Lawrence Louis

Can anyone tell me the name of this model?

http://www.aveeno.com/facialcare

I have been trying long and hard to find out who the following Aveeno model is. Can anyone help me identify who she is? Here is a video of her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVsWBJERVAw

I would greatly appreciate the information.

I understand that the movie has romantic overtones, which appeals to women, but is there enough action to keep the typical guy, such as myself, interested? I am just debating whether to see it or not. Just to give you an idea, I like vampire movies ranging from the Lost Boys and the Blade trilogy, all the way to Interview With the Vampire. I don't mind a little romance, I am just curious as to whether the movie "Twilight" is so inundated with romance, that it is more of soap opera than a action packed vampire film. Thanks.

Which game did you prefer? Please elaborate why you prefer one game over the other. I am debating whether to buy the latest Call of Duty installment. I loved COD4: Modern Warfare. Thanks.

Could you give a rationale for your choice, by referencing training and selection methods? Could you also cite a comparative source, if possible? Thanks.

I understand the ArmA series (Combat Operations and Gold) are supposed to actually simulate how real combat is like and how real weapons react, while Call of Duty 4 (COD4) is more of a traditional first person shooter, that does not reflect any kind of realism, but I was wondering are the ArmA games so complicated that it would be difficult for a novice to use the game and derive as much pleasure from playing as they do COD4?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVEMoYT0v2s

I just think it is a beautiful and exotic sounding instrument that really resonates a sense of sadness. I was just wondering if anyone knew the name of the instrument, and what part of the world it came from.

This may or may not be true, but there is video footage and numerous articles claiming that governor Palin, the potential Vice President of the United States, supports the cruel and cowardly practice of aerial hunting of wolves:

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T85cOGc8L0

Article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/

This brings me to my point about Republicans. People who are on the conservative end of the political spectrum frequently extol the traditional American mores of patriotism, bravery, manliness, rugged individualism, and family values. Conversely, the portray liberals of being bereft of such lofty virtues. Yet, neoconservatives like Palin, advocate aerial hunting of wolves instead of hunting them face to face (not very manly) Right wingers, such as George W. Bush, frequently send other people's children, and not their own, to die for wars that they declare (not very brave or patriotic). They willingly take money from government subsidies when it engenders the growth of their business (not very ruggedly individualistic). These Christian conservatives talk about family values, and then nominate a woman into office who would rather spend her time promoting her political career then taking care of the special needs kid that she delivered into this world (not really an example of family values). This is hypocrisy of the highest order, don’t you think?

If you had to choose between an AK-47, M4, or M16 assault rifle in a combat situation, when your enemy was anywhere between 20 and 150 yards away from you, which would you choose? Please enumerate your reasons, and please let your explanation contain more than the phrase that “such and such rifle sucks or is awesome”. Thank you.

Christians, since the time of Aquinas, and even before that, have looked at the world and inferred that it is the product of a deliberate design, and of course they immediately jump to the conclusion that it has to be their God who did the design (they never justify this fact, when it just as easily could be another God). Even the Apostle Paul seems quite convinced of the argument (Romans 1:20), even before it was articulated in philosophical and theological treatises. Now I am not going to go into the mountain of problems with the argument from design.

However, for every single aspect of “creation” that you perceive to be beneficial to mankind, I can show you innumerable more things in that same “creation” that are harmful to mankind. Hence, given the evidence would it be plausible to assume, based on the argument from design, that God is evil, or at the very least doesn’t have our best interests at heart? Why theists are you only willing to make inferences that work in your favor? Why don’t you go the next logical step?

If I look at the AK-47 – the most popular assault rifle ever – I can tell that someone designed it. I would be right in this assumption. However, everyone would agree with me that I would be justified in also assuming, based on what it does, that the designer, Mikhail Kalashnikov, did not merely design it, but designed it to maximize killing. So given the same logic, and given the state of the world, and all that is in it that is dangerous to man, can we assume that God designed the world to destroy us, or at the very least that he was apathetic to us? To not take an inference to its logical conclusion is intellectually dishonest, don’t you think?

After all, she delivered into the world a special needs child. Given that she was a politician that made it to the state governor level, one can assume that she is not in deep need of money. Wouldn’t it be more of a reflection of Christian values for her to forgo her own self-promotion, and leave the campaign trail, allowing for someone more qualified to fill the Vice Presidential nominee spot, so that she could devote her full attention a child who really needs it? Would your God approve of the selfishness she is currently displaying? People always applaud her for deciding to have the child, but having a child isn’t the laudable thing. Being an attentive mother to child is what is real important, isn’t it?

Matt Damon seems to be the only one who is really vocalizing an unvarnished apprehension about Sarah Palin being the Vice President, and even possibly the President, given McCain's age and health problems. Politicians who oppose the McCain/Palin ticket and the media seem to be treating her with kid gloves. Its real sad when an a person known more for screenwriting and acting chops is far more inquisitive and skeptical than those who should demonstrate these qualities.

Now I am not saying that the story is true with absolute certainty, but I have heard it mentioned from multiple sources, some of them being news agencies. Do you think that IF she does maintain the view that Creationism should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution, that this is a poor reflection on her intelligence, and thus would count against her come election time? Don't you think that maintaining such a backward position would mean that she would seek to make the government more religion friendly, thus eroding the already weakening separation between church and state? So would all of this, if it turns out to be true, cause you to vote against the McCain/Palin ticket come November?

Now I am not saying that the story is true with absolute certainty, but I have heard it mentioned from multiple sources, some of them being news agencies. Do you think that IF she does maintain the view that Creationism should be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution, that this is a poor reflection on her intelligence, and thus would count against her come election time? Don't you think that maintaining such a backward position would mean that she would seek to make the government more religion friendly, thus eroding the already weakening separation between church and state? So would all of this, if it turns out to be true, cause you to vote against the McCain/Palin ticket come November?

I have never understood why so many right wing Christians see it as imperative that they not only believe in the doctrines of their faith, but that others espouse these doctrines, and that this should be done through our legislature so as to protect the public posting of the Ten Commandments, advocate the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design in public schools, and promote Christian views of sexuality in the classroom. Doesn’t this admit to a failure on the part of the Christian world, that they have to resort to government assistance in order to change society? If you believe the Bible, Jesus always advocated a grassroots approach to reaching people’s hearts and minds, by living out the Christian example, and by talking to people one on one. He never promoted that his followers should use the government to legislate their beliefs into laws. In fact, he told his followers to not further pursue those who resist the preachments of the faith, and let the consequences of their resistance inflict them with suffering on Judgment Day (Matthew 10:14-15). He never said “if they resist you, or try to censor you, go the government authorities, and insist that the they post your sermons on the walls of the Roman senate, the schools, and in the synagogues.” What does it say about you Christians, that you cannot even reach the “lost’ without government help? Furthermore, what does it say about your God, that he lacks the efficacy to express his sanctifying grace through those who profess to believe in him, so as to reach the “lost”? Also, if you believing in following Biblical tradition, as you should if you are a Bible believing Christian, why aren’t you following Jesus’ authority as expressed in Matthew 10:14-15?

I have never understood why so many right wing Christians see it as imperative that they not only believe in the doctrines of their faith, but that others espouse these doctrines, and that this should be done through our legislature so as to protect the public posting of the Ten Commandments, advocate the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design in public schools, and promote Christian views of sexuality in the classroom. Doesn’t this admit to a failure on the part of the Christian world, that they have to resort to government assistance in order to change society? If you believe the Bible, Jesus always advocated a grassroots approach to reaching people’s hearts and minds, by living out the Christian example, and by talking to people one on one. He never promoted that his followers should use the government to legislate their beliefs into laws. In fact, he told his followers to not further pursue those who resist the preachments of the faith, and let the consequences of their resistance inflict them with suffering on Judgment Day (Matthew 10:14-15). He never said “if they resist you, or try to censor you, go the government authorities, and insist that the they post your sermons on the walls of the Roman senate, the schools, and in the synagogues.” What does it say about you Christians, that you cannot even reach the “lost’ without government help? Furthermore, what does it say about your God, that he lacks the efficacy to express his sanctifying grace through those who profess to believe in him, so as to reach the “lost”? Also, if you believing in following Biblical tradition, as you should if you are a Bible believing Christian, why aren’t you following Jesus’ authority as expressed in Matthew 10:14-15?

If the willingness to put one's life in jeopardy for what one believes is evidence of true belief, is it safe to say that most Christians don't really believe in what they profess? After all, Christian apologists always speak about the willingness of the Apostles and other 1st century Christians to martyr themselves for the sake of the Gospel, and how this is evidence of how much they really believed in what they proclaimed. Well, most modern day Christians - it is safe to estimate about 99% of them - would never subject themselves to dangerous and life threatening conditions to spread the Gospel. If they were willing to subject themselves to environments that could kill them, so as to spread the “Good News” of Jesus Christ, then you would see millions of Christians from the United States and Europe rushing to Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and China, even if it would spell their untimely demise. Given the fact that, at the most, there are only a few hundred, to MAYBE a few thousand of the nearly 2 billion “professing” Christians in the world, willing to risk torture and death to spread the Gospel in these oppressive countries, I think it is safe to conclude that the vast majority of them, including those Christians who badger unbelievers on this forum, are not really sincere in their conviction. What do you think?

There are several admonishments of Jesus in the Gospels that pretty much state that in order to be a follower of his (i.e. a true Christian) that you must be willing to sacrifice material wealth for the poor, to the point of just having enough to sustain oneself. There are numerous citations concerning this in Matthew 19:16-30, Matthew 6:19-34, Luke 6:23-26, Luke 6:30-36, and many other verses.

Furthermore, on top of sacrificing a substantial amount of wealth for the benefit of others, a true Christian must severe all domestic ties – including ties to parents, spouse, and children - that can encumber him from spreading the Gospel to the world (Luke 14:25-33).

So we can conclude just from the statements of Jesus, and from the self-sacrificial EXAMPLE set by him and his Apostles, that the typical person, who calls themselves Christian, who attends church, who offers a paltry 10 percent at the most in tithes, who says he is saved, isn’t really a Christian in Jesus’ own eyes. It would be safe estimate, based on the Jesus’ own standards, to say about 99% of the Christians in the world aren’t real Christians in Jesus’ eyes. It’s also safe to say that most, if not all the Christians on R & S are also not true Christians, because most live comfortable lives free of material hardship induced by NOT giving to the poor as much as they should, and by NOT having to separate from their families to spread the “Good News” of the Gospels? So I don’t think we should take most Christians who evangelize to us seriously, since most don’t adhere to the extreme sacrifice mandated by Jesus.

Would you listen to self-proclaimed fitness guru who is morbidly obese? No. Would you listen to a person on the merits of going to their particular college, if they cannot even add two simple numbers together or construct a coherent English sentence? No. Would you listen to a mechanic who could not even perform a simple oil change? No. So why would you listen to a person who professed to be a Christian, who doesn’t even pass the litmus test of being a Christian, set forth by the very founder of the Christian religion?

From my ten plus years debating theists, and having read numerous books and articles on apologetics, I think atheists, agnostics, and secularists in general have won the philosophical debate with respect to God's unlikely existence, and we have done a good job establishing that none of the "holy" books (i.e. the Bible, Koran, Vedas) has anything in them that would suggest that they were divinely authored or inspired. Yet, as we all know, most people's adherence to theism and religion is not rational but emotional. Have any of you, as atheists and agnostics, been able to appeal to theists, and religious people in general, on an emotional level?

I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and I thought it was a great improvement over their other WWII FPS games. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both the 1st and 2nd Call of Duty games, but I think with the Medal of Honor franchise and Brothers in Arms franchise, as well as many cheap knock offs of these, the WWII genre has been overdone. Who else agrees with me? I mean there is only so much I can stand shooting imprecise, heavy recoil guns. I love the modern warfare context with the sophisticated weapons. Not to mention the modern warfare environment, rife with terrorism, is far more relatable to current audiences. Who else laments that the COD franchise is going back to the WWII environment with "COD: World at War"?