(Advertisement)

Add preschool for all at age 4, Obama urges

GOP lawmakers skeptical, cite costs

Posted: February 15, 2013 at 2:25 a.m.

President Barack Obama visited a preschool in Georgia on Thursday to unveil details about his new plan to ensure that all 4-year-olds — including those whose families struggle to make ends meet — receive the same opportunities for a high-quality early education.

This story is only available from our archives.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 02/15/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Senate blocks Hagel for now

“Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse, it gets worse,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday of Chuck Hagel’s nomination.

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the nomination of former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel as the nation’s next defe... Read »

Next Story »

Gay marriage advances in Illinois

Illinois moved closer Thursday to becoming the 10th state where same-sex couples can legally wed, after the Senate voted to lift a ban on gay marriage. Read »

"She said birth to age 5 was a pivotal learning period, “which is why I wouldn’t want the government involved in such a critical time. We want children with families, with parents.”

Amen to that. The government's idea of education is usually indoctrination of liberal views. If a child is in a good home, being in that home is the best education when they are young. It isn't as if they aren't learning.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Big brother wants you from the cradle to the grave.

"Forward! Forward! The fanfares sound.
Forward! Forward! Youth knows not danger!
Germany, you will stand shining,
Even it we perish,
No matter how high the goal may be,
Youth will achieve it!
We march man by man into the future.
We march for Hitler through night and poverty
With the banner of the youth for freedon and prosperity.
Our banners wave before us... (Hitler youth marching song)

Forward! into the future with Obama. Forward! into new hope and change. Do your fair share, donate your children to the Government. We will help you move Forward!

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not to mention - aren't we trying to cut spending? It seems like Obama is in a race to spend as much as he can.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Perhaps we need better preschooling so these children don't grow up to be cynical and foolish children in adult bodies who remain completely oblivious to how profoundly uninformed they are.

Examples provided above.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

D.
----
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 15, 2013 at 10:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm all for kindergarten starting at age three.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 15, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It has been proven that children "catch up" even if deprived of starting school at a later age than 5. Why take them away from the nurturing of a loving mother/father. No body can give the love that is much needed like the parents can. School can be a very scary thing and, I believe, affect them for years. I still remember that scary day.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kindergarten is another name for daycare. mycentworth, you hit another home run. Common sense is an uncommon thing to find.

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 12:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

They were pushing head start when my kids were little. I never signed them up and they were very good students. Knew he alpabet long before many neighbor kids, etc. Just a way of control of our kids.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

so fayfreethinker.. "the illusion of real knowledge" is something you believe to be true, so I presume you can prove it exists..

Posted by: proud

February 15, 2013 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, my gosh, proud, you did a number of Freeby. Good Job, well done.

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freeby just does not understand that just because he "believes" it is true does not actually make it "true"

Posted by: woodw

February 15, 2013 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The government's idea of education is usually indoctrination of liberal views"
How do you indoctrinate 4-year-olds with liberal views? What are those views?

Posted by: Coralie

February 15, 2013 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"If a child is in a good home, being in that home is the best education when they are young."
I totally agree with you.
I was lucky enough to raise my children in a different time when I could keep them home the early years.
But if it's a poor family, we think the mother should work. Single mothers have to work. And some women have to work because their husbands don't make enough, or they are divorced.
I like the mother's allowance they have in some European countries. They are not means tested, so people don't look down on you because you are on "welfare." Also there is generous parental leave. Society recognizes that it is to everyone's benefit to give all children a good start.

Posted by: Coralie

February 15, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - I guess a parent could send a lego gun to school with the child and they would get expelled or send a book with them about God our creator, that may get them reprimanded or expelled. Maybe they would make some innocent poem that wasn't politically correct - that would get them a good scolding. That actually happened to my 3rd grader, back in 1980's. Completely innocent poem.
School is an institution that is far from perfect, even for 4 year olds.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That is not to say, Coralie, that yes, I believe some children should be in daycare. But the best place is at home in a learning, loving environment, until older. In my opinion older than 5 where they can get a good foundation before entering the institutuion where you have no control over who is influencing your child.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So what do you think ;of the mother's allowance and parental leave that support a woman's choice to stay home with her child?
"In countries like Scandinavia, France, and Great Britain the government is recognizing the benefits of mothers staying home with their children for the first two to three years of the child’s life. As a result women in these countries have a choice to return to the workforce, which is actually preferred, or to stay at home. If the mother does choose to stay at home their job is protected, which means they can return to their job with no penalty, plus in Scandinavia and France mothers receive a monthly homecare allowance.
What these countries have found is that given the choice most mothers choose to stay home. In fact in Scandinavia infant daycare is rarely used. Mothers want to stay home and most do for at least the first 18 months of their child’s life. "
http://www.families.com/blog/mothers-...

Posted by: Coralie

February 15, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That's government schools mycentworth, not charter schools or Catholic schools. Other than that I agree with you. The only "good start" a child can get is a God centered foundation to build upon. "Bring up a child in the fear and knowledge of the Lord, and you have an adult able to withstand all seasons and glorify the Lord even in the bitter winter."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wish I could have afforded to send my kids to a private, Christian school. Even though I am not Catholic, they ran good schools, and we had some good ones in the neighborhood.

I'm not saying all experiences were bad, but it doesn't take many to hurt a child.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 5:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, better yet would be if a woman did not have children unless they can commit full time. I know that is unrealistic, so I am not against help for those that truly need help. There are just too many problems because of our lack of morals in our society.

People have to be suffer the consequence for bad choices. That is part of life and the way we learn.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 15, 2013 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Proud: "so fayfreethinker.. "the illusion of real knowledge" is something you believe to be true, so I presume you can prove it exists...">>

Oh, that's an easy one, thanks for the softball. That was a quote from Stephen Hawkings, but it's easy to show we are up to our fanny in people expressing "knowledge" that is actually purely an illusion.

First, we know there is real knowledge. Your computer works because of at least a century or so of careful, rigorous testing and study. The knowledge that allows us to make a jet plane fly, or put a rover on Mars, is also well tested. We know this because it produce testable results. That's when we know something is based upon accurate knowledge, it actually works. And it makes consistently correct predictions.

In contrast, for instance...

In 1844, we had what is known as the "Great Disappointment." You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Di...

Based upon nonsensical Bible prophecy calculations, we had thousands of people in America give up their possessions and wait patiently for Jesus to return, that year. As with all end time Bible prophecy claims (including the ones in the Bible), it didn't come true. These people had an "illusion of knowledge" that was in fact, based on nonsense.
That was a long time ago but I mention it because pretty much all present day yapping about Bible end time prophecy (JW's, 7th Day Adventist, Hal Lindsey, the "Left Behind" series etc.) is based upon this same biblically illiterate foolishness. Mycent has passed along some of it here. This is an "illusion of knowledge." It's not true, and we know why it's not true.

Other classic examples of people having an "illusion of knowledge:"

Creationism http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-q...
Jonestown massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
Heaven's Gate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's...)
Young Earth claims http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/age...
Palmistry
Rumpology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpology
Posts by Moneymyst
feng shui http://www.skepdic.com/fengshui.html
Pat Robertson
Intercessory prayer http://skepdic.com/essays/healingpray...
Ted Nugent
Scientology
Intelligent Design http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdes...

Bigfoot, remote viewing, dowsing, magnet therapy, faith healing, psychic surgery, alchemy, facilitated communication, astrology, tarot reading, channeling, Noah's Ark, homeopathy, etc.,.

I guess I should have just said a very great portion of what people believe in is rubbish and an "illusion of knowledge" (certainly all of the above). The good bits, finding out what is true, takes some work. But it's worth it.

D.
--------
"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." --H.L. Mencken

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 15, 2013 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - "The good bits, finding out what is true, takes some work. But it's worth it."

If your belief is 'finding out what is true', I will never find it. Your belief is empty and leaves no room for hope and faith, which is an element that makes life enjoyable, beautiful and comes from the spirt within that God has given us.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 16, 2013 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Do not be misled by what you see and read that is spewed form the keyboard of Freeby. He would lure you in his playground of illusion, full of false values, false paths, and false ideals. He is lost and thinks science will find him. You are not part of Freeby's world and, on your knees, you should think God that you are not of this world, but of God's world.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."---Albert Einstein

Posted by: JailBird

February 16, 2013 at 8:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycent says "better yet would be if a woman did not have children unless they can commit full time."
Aren't you saying that poor women should not have children?
===
Also, in our system if a woman trains for a professional career and takes off work for a couple years, she may never get on track again. That is a waste of her skills not only for her but also for society. Notice that the plans I described above ensure that they can return to their jobs with no penalty.

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2013 at 12:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "If your belief is 'finding out what is true', I will never find it.">>

I think you're probably right. Humans are really good at not finding things they might find uncomfortable or inconvenient.

MM: "Your belief is empty...">>

How would you know?

MM: "Your belief is empty and leaves no room for hope and faith,...">>

I have lots of hopes, but they are somewhat based in reality and things that can actually happen. Faith is believing things without good reason, it's usual even pretending to know something you don't know, thus it's (obviously) never a good reason to believe in something. Contrary to what you've been sold.

MyC: "faith and hope which is an element that makes life enjoyable, beautiful...">>

You've been sold a bill of goods by the peddlers of faith and sin. They control you by these invented products. They've hijacked your primate reward/fear/guilt systems and all they have to do is remind you who controls the reward and punishment and then you jump while only asking how far. And it's self perpetuating. You gotten so used to the system can do it to yourself at home while reading The Book.

I hope you live long and prosper and have a very good time playing with the category of faith, sin, redemption and all the rest. Many people do. Having escaped from it and discovered how the trick works, it doesn't work on my and it's not something I can take seriously.

D.
----------------
Einstein, speaking of physics: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Einstein was a very good physicist. His name is even used as a synonym for smart. Interestingly, like the vast majority physicists, he was also an atheist (although not a "professional" one as he once noted).

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
--Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 16, 2013 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freeby, the love to be wrong believer in serious nothing and frivolous somethings.

Saturday Evening Post interview 1929, Einstein was asked about Christainty.

SEP. "To what extent are you influenced by Christainity?"

E. "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Taimud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

SEP. "Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

E. "Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"

SEP. "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

E. "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Freeby would like a towel the wipe the egg off your primate face?

Posted by: JailBird

February 16, 2013 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - I know you arent' going to like this, but a woman's choices are not the responsiblity of the employer. You probably were for women's lib. Now you want preferencial treatment. Can't have it both ways. She needs to keep up her skills and return. What if a woman gets the job while the person is absent and she is a better worker and needs the job more. Businesses are supposed to let her go? That is the chance you take. A couple years is a very long time.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 16, 2013 at 3:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If the employer arranged that with the woman before she went to work. I know of a women who works as a saleswoman for Jove books, she sells five times the placement contracts than her male counterparts. Jove paid her maternity leave and gave her and her husband a baby shower worth $5.000. So it kinda depends on the woman.

Posted by: JailBird

February 16, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, it apparently works in France and Scandinavia.
BTW, the mother's allowance is based on the woman's previous earnings, sort of like social security is. But women without much of an employment record also get a minimum payment.

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2013 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mcent says "You probably were for women's lib."
My MOTHER (born 1910) considered herself a feminist.
I could do no less.

Posted by: Coralie

February 16, 2013 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, Believe me, I am for women's rights in many cases. It is just that the economy is so bad now, it won't do anyone good if the country goes broke - which actually is already. I do believe you have to be competitive in the working world.

Isn't France a country that was having grave financail problems because of govt. programs?

Posted by: mycentworth

February 16, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Since you're talking about diminishing some rights of women for the sake of profit, why don't you go ahead and call for the return of slavery while you're at it? After all, slavery is primarily the abrogation of some rights of a class of people for the sake of profit.

Not that abolishing slavery hurt us much in the world market.

RE "Isn't France a country that was having grave financail problems because of govt. programs?"
France, like the rest of the eurozone, has had ongoing economic problems brought on by the worldwide banking crisis that was precipitated by the run-up to Bush's magnificent recession. However, requiring private insurance to cover contraceptives is not a "government program". Neither is encouraging employers to improve maternity leave policies.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 16, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If you don't make a profit, you don't have a business, then you have no employees at all.

Who is requiring business to cover contraceptives and improve maternity leave? Maternity leave has improved alot since I was expecting. You had to quit at 6 months - no if, ands or butts about it.

I am just saying that a business has to have a choice on keeping a good employee or not. I've seen too many just show up for the paycheck, not giving a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 16, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I miswrote "on keeping a good employee or not" should have been "on keeping an employee or not".

Posted by: mycentworth

February 16, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MoneyM, trips over his laces every time. Had he read my quote from Einstein carefully he might have noticed Einstein said people had been lying about his belief in God while he was alive (this was a clue to avoid doing it).

Ein: [quote] "received instruction both in the Bible and in the Taimud(sic). I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.">>

That's nice. He had some religion imposed on him as a child, then he got older, and set it aside and became a freethinker. This is well known (and quite common).

“The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.” --Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946.

Later he addressed the notion that he was in any sense a religious Jew:

"...the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said." http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/...

At that link see also: "Einstein's youth: becoming a freethinker and a scientist"

Ein: [quote] "Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers,...">>

He said some nice things in this 1929 interview. Here was his opinion in 1954:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," --Einstein letter, January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, ibid.

SEP: [quote]. "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
Ein: [quote] "Unquestionably!">>

Accepting an historical Jesus says nothing about that Jesus being in any way divine. When Jefferson put together his Jefferson Bible, he threw away 90% of Jesus' sayings and kept the 10% he thought were quite good (he also didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus).

A fellow wrote Einstein in 1945 to clear this matter up regarding whether he believed in God. Einstein's response:

***
"Dear Mr. Raner:
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me.
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere - childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world - as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."
--Albert Einstein 7/2/45 (Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997)

Full exchange here: http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2004/n...

Thanks for the attempt MM. Sorry it didn't work out.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 16, 2013 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent, your comments in this thread take into account a very narrow view that is not reality for many people.

Mycent: “No body can give the love that is much needed like the parents can. School can be a very scary thing and, I believe, affect them for years.”

For a child in the home with parents that abuse, neglect, or otherwise mistreat them, THAT is the scary place and a school can be a reprieve from that world and a place where a child can see that there may be other grown ups that they can learn from and develop healthier relationships with. Also, in the case of abuse, it may be discovered earlier if the child is not kept out of sight.

Mycent: “But the best place is at home in a learning, loving environment, until older. In my opinion older than 5 where they can get a good foundation…”

In the real world, not all homes are loving, not all parents have the skills to teach their children appropriately, and not everyone can afford the luxury of not working for 5 years in order to produce your fantasy of a perfect childhood.

Mycent: “Coralie, better yet would be if a woman did not have children unless they can commit full time. I know that is unrealistic, so I am not against help for those that truly need help. There are just too many problems because of our lack of morals in our society.”

The last time I checked it took two people to have a child, so why are you only talking about women? Also, it is ridiculous to say that only people wealthy enough for your ideal should be having children at all. How rude! You can provide a loving home AND go to work to provide for that family. Few people have the luxury of not working these days. Your fantasy world does not account for single parents either. Sometimes spouses die. Sometimes a woman leaves her husband because he beats her. Sometimes a woman gets pregnant and the father takes off. Sometimes a father has to raise the child alone because the mother is not well. Besides, you cannot impose your morality on society at large. There are many ways to grow up in this world and I do not agree that your way of keeping your child sheltered until 5 is the optimal one. I actually think it may do more harm than good.

Mycent: “…but a woman's choices are not the responsiblity of the employer.”

Once again pinning it all on the woman. A woman doesn't always choose to get pregnant. I have a friend that has four children, all who were conceived while my friend was on a different form of birth control. She never chose to become pregnant, but she did choose to have the children. You surely wouldn't have wanted her to abort all of those babies because she didn't “choose” them, would you? Women come with a uterus. We did not choose it, but it is there. If you aren't pro-choice, then you sure as heck cannot talk about women’s choices.

Posted by: taminatress

February 16, 2013 at 11:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"In the wiew of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, and able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."---Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion with science is blind."---Albert Einstein

"The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not."---Albert Einstein

"I, in any case, am convinced [God] does not play dice."---Albert Einstein

"Before God we are all equally wise -- and equally foorlish."---Albert Einstein

"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details."---Albert Einstein

Don't let that egg dry on your face, Freeby, it may take the paint off. I got a whole lot more where these come from, keep em coming. Buy my books.

Posted by: JailBird

February 17, 2013 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

[quote] "I, in any case, am convinced [God] does not play dice." --Albert Einstein

The standard pedestrian distortion. Einstein was speaking of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and to those familiar with those exchanges, obviously using the word God here metaphorically.

When Einstein was asked specifically to clarify the question directly, he said he was an atheist:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

I'll take Einstein at his word and trust that he knew what the word meant and what his belief was.

Regarding:

"...yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

A fellow named Prince Hubertus says Einstein said this but we don't have it from Einstein's own hand as we do with the quotes I have provided. Besides, it's rather irrelevant to the question anyway.

At other times he said he was an agnostic. Bertrand Russell did this too, and for carefully explained reasons I won't go into. This makes sense, the terms overlap in that neither asserts the existence of a god. At other times Einstein (reference already provided) he said he "did not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist." That's pretty common actually and should be considered in the context of when he was speaking, the red baiting time just before McCarthyism when atheism in the US was associated with communism.

For adults who can understand nuance (a luxury we don't have with an exchange with someone of your character), Einstein's religious views were complex and changed over time (to less and less religious).

This page gives a good overview which a person like you would find useful to quote mine and provide the kind of distortions Einstein would have despised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiou...

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

A theist believes in a personal God.
An atheist does not believe in a personal God.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

QED.

D.
-----
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." --Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." --Albert Einstein, from Einstein Portrait, (1953)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 17, 2013 at 1:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

tam - You read into it what you want. I am not oblivious to the real world. My parents, one an alcoholic, raised us 3 children without aid on simple jobs. We had a meal on the table, went to church every Sunday, and had a great childhood. My mother worked nights, after fixing us an early supper. People make their own problems - not all the time - but much more today then before. They want their drugs, gizmos, sex and neglect their responsibilities.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 17, 2013 at 7:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

tam - I will add that I had a "mentally challenged" brother, also. He never received a dime from govt. and had to quit school at 16 - not his choice. He went to work as a shoe-shine boy at 16. Worked meager paying jobs the rest of his working years. He is now 74 and still independent. Times were hard, but I never heard them complain. God and their own initiative got them through it, even with joy and fun times. Family, other people, businesses- that would give special people a job, were what saw him through. People help people, not heartless, greedy government.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 17, 2013 at 8:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

tam,

RE-

"A woman doesn't always choose to get pregnant."

Unless a woman is raped, becoming pregnant is on her and the father.

"If you aren't pro-choice, then you sure as heck cannot talk about women’s choices."

I can talk about whatever I want, including women's choices.

mycentworth,

It sounds like your parents believed in hard work and living within their means. Although there isn't a better place in the world for little ones than at home with momma, I am not opposed to starting school at a younger age, but concepts such as Kindergeld ("child benefits) is nothing more than a wealth redistribtuion/social justice scheme.

People are free to have as many kids as they can in America. They are free to pay for them as well. And even though it is wrong as hotdog flavored icecream, the same goes for abortions.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/ed5c37a1ff...

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 17, 2013 at 8:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tam - One more thing - you think that many people would run for government offices, spending thousands of their own money, to help people??? That is a laugh. They are there for the power and money.

Government is needed, but it isn't needed to rule over us and tax us to death.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 17, 2013 at 8:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws."---Albert Einstein

"Chemistry disclosed that matter is ceasing to exist, some varieties exceedingly slowly, others exceeding swiftly. Therefore, the esistrence of matter is not eternal. Consequently matter must have a beginning."--Dr. John Cleveland Cothram, Professor of Chemistry

"In a universe whit had no beginning, but had always existed, no radioactive elements would remain."---Dr. Donald Robert Carr, Geochemist

Hows that dried egg look this morning Freeby? Is it starting to smell bad?

Posted by: JailBird

February 17, 2013 at 8:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

As predicted, the troll mines the source I provided while providing no reference.

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. [we]... only dimly understand these laws." --Albert Einstein

That was in 1930. Later he unequivocally stated he was an atheist. Sometimes people change their view on such matters over time. Lot's of people who don't use the term atheist, don't believe in God (about half of Europe in fact).

Off the top of my head I can provided about ten examples of Einstein saying he didn't believe in a personal God, thought the idea was childish and silly and he couldn't possible take the idea seriously. He also said there were those going around and lying about his beliefs on this.

Let's see you can find a verified referenced example of Einstein saying he believed in a personal God. That would make him a theist, as opposed to not a theist. Then your report card will be credited with one (it's first) ankle bite.

[quote] "Chemistry disclosed that matter is ceasing to exist..." --Cothram >>

There are some ideas so stupid, so wrong, that the word "wrong" really doesn't do the job. We need to invent a new word. This would be one of those instances. Cothram was a creationist buffoon and this cite is from a 1958 creationist fundie product. It would be best to not listen to anything this person has to say about such matters and leave it at that.

D.
--------------
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 17, 2013 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank - I sometimes go there about abortion, but it is done so much, it decided to stand against it. One thing, government should not pay for it, that I definitely believe. I can accept it being between the woman, doctor and her God. It is a conundrum for me.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 17, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"concepts such as Kindergeld ("child benefits) is nothing more than a wealth redistribtuion/social justice scheme.
Oh the horror of it!
The countries that have such plans are representative democracies, and if they don't like it, they can vote against it.
The difference seems to be that the Europeans are more concerned about the benefits to society of giving all the children a better chance to begin with.
They are concerned more about the future of society and less about blame and punishment.
I have heard more than one person on these threads act like having children is a punishment for having sex.
That must be good for a child's emotional development to hear that he exists as a punishment for somebody else's action.

Posted by: Coralie

February 17, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, I haven't heard anyone saying 'it is punishment for having sex". Maybe that unplanned child will turn out to the be best thing in your life, but I still believe in prevention, rather than abortion. Then there is always adoption.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 17, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I sometimes go there about abortion, but it is done so much"
You think people perform a lot of abortions? See below.

RE "That must be good for a child's emotional development to hear that he exists as a punishment for somebody else's action."
My father used to joke that my siblings and I were all "accidents". I always responded that, given the number of offspring, they must be the clumsiest people in town.

In light of the ruthlessness with which God thins the population of embryos (not that I'm complaining), all children might as well be "accidents":

"The intricacy with which an early embryo divides, compacts, hatches out of the zona pellucida, ingeniously secretes molecules that penetrate the cells lining the uterine wall in order to implant in the womb, and then recruits blood vessels to nourish the placenta and the developing fetus marks one of the most awe-inspiring metamorphoses in all of nature.

"But here’s the rub: It’s horribly inefficient in humans.

"Much more often than not, the process fails. Although the statistics on the failure rate of human fertilization are not entirely robust, given the biological and ethical delicacy of conducting research in this area, the numbers consistently suggest that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort. Some experts suggest that the numbers are even more dramatic. John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is 'enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.' Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/... (Page 3 of 6)

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 17, 2013 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"these threads" loosely included arkansasonline and letters to the editor which have said things like "They had their fun, now they need to pay the price."
Lots of us were accidents but we weren't regarded as punishments.
And I don't know why sex should be a sin, anyway. Anybody read the Song of Solomon?

Posted by: Coralie

February 17, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

There was a government in Germany that used to promote women having as many chldren as they could, in or out of wedlock. They even gave those women medals.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 6:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, the Nazis.
And some governments are doing it now, because the birthrate has fallen below replacement level (2.1).
It's a very bad idea, in any case, because worldwide we need to encourage a gradual decline in population.
But if your comment was supposed to be an answer to what I said, I missed the point.

Posted by: Coralie

February 18, 2013 at 12:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's amazing how a simple story about pre-k can lead to a god versus science versus government brainwashing debate.

I am a single, working mother of 2 (Dad passed). both kids were ready for school at age 3. I didn't send the 1st to pre-k. She knew what she should but stuggled with adapting to group settings and social skills. I sent the second to pre-k to adapt to these issues. He was ready to move forward when he entered grade K. They are 10 and 12 now, both REACH and the 12 year old just took her 1st ACT.

What needs to be understood is that the parents are the main tool in raising smart, well rounded children. At my house, we have antena TV, limited video games and no cell phones. They have access to all the lastest through their friends and school, but our communication is good enough that we talk about all they hear, see and do. I have no problem with them knowing the reality. We do community service. The main thing is that we talk.

You can let your kids go to public schools and still get the well rounded. God can be taught at home. Science can be taught at home. Free thinking can be taught at home. Your children are what YOU teach them. The rest of the world is just an observation of the difference of realities.

Teach your children to teach, love, give and forgive. If they head into the world with a heart filled with love, they will change some of the people they meet.

Posted by: Buddafly

February 18, 2013 at 9:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Buddafly,

RE

"Teach your children to teach, love, give and forgive. If they head into the world with a heart filled with love, they will change some of the people they meet."

Well written.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 11:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Very well done Buddafly, they might even change em all.

Posted by: JailBird

February 18, 2013 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm very sorry to hear of your children's dad. You sound like you are doing a great job. God Bless you.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 19, 2013 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The rest of the world is just an observation station of the difference in realities."

Profound! The rest of the world can only change your children when you let them and you have not.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.----" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8, niv)

When reading these words, I feel a failure to live my life in the way God would have me to.

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 3:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Train a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it" Of course, that was when children were with the family all day. Now the schools want them from infant age. Who is going to influence them the most? That is very questionable.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 21, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who influences them the most may be the electronic media.
Just because a child is at home doesn't mean he is interacting with family.
"Kids these days spend so much time with electronic media — cellphones, iPods, video games and computers — that it might as well be a full-time job: more than 53 hours a week, a study finds."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/n...
I believe that 53 hours is a lot more time than the average child spends at school.
Even toddlers are in front of screens, despite the advice of pediatricians.
"when children were with the family all day" was when mothers didn't have to work at an outside job, and most likely a farm family if the father was also in the vicinity.

Posted by: Coralie

February 21, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

True, Coralie. Technology has been a blessing and a curse. Most of my relatives were farmers. The father was there working hard. Of course, we had some alcoholics. No one is perfect. Some lost their farms and went to work in town, but if you were fortunate & were able to hang on,most ended up very wealthy and their offspring.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 21, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK, mycentworh, just be aware that most American families are not farmers or not even rural anymore.
The fact we live in Arkansas blinds many people to the fact that the rest of the country is more urban.
The fact is, for most people, with today's economic conditions, a mother can't stay home with her young children for very long.
Even though I agree with you it is better for most children to be with their mothers instead of day care for the first few years, they can't.afford it.
So this universal day care plan that has been proposed would be a great boon for working women and a better start for many children than catch-as-catch-can daycare situations.
Just so they don't mandate it for everybody.

Posted by: Coralie

February 21, 2013 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>The fact we live in Arkansas blinds many people to the fact that the rest of the country is more urban.

As of Census done in 2010 over 60% of Arkansans now live in urban centers.

Posted by: cdawg

February 21, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This is it in a nutshell, Coralie. I want to help those that need help. I do not want to be mandated to help those that just use the system and don't even try. And anything done through the government cost at least twice as much as need be - at least.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 21, 2013 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Just something I picked up on Facebook:

Rand Paul: "And I'm warning John Kerry: We are out of money. We are broke. $16 trillion in the red. We can continue to have the strongest military on earth while applying cost/benefit analyses to every part of government. Including the Pentagon. The status quo must end."

Posted by: mycentworth

February 21, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Obama and Congress maxed out our credit card years ago.

Posted by: JailBird

February 21, 2013 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "And anything done through the government cost at least twice as much as need be - at least.">>

That's not remotely true and there are no end of examples flatly refuting this commonly passed along claim. I'll give six examples:

1) About 95% of fire stations are handled by municipal governments because it's cheaper to handle it in house rather than pay a for profit private company.

2) Same with sanitation.

3) Social Security operates with an expense of about 1%. That's incredibly efficient. Countries that have experimented with privatizing social security have found the expense goes up to as high as 20%-30%.

That's a really big difference.

4) The entirely government run VA medical system operates with better outcomes and far less cost than the private for profit sector.

5) The IRS. "The employment of private tax collectors has been, for federal unions, a particularly egregious example of the misuse of contractors. In March, the Internal Revenue Service stopped using two private tax collection companies because, according to an agency statement, "IRS collection is more cost-effective than the contractors." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

6) The military. As of some time ago it cost about $1,000,000 per soldier, per year, to station them in Afghanistan. This absurd amount is no doubt largely because so many military services have been out-sourced to expensive profit driven private contractors. Note:

"Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops in Afghanistan"

"The White House Office of Management and Budget is directing federal agencies to take a series of actions designed to reduce the government's growing reliance on outside contractors..."
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/20...

"Frederick D. Barton, a senior adviser to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington,... questioned whether using contractors was cost effective, saying that no one really knew whether having a force made up mainly of contractors whose salaries were often triple or quadruple those of a corresponding soldier or Marine was cheaper or more expensive for the American taxpayer." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/wor...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 21, 2013 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent peddles this old stinker again:

MyC: "Rand Paul: "And I'm warning John Kerry: We are out of money. We are broke. $16 trillion in the red.">>

Rand Paul reminds us once again why he is a buffoon and doesn't know what he's talking about. The US has the greatest amount of wealth on the planet (total, not per capita), so how can it at the same time also be "broke?"

It doesn't make sense, and that's because it's not true.

Here's what I told MyCent the last time she tried this one:

***Flashback

"We are not broke. We are not close to broke. Begin by being honest with language. The US, which has greatest collection of wealth on the entire planet, has about $170 trillion in equity. About 13x our yearly GDP. Here's what broke means:

broke –verb
4. without money; penniless.
5. bankrupt.

We're not broke and it's not honest to say we are. I cover this popular canard here: "America is broke."

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

D.
------------
Claim: "Obama and Congress maxed out our credit card years ago."

a) Highly successful Japan has long had a debt of 2x GDP. That's the equivalent of us having $36 trillion of debt. Our credit cards aren't nearly maxed out.

b) Obama can only be responsible for a very small amount of the actual debt. This is nicely shown in two charts:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cent...

And: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 21, 2013 at 8:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Conclusion to above rant and rave by Freeby, is that we are not broke because our assets add up to more than we owe.

Understand about Freeby, he believes the number of words wins the argument, not the quality of said words. Freeby has also been known to drive nails with a jackhammer.

So now we can sell all the equity that is privately owned to pay the national debt. Or we could use private wealth as colladerial on that debt. Does that sound like a good idea to you, mycentworth? Everything you own belongs to the bankrupt government. Does the government own you too, Freeby?

Posted by: JailBird

February 22, 2013 at 1:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

That is what I was thinking, mm. Liberalsbelieve a man's labor and what he has earned belongs to all of them. God differs in that opinion. "If a man does not work, he does not eat". Yes, God loves the poor and we as Christians are to love them and help them. Not the lazy. God calls for personal responsibility.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 22, 2013 at 8:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Here's another Rand Paul's posts:

"I returned $600,000 or 20% of my operating budget to the Treasury and no one on my staff lost their job. We can have the sequester without laying off anyone. There are all sorts of ways to cut spending if Washington was serious about it."

Most spend all they can. The more I learn of Paul Rand, the more I like him. But, it may be too late to help this nation. But, not to worry, Christians. God is still in control.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 22, 2013 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And to those naysayers like Freeby:

"In response, Job said: 'I've heard many things like this. What miserable comforters you all are! Will windy words like yours never end? What is upsetting you that you keep on arguing?"---Job 16:1-3

What IS upsetting you so much. Could it be "Jesus" or "The Holy Bible". Surely it could not be my or me.

Posted by: JailBird

February 22, 2013 at 9:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Be nice now, Money, or I'll call out the Three Billy Goats Gruff.
They know what to do with trolls.
++
In case anyone doesn't remember the story:
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0122e.html

Posted by: Coralie

February 22, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cor: "I'll call out the Three Billy Goats Gruff.">>

I find nothing tenderizes troll meat better than poking them in their cushions with the pointy end of a good goat horn.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 22, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Since that incident, I went down and purchased two aK-47s with 3o round clips.The next goats snowing up for a little theviery, will find a suprise at the end of the rainbow. Would anyone like some tenderiazed goat meat?

Posted by: JailBird

February 22, 2013 at 7:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It may be instructive to quickly review the latest irrelevant and vapid non answers from Laurel & Hardy and flesh out why they:

a) don't appear responsive to stimuli

b) struggle to learn anything new that doesn't comport with what they wish to believe

We already know why with MyCent. She said:

"If your belief is 'finding out what is true', I will never find it." "Your belief is empty."

This means she isn't actually interested in what is true, but rather believing in things she thinks aren't "empty" (whatever that means).

MyC claimed: "And anything done through the government cost at least twice as much as need be - at least."

Six counter examples were provided refuting the claim. An adult might consider responding by acknowledging this and thanking the person for doing it and noting that they learned something new. That's what I would do. Instead, Mycent gives us:

"But, not to worry, Christians. God is still in control."

Whatever that means. Then Mycent passes along this old whopper from Paul:

MyC: [Rand Paul] "And I'm warning John Kerry: We are out of money. We are broke. $16 trillion in the red."

This is shown to be patently false, with references and definitions provided. Mycent ignores this, like the last time, and shares:

"God loves the poor and we as Christians are to love them and help them. Not the lazy."

The troll (clearly at this point suffering mental issues from admitted alcohol, pot and prescription medicine experiments), having promised to help MyCent out with a "God honoring" defense, chimes in:

"...we are not broke because our assets add up to more than we owe."

Which of course, was in fact the point. Oh dear, what a mess these two are. On to something useful, this wasn't as instructive as I had hoped.

D.
------------
"No, I an not a real person, I am computar(sic) generated from the root word demented. I was created as an example of the evils of mixing zolpidem, pot, and vodka together with a word processer(sic)." --Moneymyst, October 12, 2012

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 22, 2013 at 9:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "But, not to worry, Christians. God is still in control."
But wait a minute. You frequently complain about how God is not in control of this or that thing you don't like, and how God has been "kicked out" of schools and public life. Wasn't God in control when Roe v. Wade was decided? Wasn't God not in control when Obama was elected-- twice?

RE "Understand about Freeby, he believes the number of words wins the argument, not the quality of said words."
Actually, fft's words have quality as well as quantity. You, on the other hand seem to prefer a paucity of words with no inherent quality. There's a big difference between "Just something I picked up on Facebook" and "here are several sources for copious information (that contradicts something picked up on Facebook)". You insist on demonstrating the inability to discern the difference.

RE "So now we can sell all the equity that is privately owned to pay the national debt."
There's no need-- debt is good. And we owe most of the debt to ourselves anyway.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 22, 2013 at 11:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"No, I am not a real person." That statement describes me to a "T". I know that you would love to be as clever as me, Freeby. You quote me more than you do the other hero in you life, Doug. To borrow a line from "Wicked"; I can teach you to be clever Freeby, but not as clever as me. If you keep publicizing me, next thing you will know I'll have my own reality show; "Nineteen Drugs and Counting." Until you try the evil mixture of zolpidem, pot, and vodka, don't knock it. Try it sometime and you might see that Bigfoot you've been looking for arriving in a flying saucer on top of you much wagered junk house with Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk delivering him. Then you might not, what with you not having any imagination. Where does on purchase those "Magic Mushrooms" that you mixed with Pina Colada's on that last cruise. "The Spaced-out Boat---Flying high on the South Sea or your money back"

Posted by: JailBird

February 23, 2013 at 3:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat or Kitty, which I like, thanks, mm.

Wasn't God in control when Obama was elected? Of course he was and Obama is who He appointed. A country gets what they deserve. Good and bad exists together. God gives us choice, but the time will come He will cast the evil doers in the pit, where they belong.

Now, I could come up with a smart remark, it was in my head, but I chose not to. See, choice. We all have it.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 23, 2013 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What a magnificent deity: All-knowing, all-powerful, and lacking talking dirt to tell Him how great He is (doesn't He already know that? Could the angels not convince Him?), He creates a universe that is absolutely perfect, except for the fallible humans He installs. Then He gives the only imperfect thing in His whole Creation-- and nothing else-- free will, can't stand it when they exercise that free will, and prepares a Pit for their special punishment. Turns out free will isn't free, and Daddy will spank. All-powerful though He is, He practically begs for evil to be done by creating a special avenue for it, and will apparently destroy the most special part of His Creation because of the evil He could have destroyed in the first place. Obviously any sane person would have to be impressed.

Although He is ageless, God chooses to act like, of all things, a two-year-old. How is He not a sociopath?

RE "Now, I could come up with a smart remark"
So you allege; your comments seldom offer much indication.

RE "it was in my head, but I chose not to."
You're not really nice-- you're nicey-nice.

RE "See, choice. We all have it."
Choice, perhaps, but not free will. I can choose with actual freedom. You are stuck with a reward and punishment system.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 23, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Boy, I don't know how you got that vision you have about God. What in your life happened that you resent our Creator so? I grew up learning the forgiveness, the love, the sacrifice of God. Yes, he wants his children to love and respect Him. No problem for me. He didn't create a bunch of robots. You have to come to Him yourself, make that choice. Do you have the mind of God? He is who He is. Some things we will not understand.

I pray you will see things differently, Alpha, for the time is getting short. Just watch the middle east. Read Psalm 83. Watch Prophecy in the News. It is an intellectual discussion on the happenings of today.
One thing about God - He is always there ready to forgive and accept you. You can't tell me you haven't heard Him knock at one time or another.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 23, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Isn't it amazing how the creation judges the Creator by the creation's standreds. Sort of like a dog complaining about the way he was trained.

I a lowly dog belong to Almighty God, pray tell me Kitty whose cat are you?

Posted by: JailBird

February 23, 2013 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Boy, I don't know how you got that vision you have about God."
My most immediate sources are the Bible and your comments. Is there a particular aspect that you wish to have clarified?

RE "for the time is getting short."
Dang. Just last week, God failed by fifteen minutes to smite us with an asteroid.

RE "One thing about God - He is always there ready to forgive and accept you."
That rather saves you the trouble, doesn't it?

RE "Isn't it amazing how the creation judges the Creator by the creation's standreds."
Since God Himself-- like all deities-- is apparently our own creation, it isn't amazing at all.

RE "I a lowly dog belong to Almighty God"
If it makes you feel any better, God seems to like dogs (and cats) better than He likes people, having made them perfect rather than fallible, and having neglected to encumber them with an unnecessary reward-and-punishment system. Indeed, many dogs are an improvement over many people-- if I may apply the Creator's standards, which I may.

RE "pray tell me Kitty whose cat are you?"
Like almost all cats, I am my own cat.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 23, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Isn't it still amazing how the creation still judges the Creator even after being warned? And I own a cat, bought and paid for him. According to your standreds he must be a slave.

Posted by: JailBird

February 23, 2013 at 6:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Isn't it still amazing how the creation still judges the Creator even after being warned?"
Though people create gods, and I have been warned by people, I haven't yet received a warning that I consider credible.

RE "I own a cat, bought and paid for him."
That means very little to the cat.

RE "According to your standreds he must be a slave."
Not at all; he's just not among most cats-- as far as you know.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 23, 2013 at 11:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, my cat knows who the master is, unlike you.

Posted by: JailBird

February 24, 2013 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"He didn't create a bunch of robots. You have to come to Him yourself, make that choice..."
One of the several Bible stories that disturbed me as a child of 11 or so was the story of Eve and the apple.
It seemed to me that Adam and Eve were innocent, didn't know anything, like a small child.
So how could they be held accountable?
I was already old enough to do some limited baby-sitting, and the Genesis story sounded to me like a set-up.

Posted by: Coralie

February 24, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Its an allegory, Coralie, Eve, the apple, and the snake are not literal as is not the whale nor the ark. Like my triple negitives? They were held accountable because they disobeyed a direct command of The Creator. After they did that, they were no longer innocent because, then they knew the difference between good (obedience) and evil (trespass).

Posted by: JailBird

February 24, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Let's see, the original story here was about a proposal tupporting early education.
Naturally it turned into religion and troll insults.

Posted by: Coralie

February 24, 2013 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It is a good thing we are saved by grace and the blood of Jesus, and not by how much we know. I do believe the ark and whale are literal, mm. God gave specific measurements for the ark; an allegory wouldn't do that. Did you ever see the ark bulit by some guy (in Amsterdam, I think) to the exact measurements? It was gigantic and very impressive. And if I remember right, God had specially made a whale for the Jonah episode. (Now that story is a little hard to swallow -no pun intended-, but God is supernatural.)

Posted by: mycentworth

February 24, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

COR: "It seemed to me that Adam and Eve were innocent, didn't know anything, like a small child.
So how could they be held accountable?">>

That's an understatement if anything. If people would read that story carefully, with their brains turned on (and fundamentalists never do it seems), they would see that it is brimming with clues that it is a lovely and rich, yet purely fictional parable. It has talking animals and contradictions from beginning to end. According to the story itself, we are told Adam & Eve did not the know the difference between good and evil until *after* they ate the fruit. So of course it's absurd to think they should be held accountable. Never mind the notion that later God says children should not be held accountable for the sins of their parents (Deut. 24:16, Ezek. 18:19, 20).

How many birds did Noah take on his boat?

Two of each of the fowls were to be taken:
"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive." Gen. 6:20

vs.

Seven of each of the fowls were to be taken:
"Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female." Gen. 7:3

The Genesis story is a litmus test for being an adult. If you believe it is literally true, you've got some growing up to do.

D.
---------------
"You will find by reading the second chapter that God tried to palm off on Adam a beast as his helpmeet... God caused all the animals to walk before Adam in order that he might name them. And the animals came like a managerie into town, and as Adam looked at all the crawlers, jumpers and creepers, this God stood by to see what he would call them. After this procession passed, it was pathetically remarked, "Yet was there not found any helpmeet for Adam." Adam didn't see anything that he could fancy. And I am glad he didn't. If he had, there would not have been a freethinker in this world; we should have all died orthodox. And finding Adam was so particular, God had to make him a helpmeet, and having used up the nothing he was compelled to take part of the man to make the woman with, and he took from the man a rib...And then imagine a God with a bone in his hand, and about to start a woman, trying to make up his mind whether to make a blonde or a brunette...."

"Is there an intelligent man or woman in the world who now believes the Garden of Eden story? If you find any man who believes it, strike his forehead and you will hear an echo. Something is for rent."
--Robert Ingersoll, Mistakes of Moses, (1879 ed.)

Entire article available here: http://www.infidels.org/library/histo...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 24, 2013 at 10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "God gave specific measurements for the ark;">>

Well, not really. No one knows how big those cubits are so even literalists can't remotely agree on the size of the ark. http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

MyC: "Did you ever see the ark bulit by some guy (in Amsterdam, I think) to the exact measurements?">>

Sorry, it's a fake. Someday it might be a large tourist attraction, a novelty available for renting out for meetings and parties etc., but it's not remotely anything like Noah's boat and it's only half the size:

"The Johan's Ark replica is half the length of that given in the Bible..."

And: "...the replica is a steel frame skinned with American Cedar and Pine and built on top of a steel barge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan's_Ark

Noah didn't have a steel barge, or any steel.

This Dutch boat wouldn't remotely be seaworthy or even lake worthy. And Noah's boat would be far less sturdy than this modern fake. You simply cannot built a wooden boat 450 feet long (the lower creationist estimate) for the same reason you can't build wooden sky scrapers. Wood is not stiff enough. Even with iron strapping you can't have a seaworthy wooden boat that large (we've tried), and Noah didn't have a steel mill.

And "the flood" wouldn't have been like a current large stormy sea, it would have been much worse. The Noah story is pinched from earlier stories, and quite ludicrously false.

MyC: "It was gigantic and very impressive.">>

Nope. Half size and fake. Noah's boat is quite impossible and that's not even the biggest problem with that story.

MyC: "God had specially made a whale for the Jonah episode.">>

It's a fish actually, and whales are mammals. That's a big difference but Bible writers didn't know about that, and a few other things.

D.
---------------
We have about 2,200 species of termite. How many termites did Noah take upon his wooden boat?
All of humanity supposedly descended from eight people on Noah's boat? Actually, as with every other aspect of this tall tale, we know that's not even possible (details upon request).

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 24, 2013 at 10:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Didn't I just say that in one sentence, Freeby?

"Its an allegory, Coralie, Eve, the Apple, and the snake are not literial as is not the whale nor the ark."

Freeby did you know that Dickins got paid by the word, but Dickins was a great writer. I know that often you get carried away with my simple logicians, but control yourself, two chapters on one sentance. Kinda like using a .44 magnum to kill a gnat.

Posted by: JailBird

February 24, 2013 at 11:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - You left this out from your first link.
"The ancient Babylonians had a flood story too, and it may have been a corrupted version of the biblical account. The ark in the Babylonian story was shaped like a cube, which would had made it unseaworthy.

This shows the difference between truth and badly recorded legends. The Bible's Ark was able to carry all the animals God sent to Noah, it was wonderfully seaworthy, it landed on a mountain that is still identifiable today, and the whole story is credible scientifically."

"Because of this, there are many thousands of scientists who believe the Bible's account of the Ark and the worldwide Flood, but none (as far as we know) who seriously defends the Babylonian story as scientifically trustworthy."

I thought the Babylonian part was very interesting. The anti-christ is still defying God - won't succeed..Thanks for the site.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 25, 2013 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - Again in your own source, it said that a 2nd ark was being built that was to be seaworthy. Please don't just ignore relevent facts.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 25, 2013 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Its an allegory, Coralie."
Duh.
An allegory is supposed to have a point.
>>
And this is the meaning acc. to Money:
"They were held accountable because they disobeyed a direct command of The Creator. After they did that, they were no longer innocent because, then they knew the difference between good (obedience) and evil (trespass)."
In other words, they were held accountable before they knew what they were doing.
<<<
It still makes no sense, ethically.

Posted by: Coralie

February 25, 2013 at 1:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

We hold you accountable and you clearly don't know what you are doing. Even a chicken will stop sticking its head through the hole in the fence after you hit it in the head with a hammer a few times.

Posted by: JailBird

February 25, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hammering chickens? Perhaps I should call the PETA.

Posted by: Coralie

February 25, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You otta see what Tyson does to them and PETA is where?

Posted by: JailBird

February 25, 2013 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "You left this out from your first link.">>

I provided that creationist link to support the claim that creationists don't even know the size of the boat. Beyond that point, being a creationist link, it can't be trusted to be accurate about anything. *Any,* *thing.*

MyC: [quoting the creationist link] "The ancient Babylonians had a flood story too, and it may have been a corrupted version of the biblical account.">>

The story of Gilgamesh and "Ut-Napishtim" are older than Noah's tale. If anything, the Bible tale is a corrupted version of the older Babylonian story.

MyC: "The ark in the Babylonian story was shaped like a cube, which would had made it unseaworthy.">>

That's quite funny actually. The Bible boat isn't pond worthy. And that's not a close call. You can't build a 450 wooden boat that is seaworthy. Wood simply isn't remotely stiff enough. We've known that for centuries. Sorry.

MyC: [quote] "Noah... and the whole story is credible scientifically.">>

Not to anyone who knows anything about science.

MyC: [quoting creationist knucklehead site again] "there are many thousands of scientists who believe the Bible's account of the Ark and the worldwide Flood,...">>

The number of people believing something doesn't mean it's true. But the % of scientists believing in creation science and this Noah's story type stuff is, anyway, quite small:

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%." -- Newsweek, 1987, June 29, Page 23

MyC: "Again in your own source, it said that a 2nd ark was being built that was to be seaworthy.">>

Sorry. That's impossible.

MyC: "Please don't just ignore relevent facts.">>

Again, that creationist site was entirely worthless except for making the point about what creationists believe about the size of the ark.

When someone builds an entirely wooden boat, without steel reinforcement, to the dimensions of the biblical ark (450 feet or more), that can withstand the open sea (is "seaworthy"), I'll give you a house which you can donate to a church or use as you wish.

Don't get your hopes up, because it ain't gonna happen due to very well understood rules of physics. See explanation provided below.

D.
--------------
You didn't answer my question MyCent. We have about 2,200 species of termite. How many species of termite did Noah take upon his wooden boat?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 25, 2013 at 8:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I've participated in, and watched many debates on this issue. This engineer makes some fine points on the impossibility of the Noah's Ark story:

***
"How did a wooden ship that size stay afloat? The largest wooden ships ever built, built by the finest shipwrights the world has ever produced right at the end of the clipper ship era, were a mere 300' long.

The ships would snake (just what it sounds like, horizontal deviations from the axis and hog (bow and stern would dip down below the axis of the ship) so badly that that they leaked like seives. Bilge pumps had to be kept running constantly even in port to keep the things from sinking, they were never used for anything but fair weather coastal runs, being totally unseaworthy.

And the ark is supposed to have been nearly twice that size.

The toughest modern warships are the aircraft carriers of the US Navy. Even they, if they get caugt in a severe storm at sea, may need a couple of months in drydock to get repair damage from mountenous seas and hurricane force winds. And these are huge, steel, warships built to meet military specifications for combat ships, which are operated by highly trained crews with machinery with multiple levels of redundancy to ensure the ship can maintain steerage way.---Yet Noah couldn't even see out of his ark, so even if it had a rudder he could never have steered it.

You want to guess what happens to even an armor plated steel warship in a heavy storm if it loses steerageway so the waves turn it sideways? Yep, it gets pounded into scrap.

And you claim that Noah's wooden sieve, which would have sunk in a bathtub, lasted through a 40 day storm while lacking steerageway or bilge pumps.

In short, the tale of Noah's ark is so patently absurd that to believe it is to betray a level of ignorance which is, frankly, pathetic.

Which one of Noah's oh so virtuous family was the one who was the host for syphilus? It can't survive outside a human host. Same for gonorrhea. Or smallpox. Or whooping cough. Or . . . but you get the idea.

How did Hawiian blind cave spiders (unique to Hawaii) survive six months under water?

How did giant coconut palms survive the flood? No terrestrial plant can survive having its roots drowned for six months, and the giant coconuts can't survive prolonged contact with salt water, so if the flood waters were salt water, none of the palms seeds could have survived either.

Where did all the water come from? Where DID it go?" --Michael Fisher

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 25, 2013 at 9:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The difference between modern warships and Noah's Ark:

God didn't provide building instructions to defense contractors for production.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 26, 2013 at 1:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - When we had young children and the money was tight, very tight, I remember a pair of socks my kindergartner wore 2 or 3 times a week, and then her younger sister wore the same pair the next year. Now that would seem to be a very durable pair of socks, or God made them last. I haven't had a pair like that since. See, I believe the latter.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 26, 2013 at 7:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

My and Tank, those who cannot see, argue about how many nails it took to put together the Ark. Look with Spiritual eyes, not with literial eyes. Noah's ark is Jesus.

1-The Ark (Jesus) was given by the Father for those who found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
2-The Ark and how it would come into being was revealed in advance (Messianic Prophecies)
3-The Ark required a sacrifice of faith, life, time, and ridicule from unbelievers as does Jesus.
4-The Ark had a window above so that those saved could look up to the heavens from where their salvation came from.
5 The Ark had rooms or dwelling places as Jesus will provide for those who are saved through Him. His Father's house (has many mansions).
6- The Ark had three stories representitive of the three items found in the Ark of the Covenant (the Holy Spirit). The Rod of Arron, a golden pot of manna, and the stone Tablets.
7- The Ark had only one door and anyone who entered through that door will be saved.
8-Man was invited into the Ark as Jesus provides rest and safety from the coming destruction to those who are invited in and accept that invitation.
9-The Ark itself was salvation for all creation, man and animals, when God used water to destroy all life on earth. (2 Peter 3:6)
10-The Ark was a place of safety and security and all that came in were by no means cast out. John 6:37

The story of the Ark is an allegory of the type, work, and salvation of Jesus. In fact the room in the Ark is even more remarkable, room enough to hold all living beings in the whole world. Invite them all in and those who refuse will be lost and destroyed..

Posted by: JailBird

February 26, 2013 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sounds good, mm, and that may be. I respect your view, but for now, I still believe it to be literal. God should say, like in the new testatment, it is like a man and an ark. I do not refute science, but I do think this is possible, as do many much smarter than me. I will ponder it with an open mind. However, there is evidence of a great flood.

Like I said, it is a good thing our salvation does not require to know or agree on everything.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 26, 2013 at 9:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: The difference between modern warships and Noah's Ark:">>

I know, one exists and the other can't. Wood simply isn't stiff enough to make a boat that large. Not even close. Maybe they used steel gophers?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 26, 2013 at 9:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "Now that would seem to be a very durable pair of socks, or God made them last... I believe the latter.">>

That's a very pleasant story about how the creator of the universe took some time to help you with your socks. Perhaps you could hang them out on the porch and people could make a pilgrimage to them and see these miracle socks first hand. Stranger things have happened.

Some might go so far as to suggest that in a more fair system the creator of the universe might see fit to spread his favor around a bit smarter. Rather than helping relatively rich people have their socks last a little longer, His time might be better spent helping the 7,123 children that will starve to death today.

http://tonbak.files.wordpress.com/201...

D.
---------------
"Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to create the wonderfully designed Plasmodium parasite that causes malaria which is spread with the aid of the wonderfully designed mosquito. About half of all the humans who have ever lived have died from malaria. The Roman Empire was undermined by malaria. The early American colony of Jamestown had to be established three times because of malaria. Today, malaria kills nearly a million people each year, mainly children and pregnant women in Sub-Saharan Africa, whose brains become infected with the parasite." --talkorigins

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 26, 2013 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT - He cares about the small things in a person's life, also. Sickness and disease are not from God, but this evil world we live in. Good and evil exist together for now. It won't always be that way.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 26, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, well, well.

Here we have a microcosm of religion: two people who claim that they believe in the same thing, but they don't agree on how to believe in it. Yet they both claim that they are right-- though they can't both be right-- and claim that the person who doesn't believe their improbable stories is wrong.

How much longer will it be before mycentworth and Moneymyst publicly tell each other that they're going to Hell-- probably the only thing they actually agree on? After all, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" isn't good theology.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 26, 2013 at 12:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I also own a pair (actually two similar pairs) of miracle socks.
These green socks were acquired at a laundromat in Rochester, New York over 20 years ago. Probably some student at the University of Rochester had left them behind.
The laundromat owner told me to take them as students were always leaving stuff behind and he didn't want to bother with it.
The University of Rochester had a fairly high tuition and attracted students from well-to-do families. So they may have been careless with their laundry.
I have worn those socks over and over for more than 20 years and finally the other day I noticed a bit of wear on the heel of one of them.
It had never occurred to me that the durability of these socks had a theological explanation. I always thought that they were a higher-quality, more expensive item of clothing than I was used to.

Posted by: Coralie

February 26, 2013 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, now you can thank God for those "miracle" socks, Coralie. I probably gave those socks to good-will when the girls outgrew them. They could still be going around.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 26, 2013 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Those "miracle" socks could have been made out of hemp stems. Can't do that today and I smoked my "miracle" socks years ago.

Posted by: JailBird

February 26, 2013 at 3:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "He cares about the small things in a person's life, also.">>

I was referring to the big things that he ignores while tending to your socks.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

MyC: "Sickness and disease are not from God, but this evil world we live in.">>

Let's ask him:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

As far as confessions go, that's pretty straightforward.

MyC: "Good and evil exist together for now. It won't always be that way.">>

Promises promises. With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. There isn't a speck of sand that isn't in place exactly where such a God would want it to be. As the story goes, he has the power to change it, so he can have no excuse for things being anything other than exactly as he wants them. Blaming things on a devil is just a cheap story plot (and it wasn't even invented until well into the Bible). All responsibility, and all the evil, necessarily lie with him.

D.
-----------
"If there is a God, his plan is very similar to someone not having a plan." --Eddie Izzard.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 26, 2013 at 9:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"...socks could have been made out of hemp stems. Can't do that today...">>

Hemp socks and clothing are widely available. Put "hemp socks" in google and shop away. Even Wal-Mart sells hemp products.

"I smoked my "miracle" socks years ago.">>

It's not useful to confuse hemp, which has trace and unusable amounts of THC with its cousin plant MJ. It confuses the politicians who already have enough trouble with that as it is.

If you're getting high, you're not smoking hemp, if your smoking hemp, you're not getting high.

D.
------------------
Hemp is a wonderful and useful plant, but a great portion of what is said about it, is exaggerated and not true. See: http://hemphoax.org/

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 26, 2013 at 9:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So, Freeby, it must have been an illusion of high. Didn't they used to make paper from hemp? If you didn't like a Dear John letter, roll it up and smoke your sorrows away. Freeby, I stand or fall, corected.

Posted by: JailBird

February 26, 2013 at 10:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Founding Fathers such as George Washington grew hemp, so why can't we?

Posted by: Coralie

February 27, 2013 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is one of the reasons.

Posted by: JailBird

February 27, 2013 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money is such a grammatical stickler,
I shuld have said "may" instead of "can."
If Washington grew hemp, why may we not do so?

Posted by: Coralie

February 28, 2013 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Then, Coralie,

I should have said that the reason you can't is because the Federal Government his decided with its all knowing knowledge that it is in your best interest not to grow hemp because the DEA and local Barney's cannot look at it and tell the difference between hemp plants and MJ plants.

Posted by: JailBird

February 28, 2013 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The government wasn't worried about that problem in World War II when they encouraged American farmers to grow hemp because many fibers were in short supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_for...

Posted by: Coralie

March 1, 2013 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Government giveth and the Government taketh away.

Posted by: JailBird

March 3, 2013 at 7:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )