buckthesystem

I see nobody has picked up on my comment that we should never just "go like lambs to the slaughter" and we should "fight with every fibre of our being" even if "the outcome is predetermined and we know what it is". Does everybody think that if faced with being blackmailed into accepting an evil regime to live under or being beheaded for our faith, we should just "knuckle under and meekly go forward to put our heads on the chopping block"? Or that we owe it to ourselves and others to fight, or at least "not go quietly"?

Sure it is not a good idea to support illegal immigration, but it is not illegal to protest - not yet anyway. So how can this be "supporting illegal activity"? We should all question government policy, not just blindly accept it. And we should certainly not encourage our students to just accept the status quo either. It is far healthier for them to participate in protest, and we should not ever make them believe that it is illegal. "Illegal immigration" is a whole other matter.

The quote from 50cent dog: "I have heard that we will be sad that our unsaved loved ones are not in heaven at first but God will dry every tear. He will cause us to forget about our loved ones who are in hell". Sounds a bit like when you are a kid and your scruffy old dog dies and your mother tries to comfort you by saying "never mind, I will get you a better dog and you will forget 'old scruffy'". You are supposed to just forget about the feelings of "old scruffy" or in this case members of your earthly family, and concentrate on your own happiness and your new friend(s). I know we should work on persuading family members to come to the Lord so that they can be saved, but what if they suddenly die today? Is the price for that an eternity without them for ourselves and damnation for them? Please don't think I am being horrible to anybody for what they have said, I guess this is something we all proffer an opinion on. And 50cent dog what does ".....are not in heaven AT FIRST ...." mean?

Kittylover. Of course I have got to agree with you that Jesus when he was on the earth in human form was a male. This is an undisputed fact and it has never been claimed, or would ever be claimed, to be otherwise. However, while I do see that it is ridiculous to change God's title to "she" as that is somehow lowering his status in line with the politically correct thinking of today. I really don't understand how a supernatural being who is not a physical human as we understand it, could be either male or female. Please believe that I am not dis'ing what you said, but trying to understand it in my own mind. I know the Bible talks about "he". But then, what other words could it have used? I think it is just another of those things that we don't know how to understand, and so look at from the human point of view. I hope someone can come up with some more answers.

I can't resist this. I guess it is pretty trivial, but we have to guard against thinking of God by our own standards. Spirited one wrote: Hi Corey. That is a brilliant question. I would have to go with, going with the flow on this one. If god had brought me to a point where he/she was about to remove the nattering one, I would see this as a true blessing. In no way do I depreciate my head, but if it meant I could go through to the next life by giving it up, then that would be a small price to pay, after all we have to die at least once before we enter the kingdom of heaven, don't we? Spirited_one (end quote) Then Rustyangel says: "he or she??? you think God is a she? The bible is clear. Jesus said " if you have seen Me you have seen the Father. " Jesus was a male. God in the flesh. Please in the future..give God the respect He deserves. Alao in answer to your question, I guess that is was faith and trust is all about. We know that Jesus proimsed to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. So I would trust I would choose life with Him." Well that is a good example of attributing our characteristics to God. God is a spirit, and therefore can be neither male nor female. (In my opinion) we are only male or female because we have bodies and because we have bodies it is necessary to reproduce other bodies for spirits to indwell. When we die, we will no longer be male nor female because we will no longer have the bodies. It is undoubted that Jesus was male when he "walked this earth as one of us". He could have chosen to be anything he wanted on this earth, he could have been a king, a slave, a lepper, any race he wanted, a tradesman, a merchant, a nobleman, a scholar or a woman. However, he chose to be an ordinary man - a carpenter and a Jew, seemingly because this was how he could most effectively get across his message and fulfill his destiny. Scripture, and in fact, all writing, refers to God as "he" or "him" only because it would be ridiculous to talk of "it" (and also quite rude) but it is politically correct silliness to talk of "him/her" or "he/she". Documents that come out of government departments talk of "he or she" when referring to everything, but it must be noted that it is only government departments that do this as nobody else could afford to waste words or money on something so inconsequential and politically correct to the point where it sounds silly, but the government department doesn't care because it is not their money that they are wasting - it belongs to the taxpayer. I have heard horrific suggestions that "the bible should be re-written to exclude all 'sexist' references and wherever the word 'he' appears, to include the oblique stroke followed by the word 'she'". An "official, approved" Bible perhaps?

Yes, indeed, I just love dogs - all animals in fact - and I don't know where we'd be without them. They provide friendship and no judgement, but we, unfortunately, keep animals as pets for purely selfish reasons. Very rarely to "give the dog a home" but because we want a dog. We recently adopted another dog from the local spca. A Rotweiller X, and the spca were glad to let us have him because he was too big for them to handle, he was 2 years old, and as the woman from the spca said "people want cute little puppies, but this one ......." I realised that my family wanted him, not so much to give him a home, but because we wanted another dog. It turns out that he has the sweetest personality and is so personable. Yes, I have got to agree with Leonard and otherone. It is very strange that man would think that shooting a dog with darts and trapping him in a net is being kind to him. Glad that he was eventually reunited with his human family though.

I think I can say in all truth (well as far as I know it anyway) that I am personally 100% convinced that it would be better to succumb to the sword than to "give in to blackmail" and live a, perhaps, short time but know all the time that I have hurt Christ just so that I can live a little longer and live under a really horrible regime. I would be constantly thinking "is it all worth it?" and reminding myself that I have betrayed Jesus for, what? And as a result I would probably end up by killing myself. But, having said that, I hope it would be a guillotine and not a swordsman. I would be more scared that the executioner would not be a good marksman and miss his aim and just hack my neck to pieces and cause a lot of pain and a very slow death, than I would of dying itself. If death was instantaneous, well I would far rather have it than a life under the control of the anti-Christ with nothing to look forward to but death and then an eternity without God. I think it far more likely that it will never be as "clean cut" as that (excuse the pun) but as no governments want martyrs (this saying is common among governments), a person insisting on their belief in the risen saviour would be slowly bankrupted first, humiliated and tortured and members of their family threatened. It is easy to choose death for yourself, but quite another matter to see your child and your brother/mother/father/sister/grandparent/spouse being tortured and be told "you are forcing us to do this to your child or (other) relative", especially if you know that that relative actually thinks that by "not cooperating" you are causing them to be tortured and perhaps killed. So, again, I think - in these circumstances - it would be incredibly wrong to just "go like lambs to the slaughter". We should fight with every fibre of our being, even if we know that the outcome is predetermined. We should never just succumb to blackmail, but fight it with everything we have. Why should we make this easy on satan? This reminds me of a particularly pertinent passage from Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Now I must apologise in advance to those who might think it is inappropriate to quote Adolf Hitler, because I realise that the old adage is that "once you bring in this sort of thing, the thread soon dies" and I am really sorry if I offend anyone. I really don't intend to, honest! I just think this is really pertinent here. "When an opponent declares 'I will not come over to your side' I calmly say 'your child belongs to us already..... What are you? You will pass on, your descendents, however, will stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community'". I am more frightened of that then of dying because I believe that Jesus is the saviour. What really scares me is the fact that any Christians may be ridiculed for believing as we do, our families made to, or persuaded to, join in that ridicule, and thus, us be deprived of "dying a noble death". We will be seen to be "throwing our lives away" by the "powers that be" and also "throwing away the lives of our family members and friends, for selfish reasons" if we do not bow down and worship a false god. We can feel all self righteous in the fact that we believe we are dying for our belief in the Christ saviour, but the mocking and ridicule of those (who might be our own family or friends) who just think we are being selfish and shortsighted, will be very hard to take. I pray that if/when the time comes I can face it with resolve.

This question came up in discussion today and nobody seemed to be able to sort it out. I was wondering if anybody on this board had any answers that I or others hadn't thought of: Is it a paradox that we are told we are born sinners and yet we are also told we are born saved because of the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary? If the answer is that we are born saved, are our lives as humans designed to try and make us "fall from Grace" and also to put so many difficulties in our way that unless we are specifically chosen by God or happen to be directed towards "salvation", we are doomed to be kept in a state of sin always. Surely if Jesus died on the Cross at Calvary for the sins of everybody including those who had not yet even been born, why are some of us told that "our salvation is not secure" even if we dod not live the "sinful lifestyle" but just never formally "accept Jesus as our saviour"? Now here's the dilemma, I will quote: "Scripture says the world and its ways are against God. Christ says you cannot love Him and the world, Children are innocent, children do not contain a cohesive central core of being around which all thoughts revolve like adults, Thus also they have no fear except the ones you teach them through your own, Scripture says they are born sinners. Christ says they are innocent". I suppose it all gets back to the question, why some and not others? Why are some people healed of physical illnesses or adictions when they pray while others are not and have to either suffer through or fight their own way out of it? Why do some become born again Christians and "live happily ever after" while others have a "hard row to hoe" and call on Christ but have to overcome so many difficulties as well?

They'll tell us that Lazarus was in a catatonic trance and wasn't really dead at all. Then Jesus came along with the smelling salts .............

Why is it that scientists, in their arrogance, cannot accept the supernatural and have to "prove" a "natural" explanation for things? And of course, make a name for themselves as well. See the article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3628510a4560,00.html I think we are being told that Jesus was a "Merlin the magician" and used an ability to understand natural phenomena to trick people into believing that he could perform miracles (you know, the story of Merlin using the "total eclipse of the sun" to frighten his enemies and get them to do his will). Can anyone see any logic to this?

Well...... I can easily understand why the DMV wants the height/weight and fingerprints on your license- it's because some people look the same. Or they change how they look, or deny being someone they are, etc... The license has that information on it to help catch criminals- if you have a fingerprint on file from everyone, and someone's fingerprint is in your crime-scene- it can really help figure things out, if you can match the print, even if the person doesn't have a criminal record.... that's just a reason I thought of.... another thing: Where on earth does it say that as human beings, we get privacy? I mean, first of all, God sees us do everything... so nothing's private.... and also, with the weight thing... if you are embarrassed about the weight displayed on your license, look at it this way: it can either motivate you to make the weight more satisfying to you, or realistically, people who see you will be able to generally tell whether your weight is high/low, etc... so what's the difference? It's not as if many people see your license, anyway... Camera phones can be useful. I don't have one, nor do I need one... (partially because I think they have poor picture quality, and I have a 4 MP digital camera instead...) but my dad has wanted one for awhile. He is self-employed, and it would be nice for him to have one, so that he could take pictures of the things he does at work- like take a picture of his completed job of installing stall loops in a freestall dairy barn- or installing cow mattresses.... This would help him to be able to show future customers, what his work looks like. And there IS great advantage to the convenience of only carrying ONE piece of technology around... he has his cell phone... knowing what state his truck is in, generally, if he also had a camera with him, it would just get lost. So not all things about camera phones, are bad. They are a technology, and kind of neutral- it's how some people use them, that's bad. (and if people take your picture, unless it's a crude picture, why bother with fighting it? it doesn't really hurt you... and what can the other person do with it, really? especially if it's just some teenager, and not someone who has a vendetta out against you?) just my take on the camera phones.... ~Danette I am sorry if I sound opinionated about this. It is just that this subject - privacy, that is - is one of my passions. First off, a DL is a certificate of competence, not a mobile crime laboratory. I simply do not believe the idea that we have foisted on us constantly that most drivers are potential criminals who need to be identified by the "authorities" all the time. You are dismissing privacy as of no concern whatsoever, so what would be your attitude to surrendering all your life's information to your government and to be published on the internet regularly? I really must point out that there is a world of difference between God seeing everything we do (of course he has a right to do this, and can even do it without the aid of cameras and fingerprints) and MAN seeing all we do. I actually find the comparison kind of creepy. Are you saying that the DMV and people with camera 'phones have the same status as God? This in itself warrants discussion. I am sure you are right though, pix phones have their uses and are generally quite benign. However, they must be a boon to stalkers and private investigators. "1984" here we come (willingly)!

"Pix 'phones" are a gross invasion of privacy. It is another of those things which someone invented to be a "gimmick" for teenagers, and they must have made a lot of money out of it. Sure it is good to be able to get an instant picture of something. But I think the inconvenience of the whole thing far outweighs any benefits. CCTVs are invading Europe and people are becoming accustomed to them, even expecting to be "snapped" everywhere they go. According to what I read CCTVs threaten to invade America now too. This would be a tragedy. Privacy is fast turning into "a foreign concept that is far over-rated". What has happened to trust? I don't like having my picture taken, and without my knowledge or consent is the hight of cheek. Privacy is precious. How easily we have given it up. I still find it amazing how many people seem to have bought into the idea that an office full of bureaucrats has a "God given right" to information about you and your image, all for the silliest of excuses: "Safety and security". I was discussing this with an American friend who was complaining about her experience with the DVLA when she had to "renew" her driving licence, and she said "I don't mind being fingerprinted by the DVLA staff, but I do question why my age and weight has to appear on the face of the licence". I was absolutely horrified by all of these things and I tried to find out a logical answer as to why the DVLA wanted this information. I couldn't get a straight answer out of anyone. I have an absolute paranoia about "driving licences" since ours, in this country, were "changed" to a "digi/photo/id licence" literally be sleight of hand in 1998. "Facial recognition technology" (which btw is possible with the images from "pix 'phones") is one thing, but I could never accept fingerprints, weight etc. Perhaps somebody here can be more honest. Does anyone really thing these things are necessary? Ahh Pix 'phones, another seemingly innocuous thing that can and will be abused.

Marnie I think it is dangerous for any of us to have too much trust in "the government". I do have to apologise though, for inappropriate "moral equivalency". I certainly see your point, and I am sorry for offence. Really, I didn't intend to hurt anyone.

I always wondered what a "flux capacitor" was. A sort of cross between something to do with soldering - the flux, and something to do with electronic components - the capacitor. But I just can't figure out how that would make time travel possible, maybe I am showing my ignorance. Can you enlighten me?

Like always, I suppose, people will not take this as a serious problem and just snicker. Because it is a woman having sex with a boy. Somehow, in peoples' minds (everyone but parents of boys however, or the boys themselves) will be thinking: "lucky boy". Now if it was a male teacher having sex with a 13 yr old girl, well that is totally different. People would be going round screaming that he should be "hanged from the nearest yard arm". Perhaps the "new woman" is at fault here. Society has tried to socially engineer women and girls for the past 30 or 40 years, that they should be "agressive". I feel sorry for the young women of today, they get no respect out of the boys and so much is expected of them. Everything except a sense of moral right/wrong, that is.

Yes, you are. You are engaging in moral equivalency. It is not unjust to require people to obey immigration laws. Every country in the world has them, why is it only America is expected borderless? Hey, I am a libertarian but even I see the need for immigration laws, buck! A just law is one that keeps me safe from you and you safe from me. If a person will sneak into this country in the cover of darkness, obtain forged papers to stay here, I can conclude they will break other laws. This ain't rocket science. Dear Sister Marnie, I totally agree with you, but I fear that I did not make my meaning absolutely clear. I do not mean that immigration laws are unjust. Of course America needs immigration laws and they should expect them to be adhered to, just like any other country. But: Quote "In referring to the immigration reform bill that was passed in December by the U.S. House of Representatives -- a bill that would make giving assistance to (i.e., aiding and abetting) illegal aliens an imprisonable crime -- the cardinal recently said, "I would say to all priests, deacons and members of the church that we are not going to observe this law." Unquote. I was actually referring to the part in the Bill that would make "giving assistance to - aiding and abetting - illegal aliens, an imprisonable crime. Apparently "the target of this Bill is not humanitarian priests", and the writers of the Bill are trying to make us believe that "humanitarian priests" would not be imprisoned. Now this begs the question "why is this passage in the Bill if it is not to be used?" Here's where the analogy about "someone falling in the river and you being imprisoned for helping them" comes in. It is unjust, almost immoral, to threaten someone who might otherwise help someone else. If someone is in trouble you should be able to help them without the threat of government "coming down on you like a ton of bricks" and imprisoning you. I am not saying that priests should help illegal immigrants get into the country. Just that they might help them with food, clothing or what ever if they are in trouble. It is a bit more than just "immigration law that should be obeyed". I will go even further and engage in another moral equivalency. It is pretty much the same as the law that existed under Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime in Europe in the 1930s and 40s that said anyone caught "aiding and abetting" Jews or other "undesirables" would be imprisoned or killed. This gave people a dream excuse to turn Jews away and let them die. This is one of the most horrible, morally repugnant things I have ever heard of. But it was "the law of the land" and turned out to be very effective and even gave people a conscience-easing excuse for "doing nothing". They could merely sanctimoneously say "we couldn't help these Jews, the Nazis would have killed us too". I see a parallel anyway. Really, I am not criticising America's immigration laws, I'm just being all self righteous.

But we do have the choice there. There are many places where the "staff" are just as rude and downright horrible, but we have no choice as to whether or not we deal with them. The DVLA springs to mind, and a lot of other government departments. Makes you wonder if they would have such an attitude if they did not have a "captive audience".

Another thing I find intolerable about airlines (this is in NZ and it may not be the case in the US, I don't know) is the customs department's habit (yes, it is the government and not the airline staff who do this) of "confiscating" - read stealing for that - items from passengers such as Swiss army pocket knives, knitting needles, hat pins (or anything else that customs thinks it might like) and refusing ever to return the items. The official line is that the stolen items go to charities. Well, I don't know if I entirely believe that.

Sure "the target of this Bill is not humanitarian priests", but it is definitely they who will be "targeted" if they "put a foot wrong". If a law is unjust, we all have a responsibility to disregard it, and fight openly to get rid of it, and expose the fact that it is unjust. It is kind of like the law in China that says if somebody commits a crime than all his neighbours must be guilty as well because "they should have known he was up to something". Or the law in NZ during the 1951 miners strike that said that it was illegal for anyone to aid in any way, the family of a miner on strike. Another analogy would be if someone fell into a river and you said I will arrest and fine, or maybe jail, anyone who attempts to help them. Does anyone think I am going over the top here?

I can see a time when there will be a gross shortage of women in Saudi Arabia. And perhaps, throughout the middle east as well. I had a friend out here visiting, from mainland China who had one 22 year old daughter. They were missionaries and had lived in various countries for their work and were saying that her daughter got stares and "cat-calls" from Chinese males whereever she went, not because she dressed provocatively or anything but because a Chinese female is such a rarety these days.

I think there is a reason for airport staff acting this way: All the other kids rejected them at school and they have sworn to get back at humanity ever since. There are a lot of options open to people "with a grudge against society" and an increasing amount of opportunities in this modern world. It used to be that they all would work for the DVLA or the Inland Revenue, but now they can work for the airlines, or the myriad of newly created government departments that seemingly just exist to bully people. It is now official. Society's misfits have now been handed power on a "silver platter".

I have only just heard about the "end times" theory. The site is pretty good, but rather like others I have seen on this subject. One thing that does stand out about it though is the "blow the trumpet and warn the people, Eze. 33.36" - I believe that totally and I also believe that it is the responsibility of every Christian to take that seriously and "shout the news from the housetops", or people might say "well, you might have warned me". I really don't know how seriously we should take all these things though. It depends very much on the timing. The Bible tells us to "look out for signs" (in so many words) and it would seem that all the signs are pretty much there, again it is a matter of interpretation. I come across an accepting, smug, almost blase attitude from Christians when something in the news "rings alarm bells" for me and I try to impart it to them. I'll never understand the reasoning "leave it up to the Lord to fix", these things are made of man, not the Lord. Again a lot of Christians seem to have the attitude that "it won't matter because we will be 'raptured' before things get too bad". Well, that (rapture) is a whole other issue, and one that is totally confusing to me and I am finding it very difficult to sort out. I heard the word "rapture" for a long time and I thought people were talking about dinosaurs then I realised that that would be "rapTOR" not "rapture". Seriously though I hate to say it, but I really struggle with this concept. The whole idea seems almost "too convenient". It seems to me that if there is to be a "rapture" of the church, then that gives Christians an "out" and there are a lot of things we don't have to deal with, as we can always just think "but if I play my cards the right way, I will be out of here and nothing will matter for me". I hate to keep harping on about this particular part of "end times" but I just want to "get it off my chest". Basically why I find this all so hard to accept is the idea of "keeping your physical body". Bodies are physical things and once physical life ends I don't see that we would have any need or any desire for bodies. Also, isn't everybody just about sick of their body by now (or at least able to foresee a time when they will be)? However, to the site. Yes, it is a good site for seeing how signs of the "end times" fit into place in the modern world. I do believe that we are in "end times" now, but we are by no means the last generation (well there are already two generations younger than me, so I am certainly not in the last generation). I reckon that it will take another fifty years or more before it is obvious to the world that the second coming is imminent. Fifty or even 100 years is "nothing" to God, who exists absolutely outside our concept of time, and if he said "I am coming back soon ...." (words to the effect) 2000 years ago, well ............ I am 50 now, so that puts it way past my life time. So we all have to take heed of the horrible things that are going on in this world right now or we are just making it all the harder for our descendents. Sites like the above are good, this particular site is very good. We must all "sit up and take notice" and not fall into complacency.

Heard a brilliant saying from a radio talkback host and a popular local journalist, that just about sums up the attitude behind this: "The arrogance of scientists knows no bounds". Of course on conspiracy theories (now this one is mine, not a quote) of course if it is true, then it not a "conspiracy theory" but a "conspiracy FACT". I would never advocate that a professor (or who ever) be "gagged", you know, "free speech" and all. But what is really scary about this is the enthusiastic response he got from his students. This makes me realise that if ever the theory became "doable" there would be no shortage of volunteers to "spread the virus" among a population. We would have another generation of people thinking (or saying) "I am only following orders", "I am only doing my job", "this has got to be done and somebody's got to do it" etc. I'm pretty well convinced that with the attitude of today if we had a repeat of the King Herrod story of killing all baby boys under the age of two, there would be thousands of people queueing up for this "job", and proudly carrying it out.

This is interesting: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49555 Isn't it great how people who advocate this sort of thing always have the "them and us" mentality. And, of course, it is always "them" who "have to go". This is very much a "radical view" now, but we always have to be wary of the fact that in time it may become a mainstream view. If we ignore this, what sort of a world are we leaving for our children.

Yeah, sorry, Lasere, I guess I was the one being judgemental. We all have to learn how to treat other people and we cannot go around yelling and screaming and grabbing them. Verbal abuse of someone is bad enough, but resorting to physical abuse is over the top. I know how you feel really because I try to avoid places like courthouses because I tell myself that "I don't suffer fools gladly" but the truth is that I cannot handle the attitude of the employees who might be "officious" and I still register any motor vehicles by mail because I cannot handle what might be the attitude of a person who would be involved in this. I realise of course that the other posters are right though. Every one of us is going to come up against people that we'd rather not have to deal with, but praying to God for advice on how to handle it, will help. The phrase I had heard that says "cast your problems on the Lord" always seemed totally unrealistic to me, but I have found that it is actually true. About a year and a half ago I had so many problems with my son that I just prayed to the Lord "I just can't handle this anymore, you have a go" and virtually over night things began to improve. It was almost as if the Lord was saying "see you should have let me handle it a long time ago. Best of luck and I hope that another hairdresser (don't even go near the original hairdresser, you'll only get "stressed out") manages to get the colour right.