Randy G

Certainly it must happen a lot. After the 30 return date is past, do people just recycle the diamond into a new ring for the next person, or is that just tacky?

…The sociologist David Blankenhorn, in “Fatherless America” (1995), wrote, "Despite the difficulty of proving causation in the social sciences, the weight of evidence increasingly supports the conclusion that fatherlessness is a primary generator of violence among young men." William Galston, a former domestic-policy adviser in the Clinton Administration who is now at the University of Maryland, and his colleague Elaine Kamarck, now at Harvard, concur. Commenting on the relationship between crime and one-parent families, they wrote in a 1990 institute report, "The relationship is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature."…"

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/0...

Atheists claim that atheism is not a religion, but it is a lack of religion.

With all due respect, some of you might want to consult a dictionary, then, as you obviously don't speak English very well.

"Agnosticism" is a lack of religion, not "atheism".

It is NOT scientific or rational to declare dogmatically that you know for sure that "God is imaginary". Any science textbook will that you that his is NOT a scientific claim, because it cannot be falsified, any more than a claim that "God is real" can be falsified via the scientific method.

This is based on a Q&A series in Gender Studies yesterday

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As.P1...

Everything that I ever read says that CHICKEN eggs are used to incubate viruses, not aborted human fetuses.

Once source DID say that mammalian cells (kidney cells are often used) to grow the influenza viruses for people who are allegoric to chicken eggs, but there has been no mention of ever using discarded human embryos for this.

Where are you people getting your information? BTW, a link to the website of some wacky, sensationalist, attention-seeking pastor that no one has ever heard of is NOT a credible medical source, nor is it a credible source of anything, in my opinion (1 John 4:1).

“…Traditionally, influenza vaccines are produced in fertilized chicken eggs … An alternative way of producing flu vaccine is based on cell or tissue cultures. This method of production was first described in the mid-nineties and is still in its experimental stage, yet all major players in the vaccines industry have embarked on development. Mammalian kidney cells are preferably used for these cell cultures…”

When was the last time that you saw a woman treat a male stranger as if he was something special for no reason other than just to be kind? Never? Thought so.

I've noticed that many women act like jerks toward strangers, and then complain that no one is ever kind toward them without an agenda.

If women want strangers to practice random acts of kindness toward them, then what is wrong with YOU setting the example by doing the same to others? Afraid that people will get the wrong idea if you do? If so, is it any surprise that male chivalry is dead also?

Just so you will know that I'm not making this up:

"...When researchers showed a picture to female participants, 59% said they would go after him after they heard he was single. But, when the same photo was shown to a different group with the explanation he was attached, 90% of the women would go for him..."

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/do-single-women...

Just so you will know that I'm not making this up:

"...When researchers showed a picture to female participants, 59% said they would go after him after they heard he was single. But, when the same photo was shown to a different group with the explanation he was attached, 90% of the women would go for him..."

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/do-single-women...

http://www.imeem.com/people/89Tv0un/video/RnQhA7jL...

Thanks in advance!

This is a repost to get more responses. Scientific studies poke holes in the idea that men are inherently more violent than women:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

…The family violence issue has been distorted and politicized by the

gender wars. Believing what gender activists say about family violence

is like believing what the tobacco companies say about cancer.

Unfortunately, almost all information available to the public comes in

the form of political propaganda from "Men's Rights" groups or

"Women's Rights" groups…

…One of the favorite statistics quoted by abuse shelter advocates is that a woman is the victim of spousal violence every 15 seconds. This statistic is deduced from a well conducted piece of research which was published in the "Journal of Marriage and Family", a respected professional journal for marriage and family therapists. The Abuse Shelter advocates arrived at this figure by using one of the conclusions of the study, i.e.; 1.8 million women suffer an assault from a husband or boyfriend per year. What abuse shelter advocates always fail to report is another finding of the same study, i.e.; 2 million men are assaulted by a wife or girl friend per year, which translates as, a man is the victim of spousal violence every 14 seconds…

…Women usually initiate spousal violence episodes (they hit first), and women hit more frequently, as well as using weapons three times more often then men. This combination of violent acts means that efforts to find solutions to the family violence problem need to include appropriate focus on female perpetrators…

…Violence against children by women is another issue where the public attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal studies.

* Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When

the man is removed from the family the children are at greater

risk.

* Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father-

only households.

* Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in Mother-only

Households than in Father-only Households, and many times more

likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other

than the biological father.

* Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more likely

to become killers than children raised with their biological

father.

Other studies reveal more about female violence against children:

* Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.

* Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.

* Eighty two percent of the general population had their first

experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their mother.

Our culture learns to be violent from our mothers, not our fathers.

Yet, 3.1 million reports of child abuse are filed against men each

year, most of which are false accusations used as leverage in a

divorce or custody case…

Do you really think that men are inherently violent brutes, while most women are helpless, innocent victims?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

...The family violence issue has been distorted and politicized by the

gender wars. Believing what gender activists say about family violence

is like believing what the tobacco companies say about cancer.

Unfortunately, almost all information available to the public comes in

the form of political propaganda from "Men's Rights" groups or

"Women's Rights" groups.

This misunderstanding of the family violence issue is so pervasive

that city and county governments, the courts, law enforcement,

prosecutorÌs offices, mental health clinics, and other tax supported

agencies are now funding programs based on gender politics rather than responsible scientific studies....

...Violence against children by women is another issue where the public attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal studies.

* Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When

the man is removed from the family the children are at greater

risk.

* Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father-

only households.

* Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in Mother-only

Households than in Father-only Households, and many times more

likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other

than the biological father.

* Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more likely

to become killers than children raised with their biological

father.

Other studies reveal more about female violence against children:

* Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.

* Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.

* Eighty two percent of the general population had their first experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their mother.

Our culture learns to be violent from our mothers, not our fathers.

Yet, 3.1 million reports of child abuse are filed against men each

year, most of which are false accusations used as leverage in a

divorce or custody case....

...Men and children may not report when they are injured by a woman,

however, the dead bodies of the men and children who are the victims

of violent women are usually reported. Murder statistics are far more

reliable than reported abuse statistics. The Bureau of Justice

Statistics released a report of family homicides in 33 urban counties.

Some gender activists claim that violent women are acting in self-

defense. These quoted statistics represent convictions for murder.

1. "In spouse murders, women represented 41 percent of killers."

2. "In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for

55 percent of killers."

3. "Among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to

murder their husbands as husbands were to murder their wives: 47

percent of the victims of a spouse were husbands and 53 percent

were wives."

This is a long way from the claim that "men are responsible for 90% of

family violence". Those who quote law enforcement statistics to

support the "male villain-female victim" dogma are either misled or

deliberately attempting to mislead....

If evil is NOT inherently contained within every human mind, then where does selfish behavior originate? If you say that evil behavior is just learned from “society”, or from “bad parenting”, then that would seem to be circular logic, as “society” is just people, and the last time I checked, “bad parents” are people too. So anyone who uses this argument is essentially conceding that “bad” comes from people, not from some mysterious “environment” external to ourselves, like a violent storm.

Unless you have a big ego, certainly you must admit that you are not a saint or an angel, and neither is anyone that you know. Children seem to be born selfish and egocentric, and have to be constantly reminded by those older and more experienced (i.e.: “society”) how to be polite, sharing, and considerate.

If you think that people are basically “good” with few exceptions, then just read history, or look at the news, and you will be quickly disillusioned (if you are at all honest).

Since being “moral” doesn’t seem to come naturally to anyone, and must be learned, then were else could “evil” come from if not from inside our own minds? It seems self evident from history that humans are all part monster (as well as part saint), so why does the common-sense idea of “original sin” strike some people as “barbaric”?

What kind of "ash"? Burned wood? Why is it in there?

I noticed that atheists on R&S keep using that word as though they have a monopoly on thought & reason, and everyone who disagrees with them is either stupid, dishonest, or high.

Think about it. What makes an atheist somehow immune to the same laws of human nature and psychology that govern the thoughts of every other human on Earth? If the 99 percent of the human race, who are religious, are not “rational”, then how can the atheist be one of the few people who are “rational”, if the rest of the human race are not? Are atheists some other species? Or are they just living in their own type of bias and self denial, the same as everyone else on Earth?

Let me give you an analogy: say you are an atheist, and you posted a question in the dating section asking for advice about how to improve your sex life. Say a bunch of religious people responded with answers that basically said that you were going to Hell for fornicating. Is that really new information to you? Did it really answer your question? Did it really give you a “fresh point of view”? Yes, it is an open forum, but you were looking for serious answers, not quick one-liners that did not answer your question.

Likewise, a religious person posts a question about, say, prayer for example, and says “Christian responses only, please”. Do you really wonder why? Don’t you think that it is annoying for a bunch of atheists to respond with glib, brainless one-liners like “god is imaginary”, or “religion is stupid”? Do you really think that you will get people to change their beliefs, or to see your point of view, by being childish & annoying? Does it work on you?

Did Allah make a mistake?

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-bible-koran-errors...

No offense to anyone, but it would appear that Allah mislead Muhammad about basic Christian theology and/or Church history. Why would an all knowing god make that mistake?

This is a serious question. No stupid answers attacking the Bible, but making no attempt to explain an apparent serious error in Muhammad’s teachings, please. I know a cheap dodge when I see one. Thanks.

OK, atheists are always posting their hate mail on here and whining abot it, so I think that turn about is fair play.

I had sent an e-mail to a guy who stated, basically, that Christians are hyprocties because we claim to believe in Heaven,but we never pray for death.

I asked him, "How do you know what anyone prays for in private? It is arragant to assume that you know other people's motives, or their private pain. This is why people tend to dislkie atheists. You seem to assume that you know everything, and you always talk down to everyone that you disagree with." (That might not be an exact quote, but it is close enough.). This is the reply I received, which, oddly enough, re-enforces every sterotype that I just spouted about atheists:the reply is insensitive, rude, presumptive, and the person who said seems to be obviously insecure.

You would think that the salty runoff produced when the ice and snow melts would seep into the ground and kill the grass or kill fish in the river.

And what about all of the sand? It has to go somewhere too. Doesn't it clog storm drains?

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but someone asked a question about alternative ways to celebrate Christmas, but since she obviously didn't like the advice that she got, she accused everyone of "preaching" to her, or trying to "proselytize" her, or of "making assumptions" about her beliefs (Of course people made "assumptions" -- the question was kind of vague. Duh!). I don't want to embarrass the person, so I won't post the question (you can find it if you must see it for yourself). This is not intended to be a personal attack; just a question about human nature.

If one doesn't like the advice that one gets, so be it, but why accuse other people of bad motives just because they gave an honest, heart felt answer to a vague question? What's up with that?

Random weird thing. It is a little long, but bear with me.

After church let out this afternoon, I noticed that traffic was bad, so I tried to kill time by wondering around aimlessly in the lobby looking the books and other materials that were laying about. I didn’t see anyone that I knew right away (it was a big church) so I just kept strolling around smiling at random people and looking at books. I noticed that a particular girl kept looking at me, so naturally I looked back at her every time that we crossed paths. Eventually one of the people in her little group came up to me and said, “Do you have a problem?” It seemed like an odd question, so I said something to the effect of, “Why? Is there a problem?” This person said, “Why are you following my friend around?” I said, more or less, “I was not aware of following your friend anywhere.” This person retorted, “Well, you are making her uncomfortable,” and then got nervous and ran away just as I was trying to ask a question.

I was driving down a four lane divided boulevard around lunch time today (Monday) in light traffic, when I saw the police cleaning up a traffic accident. There was a convertible in the middle of the grassy raised medium that was turned sideways and had its passenger side smashed in by the light pole that obviously stopped it. I hoped that there wasn't a passenger in the car, because the pole was where he should have been.

I worked briefly as an accident investigator for auto insurance companies shortly after graduating with a BS in engineering, but I couldn't figure out off the top of my head how it was possible for a driver, on dry pavement and a sunny day, to do this.

Insert whatever philosophical or religious comment that you want about the fragility of life, or idiot drivers. You decide.