when in actuality, they broke down a fence, threatened to attack workers, reports of knives and hatchets are suppressed because, after all, these are to be expected as the people are camping there and need them to camp. No excuse for the poor training of the dogs, however, this also would not have happened if the protesters were not trespassing. This is one country, The United States of America, and they can follow law, and use the court system.

No, I am actually pretty excited about both wind and solar power, however, they need to be economically viable. Not just in a salesman's theoretical possibility. To be viable, they need to stand on their own, the grant money has been spent, time to sink or swim. The fact is, the more renewable energy the government, by law, forces into the market place, the more your average citizen is going to suffer by way of substantially increased cost. So now we have tax money going to these industries, and each consumer pays more for energy. You think greed is only in oil companies?

Never heard of this oo! I've always wondered how so many billions of barrels of oil could be so far underground, all I remember being taught was it is plant and animal matter from millions of years. I could never comprehend this. I wonder how much of what we teach in our public schools is based on real science, and how much is being bought off by the dollars.

Grants are tax dollars, or government debt actually. "Today the Energy Department announced up to $107 million in new projects and planned funding in order to support America's continued leadership in clean energy innovation through solar technology." http://energy.gov/eere/articles/energy-department-announces-107-million-innovative-projects-and-new-funding-advance

The drawbacks to renewable energy is the theoretical possibility of it being economically viable are always proven wrong in the real world, and this is after very large amounts of tax dollars are contributed to all these projects. Ethanol was pushed as a financially viable alternative to oil products, yet it has only contributed to increased fuel cost, increased fuel system component cost, decreased shelf life of fuel, the mandated usage of a source of food, decreased fuel economy, and some reports indicate it consumes as much or more energy to convert to fuel. The free market, or your average citizen, will not support any of these. Only tax dollars being spent that our government really does not even have. What happens if you spend more money every year than you earn?

Renewable energy sounds great, but only the rich can actually afford it. They can not stand on their own. I've seen newer reports than the one I'll link here, but can't seem to locate them right now. "In addition to the federal government, which has spent $150 billion in the last five years, states also heavily subsidize the industry by offering tax breaks and 538 rebate programs. However, solar energy will only contribute 0.6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015, the TPA’s report said. (link edited to provide same info without the offensive promotions and advertisements, as per terms of service)

Renewable energy sounds great, but only the rich can actually afford it. They can not stand on their own. I've seen newer reports than the one I'll link here, but can't seem to locate them right now. "In addition to the federal government, which has spent $150 billion in the last five years, states also heavily subsidize the industry by offering tax breaks and 538 rebate programs. However, solar energy will only contribute 0.6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015, the TPA’s report said. http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-solar-energy-subsidies-cost-39-billion-per-year/