According to a documentary I saw, harem women in Saudi Arabia (and I would assume in Dubai too) are tacitly "allowed" to take lovers, as long as it is done very very discretely.
There are accepted social rules of conduct governing such relationships.
For example: - no serious emotional attatchment - no disease - no scandal
It only becomes an "outrage" if the rules are violated.
I suppose that means to "rat on each other". That's one thing social systems do. They set people against each other. It's intended. People are easier to manipulate when they can't trust each other.
During the baby boomer work years the social systems were rolling in dough. There was plenty to cover medical costs and still a lot left over to be swindled by politicians.
But now that the baby boomers are aging and need care, the system is broke.
So there is more and more "need" and less and less care to go around.
So instead of needed treatment, people are generally given some sort of pill instead.
SSRI antidepressants are great for that. They cost only a fraction of a penney each, but they sell for much much much more. It makes the drug companies rich and they give kickbacks to the doctors. So everybody's happy. Everybody except the patient. He may not be happy, but he's not complaining either. He's unplugged.
And no matter what the original ill. Once the patient is on an SSRI, that becomes their major health concern. "Phooey on the tumor, where's my medecine?".
And then again there are those with genuine, serious, extreme disabilities who don't get anything at all. It happens all the time here in France where the "social" medical system is often cited as an "example" to be followed.
Don't be fooled. Social medecine is all about reaping a lot of money through direct taxation and then siphoning a lot of it off into political pockets through big salaried positions.
It leaves the doctors and hospitals broke, forces them to manipulate patients to get more funds, and pushes consumation of drugs instead of genuine "treatment".
Before I came here I thought social medecine might be a good idea. But my mind has certainly changed on that point.
The best and cheapest medical system I ever saw was in poor countries like Taiwan and Indonesia wnere nobody had insurance and there was no social system. In such a case competition keeps prices down and quality high.
It's true that the very poor had no care at all in such situations. But for most people it was great. It's hard to find the balance because as they set up any kind of social system it always gets abused.... by patients, doctors, administrators and politicians.
Well, as a matter of fact, very few nations relish being overrun by Jews. But does that make them "antisemite".
If we were talking about Nigerians or Cubans, would nations that didn't want hoards of them to invade their country be labelled as anti-black or anti-hispanic.
If there is a bias against Jews, it certainly isn't racial in nature, because there is no Jewish race.
Some Jews are middle eastern, some are white, some are oriental, some are black. Whatever Jewishness implies, it certainly isn't a race.
If Jewishness were a genetic trait, then anti-jewishness would be genetic as well, and would imply that physical survival is somehow enhanced by distrust of Jews.
The word "Semitic" only really refers to a language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldean, Aramaic, and a lot of other Middle Eastern languages and dialects and extends far down into Africa.
The Arabs are every bit as "Semitic" as the Jews. And so are certain black African tribes.
In usage, the term antisemitic is incorrectly used to designate any who oppose Jewish influence in their cultures.
But to be honest, few cultures have ever discriminated against Jews to the point that the Jews discriminate against outsiders.
No other nation groups all outsiders into a single derogatory racial designation that infers less than human status.
No other culture openly asserts its supposed spiritual and intellectual superiority over all outsiders.
If by "antisemite" you mean those who believe that all people are equally loved by God, and are endowed with equal rights, including the right to live in peace in the land of their forefathers, Then I guess I'm guilty.
I will "go home" in God's own time. With pleasure.
No, the proper way to acquire land is to buy it. Anything else is illegal. Posession of stolen property is certainly not 9/10ths of the law.
Er, the US Constitution, the UN Charter, the ten commandments, every legal system in the world, ....
You seem to have a double standard. Rusty.
YOu accept the Jews claim to the land based on prior ownership 3000 years ago, even knowing that they took it by force that time too, and that not one single living Jew can even trace his lineage back to that time.
But you deny the Palestinians claim to the land based on prior ownership that lasted for 2000 years and continued until they were invaded only 50 years ago. And even now they still inhabit and possess the land, so "possession" is actually in their favor. Dispossession is certainly NOT 9/10ths of the law.
If God "gave" the Jews the land when they took it by force. Then certainly he also gave it to Palestinians when the Romans evicted the Jews.
I don't think its good to presuppose God's intentions or preferences.. Best leave Him out of the matter. Land ownership is a civil matter, and so are war crimes and human rights abuses. They need to be dealt with legally.
The UN has already ruled (long ago) that Israel should withdraw back to its original 1948 borders.
I think that would be fair. Even that constitutes a huge land theft from the Palestinians which should rightfully be compensated by the UN as they imposed the original partition.
The trouble is that Israel has ignored every UN call to retire to its lawful borders. So it's apparently going to take some muscle to force Israel's compliance. And things are moving slowly but surely in that direction.
2. Christ is always the same. Christians aren't. The trick is to seek Christ's will, not our own. And in the case of Genocide that's pretty easy to determine
3. Actually getting crucified is a sign that you're on the right track. Nice hammer you got there by the way.
4. Can't make out the sense of what you're trying to say
Well, actually I'm from Texas. And I lived in Oklahoma. I even spent some time in Talequah visiting on the Cherokee reservation back when AIM was still a hot topic.
And about the French. They lost more troops in WW1 alone than the US did in both world wars and Korea and Vietnam combined. Not that there's anything valorous about losing troops. Or killing troops for that matter.
The most valorous thing to do in a war is to not participate.
Jesus said. "He that killeth with the sword must be killed by the sword"
It's true that you don't owe me an explanation. I just thought you might welcome a chance to explain your reasons for supporting Israel's genocide of the helpless indigenous people of the land she has stolen.
There you go again with your disinformation techniques again.
Refusing to discuss issues on the basis of a supposed unanswered question is a great way to avoid exposing the weakness of your argumentation, isn't it.
So here's a simple "yes or no" question for you Krimsa.
You have on multiple occasions specified the "Mediterranean" religions as being "bad" in your opinion. That leaves the door conspicuously open for "non mediterranean" religions. Furthermore your zeal against Christ is more characteristic of religion than of atheism.
So just to clear up any confusion concerning your real stance,
No nation is Christian. No nation was ever Christian. No nation will ever be Christian. Only individual people can be Christian. And they can only be Christian by their own personal choice. You don't have to decide to serve Christ. But like Bob Dylan said. "You're gonna serve someone". If it ain't Jesus, who's it gonna be?
Of course it will. It will also set the individual and the religious system at loggerheads.
Jesus is a good example. He was persecuted by religion, and executed by the state.
And He said that anyone who follows Him has will have a similar cross to bear.
It's comes down to a matter of counting the cost. Is it worth it?
Paul illustrated the point by referring to the story of Moses.
Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
Believers esteem the reproach they encounter to be a blessing, a part of their reward.
Jesus counted persecution among the rewards a believer will receive.
Mr 10:29 And Jesus answered ... There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Persecution is a reward. It is the deposit slip that shows that the other rewards have been credited to one's account.
2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
RayfromUSA Forum Posts (6,611)
RE: Here is one for you all. Do looks matter?
oops messed up on the quote, but you get the idea.