Akiko

I can see where you're coming from (I've read tons of Calvin and Hobbes and own quite a few of the books), but I don't think it's that anti-Christian. There are instances where Calvin talks about mythical gods (I can recall off the top of my head a Sunday panel where Calvin 'played God', making himself into a virtual Zeus and wreaking havoc on 'his world' and another where he 'dances for the snow demons') However, it does not connotote Bhuddism (pardon my spelling), Islam, or X religion. It seems that Watterson is simply searching for God through Calvin. Many of his wagon rides through the woods deal with the meaning of life or whether or not there is a God. The basic idea I get is that it's not non-Christian, but it's not Christian either. No harm, no foul. It does teach morals and quite frankly, Hobbes is awesome.

A lot of you seem to have missed the point of this article and my question, perhaps I didn't word the question all that well. By "2nd class citizen" I meant, not that smokers or obese people could be considered 2nd class citizens and snubbed, I meant that government would be treating them as 2nd class citizens if they introduced this policy. And I think we all know that when governments "float" an idea, they have already researched it for cost, intend to implement it anyway, and are just "testing the water" as far as public reaction goes. Of course obese people and smokers should be entitled to health care on exactly the same basis as anyone else and be entitled to whatever they need to treat them for what ever illness or condition they have, absolutely regardless, no questions asked, and no discrimination whatsoever. Why? Simple: Obese people and smokers are also TAXPAYERS like anyone else and have already paid for their healthcare through their taxes! If (say) an obese person was to be denied any amount, form of, anything with regard to, healthcare, they should be refunded the portion of their taxes that goes to the NHS. If you believe that any of this is "fair", why stop with smokers or the obese? There are "tons" of other examples: "People who have accidents - they could have taken more care", "people who dye their hair"- their choice of hair dye could have caused a skin infection (prove that it didn't), "people who have skin cancer" - maybe they spent too much time in the sun (now they KNOW there's a hole in the ozone layer), "people who have genetic disabilities or diseases" - their mother wasn't very careful when she had children (now she MUST have known that heart disease ran in the family), "people who drink alcohol" - (now they KNOW that it kills off brain cells) and "people who eat food that is anything other than celery sticks, carrot sticks or tofu" - now maybe they KNOW that other food is put on the earth to tempt them and cost the taxpayer money, and it could go on and on. Now here's a really good example: We had a sloping driveway and recently I parked my car at the top and walked behind it, the car ran backwards over me and the exhaust pipe caused a lot of burns - now maybe I should have been blamed and denied medical care because I was careless and didn't apply the handbrake properly. The possibilites are endless. Also an important point is that I think it is grossly unfair blaming all obese people for the fact that are obese. People are what they are, and some people are just born that way. Size, tolerance to eating and metabolism runs in families. My younger sister's only daughter is an example of this. My sister's husband is from a very overweight family and one of his brothers is incredibly large. My sister has several boys and just one girl. However, unfortunately for the girl, all the boys turned out tall and thin like my sister, but the girl turned out with a tendancy toward obesity like her father's family. She certainly doesn't overeat, that is just the way she is. So what I should have said was something like: "Should the UK government get away with treating smokers and obese people like second class citizens"? And Salos, quote: "There are two different points here. Financial decisions made by a government are not the same as social decisions made by individuals." I just have to point out that this government is making "financial decisions" with other peoples' money, something it has no right to do. And we all make "social decisions" every day, but they have very little to do with how healthy we are going to turn out. Wise words. It made me really stop and think, and the possibilites are endless. I have a friend who is somewhat overweight, and it runs in her family. (She's big in general, wearning a men's shoe of 11 and about 5'9" in height) That kind of 'obese' does run in family. However, being morbidly obese (having a BMI of 40, twice the 'normal' weight) or obese (having a BMI of 30-39 or a waist circumference of 102+ cm in men and 88+ cm in women) crosses the line of hereditary body structure to overeating and unhealthy weight. Are they second class citizens? Nope. Do they run a higher risk of health complications due to excess fat compared to a 'normal weight' person? Yes. An idea would be if you fall into the category of obese, you have to pay slightly more on taxes to go to funds to treat health complications due to obesity (from hip replacements to heart failures). Same with smokers, alchoholics, etc. If you plan to keep up that lifestyle, you're putting yourself at risk. If you were to insist on taking small doses of poison every day, you're eventually going to have health problems. Should your tax money have to pay for my decision to ingest poison? How much? Should I have to pay for some or all of it? (Small amounts of poison...this seems parallel to smoking...) In any case, paying a bit more on taxes would help some people to quit and would help those who don't get health care. *shrugs* Anyone got any feedback, ideas...?

I'm not in favor of this at all. Smoking doesn't make you a second class citizen (even though it does to things like poison your body and shorten your life). Cutting treatment for smokers would be like refusing to give medical attention to people hooked on other drugs like cocaine or meth. It's not healthy, and you take the risks. Should a person have to pay some or all of their bill? Yes. If curbing obesity and smoking is the goal here, how about fining someone when they get treatment for it for the X number of times? The more treatments, the heftier the price. The cash could go toward useful things (there's a ton out there) and if you don't wanna pay, quit Supersizing and/or smoking. Any thoughts on this?

I agree with Chicagoburbite... there's no point setting these girls on a platform if they're breaking the law. And that's what it is, pure and simple. Props to MADD for taking a stand and not pussyfooting around. ^__~

I believe you are correct, FresnoJoe.

I agree-- if you're listening to ANY type of music (not just heavy metal) you better be sure it mentions Jesus if you're going to claim it's Christian. ^__~ The other thing is that you have to compare their lifestyle to their music-- a rapper I've heard about called Chamillionare (excuse the poor spelling but I'm not that familier with him and I don't listen to him) has lately been trying to spread Christianity-- but the other songs on his albums are inappropriate, to say the least, and his album also has a nice red PARENT ADVISORY sticker on it. Not exactly Christian rap. As for mowhawks and generally dressing punk... I like punk. I've put streaks in my hair and I recently sang a duet with my grandmother in church (in fact I've done it several times ^__~). Note here that I am not saying that people with mowhawks may be hurting inside, because sometimes the rebellious attitude comes out in your style of dress and the typical rebel look consists of chains on the pants and spiked-up hair. When I decide to wear mesh, I'm not having a bad day or feeling hurt and rejected-- I simply feel like a rebel for Christ, and I'm gonna go out and tell the world even if it's not the fad. If you think about it, we're all rebels... taking a message to a world that sometimes doesn't want to hear the truth. People judge by appearence. I do it. You do it. Your mom does it. What you wear depends on what kind of image you want to send. Some days I want to send the punk rocker message, and I'll carry my Underground Bible in my mesh-wearing hand and grin. Other days I feel toned down, and I'll wear a layered tee and jeans. Whatever works.

True words... I seem to be saying this a lot, and I need to say it to myself sometimes: if you want people to listen to you and respect your opinion, than you've gotta do the same for others. If you want people to take you seriously, you've gotta do the same for others. Civilied debate means no name-calling, insults, sarcasm, et cetera, et cetera. It doesn't help anything and merely makes you look immature and your credibility will take a hit. In Christ, --Akiko

Very, very true-- that's one of my flaws that I come to God daily about. I'm forced to remind myself that our God is an illogical God that cannot be unraveled by logic. It's important to step back and see God for who He really is, a wonderfully infanitely complex God that cared enough to save us from doom. Becaue He just rocks. 'Nuff said.

With all due respect, your belief in evolution is also personal. Debating is sharing of personal belief and using evidence to back your opinion up. Floatingaxe has used it on several other boards. I don't expect you to be converted with me saying that Jesus is Lord, just as you don't expect me to be converted by saying that evolution is real. And if you don't want someone's opinion, don't ask for it. Why can't you reasonably debate without just dogmatically spouting what you've been programmed to spout? How dare you? I am not a proficient debater, and I actually eschew proper debate, mostly because I believe God isn't honoured in it. What I do is state my belief, pure and simple. No programing here. My opinions come from knowing God and understanding His Word. Hence, the opposition you are sensing. Thanks for admitting logical, rational debate doesn't "honor" or support God. You basically admit that to honor God, I must turn off my brain and all critical thinking and just have faith. You missed Floatingaxe's point completely. Debate stops honoring God when God is absent from the debate, and you're simply debating to prove someone wrong, not to help them see the Lord. This is a temptation that goes hand-in-hand with debate, and its up to individual Christians to decide whether or not they want to participate. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that debate is a sin. I don't know why you have such a bone to pick with Floatingaxe just for giving her opinion. If you're going to insist on a civilied, unbiased debate, stick to those same standards for yourself. I'm more than willing to talk calmly with people, but insults bring NOTHING into a debate and simply stir up trouble.

This sounds poetic, but I believe that singing is your natural reaction as you overflow with joy to the Lord. ^__^ David danced and sang for the Lord in public and singing has played a big part in Scripture (many Psalms were set to music). For me, music is H-U-G-E. I feel closest to God whenever I'm belting it out, and I can come to him in any mood-- sad, happy, whatever. It brings me closer and helps me to focus on God, not distractions around me. Cha. *holds up an iPod and dances*

Wise words, Josh. 'Tis the truth.

Well I think that is great that you are into that stuff, thank God we are all different. I will praise the Lord on a different level than you, why imitate the world. Love not the world nor the things that are in this world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. that is all i have to say on this topic. YSIC Josie I'm with you Akiko. I think any music that is written to glorify God is a good thing. Anytime you listen to words that are written for our Savior rather than the world, is positive, as I wrote earlier in the thread. I understand everyone has different music tastes, but they should not put down the others tastes. I also love P&W music, and Contemporary Christian songs. ...as for Demon Hunter, they are very hard and screamo, and not for me - but hugely popular. RED on the otherhand I think is amazing. Their song Breathe into me is great, and the guys are really playing for the right reasons. I can say i'm very blessed to know them. Thanks for the comments-- Red sounds right up my ally. ^__~ God Bless, Akiko

Littlelite: ^__^ Thanks for your wise words. To clarify to anyone on this board: I also listen to Chris Rice and I sing hymns... I have no problem with people liking traditional stuff!! 'As The Deer' is one of my favorite songs. Let everyone worship in their own musical style, eh? As long as it glorifies God.

Christian rock is love. XD I'm a teenager. I listen to approximately seven hours of music every day, and with so much going into my system, I can't afford anything trashy. I like Christian rock-- the lyrics glorify God. I honsetly see nothing wrong with having drums and guitar in the background with someone screaming to the Lord. If you do have a problem with it, could you please tell us why? Instead of just saying, "It's bad." maybe tell us where you're coming from. I've seen nothing in the Bible that forbids Christian rock music. David sang and danced to the Lord and Michael was angry at him for it, but God was happy with David. Micheal really had no biblical reason to be angry, and this kinda reminds me of this thread. Speaking of Chrisitan rock-- anyone heard anything about the band Demon Hunter? Do they have a Linkin Park sort of vibe, or totally different? I'm considering taking a look at some of their stuff. And also the Christian band Red.

So (to clarify this for myself) it is all right for the government to issue the death penalty because God has set the government in its place? If this is correct, I have a few more questions to ask. (I seem to be fully of them lately ) How do you know when the government is INcorrect? Such as in Bible times when Pharoah (yes, I know it is misspelled but I'm on a school computer and don't have much time) ordered all male babies killed. And assuming that the death penalty is okay in a Christian viewpoint, should we change our laws on who gets the death penalty, such as when the jury/judge is CERTAIN that the person has committed the crime (such as DNA evidence or photo evidence)?

A supporting point I"d like to bring up (regarding to the ultimate issue that I was speaking about in my second post).... In the Old Testament, God spoke "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." However, in the New Testament, Jesus said instead to turn the other cheek and not take revenge. In fact, many laws were changed when Jesus died on the cross for us. Does the death penalty fall under one of those laws? Was stoning a strictly Old Testament event, or did Jesus allow stoning as a Bible-times death penalty?

In an attempt to get this board a bit more focused: Let's say that you have a serial killer who has been proved by DNA evidence that he has killed X number of victims. Now-- what do we sentance him with? Life in prision without parole or death? I believe the question here is not "Did they do it?" It is instead, "Can we as humans issue the death of another human?" If you knew for a fact, 100%, that this man killed X number of people, what would you sentance? We know that as humans we are an imperfect people (and in turn the government is not perfect either). Do we have the right to decide when someone else's life will end, or is that strictly God's job? That is the ultimate issue in the death penalty in my mind.

The death penalty was giving me a bit of trouble the other day when I really started to think about it. So I think to myself, "Well, if only there was a community where I could post a question and get a Christian answer from someone I can trust!" Helloooo, Worthyboards. On one hand, the Bible says "Do not kill" and the Lord frequently states that "Vengance shall be mine." As imperfect humans, we cannot make a perfect judgement on a person. On the other hand, in the Old Testament and even in the New it talked about people being stoned to death for their sins. (Let those who have not sinned throw the first stone...) So my question: do the court systems, being a human power, have the right to decide when a life will end? Since we are imperfect as is stated earlier, no court ruling will be exactly fair. Please keep in mind that I have NO OPINION as of right now; I'm coming here to ask what my fellow Christian brothers and sisters think in accordance to the Bible. I am not saying that it is wrong or right, so please do not get angry at me. o_O Thanks.

No kidding. People will bite your head off sometimes...

What about the reversal of the onus of proof? Does this not concern you? I have a pretty big vocabulary and looked up 'onus,' but that question still makes no sense to me. Could you reword it so I can answer? XDDD Excuse my ignorance. Sorry, I should have been more clear. "Onus" more or less means "burdan" or "responsibility". It refers to the centuries-old tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" and means that if you are accused of a crime, it is up to the accuser or the state to prove that you committed the crime, it is not up to you to prove that you did not. By having a blanket right to eavesdrop on everybody's communications, it is in effect, assuming that everybody is guilty of being a criminal or a terrorist and saying pretty much "if you are not a terrorist, prove it by giving us access to all your private (or otherwise) emails, telephone calls, cellphone calls etc." It is sort of like if everywhere you went you discovered you were being followed overtly by a group of policemen, who said when you approached them, "we suspect everybody in your street are planning terrorist activities so we are going to be writing down everything that you all do to try and prevent an attack". Wouldn't you be mad at this? Sorry again for being lazy and not elaborating. ^__^ You're not being lazy, don't worry. I can definitely see where you're coming from-- it does reverse the tradition of "innocent until proven guilty." We can compare it to the police searching your home without a search warrent. In all technicality, they need a warrent to do it properly. However, if you were going to blow up your office in an hour and it took a day to get a search warrent, then woudln't it be better to at least stop the bomb and deal with beaucratics later? It is a breach of privacy, but in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather have that then have people die because of a terrorist attack that was neglected to be researched because of privacy. So we're both right, in a sense: It is a breach of privacy, but it is also necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks.

What about the reversal of the onus of proof? Does this not concern you? I have a pretty big vocabulary and looked up 'onus,' but that question still makes no sense to me. Could you reword it so I can answer? XDDD Excuse my ignorance.

Buckthesystem: I can see your point-- I wouldn't go posting all my information on the Internet, even though I have nothing to hide. The difference between the wiretapping program and posting all the information on the Internet is that no one in the CIA or FBI is going to care what my private life is like. They are searching for terrorists, not people with secret collections of Barbies hidden in their closets. In any case, if the FBI really wanted that information (family history, names and religions of everybody in your extended family that you can find out, your present address, a description of your house, and every previous address you've had), they could find it without me telling them. If I was a celebrity or someone of importance in the scheme of the United States, I would definitely object, because my information does have an impact on US life. But I am a girl in Iowa, and no one particuarly cares much about my personal life. Internet stalkers would be the expectation-- which is why I post no real information on the Internet-- so I really don't care if the government wants to make sure that no one in our household is a terrorist. You also have to figure in the thousands of lives that were lost on Sept. 11th-- for me, it's worth a breach in privacy if even one person could have kept their life. If it means preventing another terrorist attack, and in turn, loss of life, than I can stand knowing that the FBI may be using a computer to scan my calls for buzzwords.

I'm all in favor of this bill. I figure if you have nothing to hide, why are we freaking out? If you're not a terrorist or a criminal, you've got nothing to fear from this program. In all honesty, none of us are important enough that the FBI is going to listen to us talk about our personal lives. What are they going to say: 'Ooh. John Smith might get fired' and tell it to the world? XD I don't see why people are so concerned. o_O But I suppose that's me...

Think of this in light of scripture...Ahem... I wasn't sure exactly what you were asking about, so I added a bit of both. There are references to Scripture in that post, however...

Quote: "When God, a spirit, speaks in Genesis, "Let there be light," do you think it is both intrisically spiritual and physical or just one or the other???" I believe that it is the strictly physical kind of light, but also possibly God manifesting himself in a physical form. (in Revalation, it talks about how there is no sun, because the glory of God lights Heaven). Sin did not enter the world until Eve ate the apple, so there would be no sin/darkness before that time. God would not have needed to create spiritual light to combat sin, because it wasn't there yet. Other opinions?