Truth Hurts

So. We're down to Candice Glover and Kree Harrison.

Ridiculous.

Let's start with Candice Glover.

Candice Glover is a prime example of how you can be a great *TECHNICAL* singer, yet a complete *BORE* at the same time:

1. Her voice is not unique.

(--Notice, I didn't say range, power or pitch...I'm talking *tone* here.)

2. She has no stage presence--she doesn't move, doesn't play to the audience...she just stands there.

3. She has zero star power: She doesn't have the charisma, the magnetism, or the wow-factor associated with an American Idol.

4. In short, she's not a complete performer.

Yes, of course, she's able to razzle-dazzle with her vocal acrobatics.

But be honest for just a moment. Just look at her and think *Pop Star*.

Angie may not have been as adept at vocal gyrations including the "hoo-hoo"s and "wee-wee"s as Candice, but who cares???????

I thought this was American *Idol*. Not, "American R&B Recording Artist".

(And before you make it about race, I was behind Burnell Taylor 100%. He HAD everything I listed above that Candice lacks.)

Angie was the whole package:

1. Amazing, UNIQUE voice. When you heard her, you knew it was her.

(Candice Glover's vocal tonality could pass for any one of a hundred other one-off R&B artists that have come and gone.)

2. Stage presence: whether she was working the crowd, or playing the piano. Which leads me to...

3. She HAS star power: She HAS the charisma, the magnetism, and the wow-factor associated with an American Idol.

4. Her musical talent with the piano is nothing short of enthralling. When she moves and pounds the keys with passion it's as exciting an instrumental, musical performance as any I've seen from other professionals with years more experience.

5. And yes, she's beautiful; she has the kind of beauty that is becoming an idol pop star. (And before you make it about race again, Rihanna also has the kind of beauty becoming a star. Candice Glover, clearly, doesn't. She could pass for any one of a dozen random girls in line at Dunkin Donuts.)

6. I saved this for last: Her SONGWRITING TALENT.

"You Set Me Free" could easily have debuted at number one. It has nearly FOUR MILLION VIEWS on Youtube. Candice's most watched video has barely two.

In short, Angie Miller is a complete artist. I hope her career doesn't face an uphill climb now by virtue of having not "won" a TV show.

I think the judges swayed public opinion. They lavished praise on Amber Holcomb who clearly didn't deserve it, and they were overly critical of Angie, while giving Candice a free-ride on her lack of charisma and lack of completeness as a live performer.

I think Candice will go up quick due to the hype, then quickly fade from public view, much like Jordin Sparks.

Kree's great, but second to Angie. Hope she wins. At least her voice is also UNIQUE and has a sweetness to it that is endearing. At least she doesn't rely solely on vocal acrobatics.

Agree or Disagree?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bailey-oneill-12-dead-wee...

What is it with this "they're minors so they get a free pass" crap"?

Who cares? I mean really?

They beat a kid literally to death.

Their names should be made public, and their parents' bank accounts drained.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bailey-oneill-12-dead-wee...

I've seen anti-bullying websites and organizations, but they're all immersed in naivety.

They actually believe that "Tell-Me-How-You-Feel-Sitdown Therapy" works.

They deny that there are such things as bad seeds. --That there are agressors, and victims. Just like in real life. Instead, there are only "communication errors".

I've seen so many websites and orgnaizations dedicated to "fostering understanding", replete with rainbows, butterflies and unicorns dedicated to the memories of dead children that I want to throw up my guts 'til I turn inside out.

So my question:

Does anyone know of any sites or organizations run by parents who are so sick to death of this they can spit roaring hellfire?!

M.others or F.athers A.gainst M.urdered C.hildren?

Suicides are only the tip of the iceberg. I'm talking about assaults, knivings and murders.

Bailey O'Neil didn't slit his wrists.

He was M-U-R-D-E-R-E-D. By two little bastards who bully-beat him literally to death.

Anyone who wants to soft pedal the issue should be forced to say their piece to Bailey's mother's face.

So does anyone know of any organizations you can donate to with lawyers on staff who can sue the hell out of school districts AND PARENTS who ignore child-torture? Or who treat bullies and victims "equally"?

If so, please list them. Thank you.

--Not the belief that God has planned the end from the beginning,

--But the belief that God has literally a plan for *everything*, and is actively controlling *everything* in accordance with that plan.

--From choices people make, to the sins they commit, to the trajectory of every dust particle in the universe.

I'm not talking about scripture verses.

I'm not talking about a term describing God. Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, is not what I'm looking for.

--And if you answer, "Well, of course He does! Here's the scriptural proof!" --Long list of bullet points, it means you didn't read the question.

I'm asking specifically if there's a *term* in Christian theology for the belief that I'm describing.

Calvinism is based on a belief in the predestination of the Christian, but doesn't talk alot about world events that are beyond that, nor the spercific choices that unbelievers make, or the universe at large or at length..... So that's not what I'm looking for either.

This is a belief so widely held by so many people, that I can't believe that a term hasn't emerged to describe and discuss it in Christian theological discourse.

Maybe something like, "The-Great-And-Cosmic-Plan-ianism"...?

Thanks and blessings.

Of course they don't inherit salvation through Christ or the blessings reserved for Children of Israel, but....

Is there anything in orthodox Christian theology that teaches that muslims are entitled to certain dispensations or blessings or protections because of their bloodline?

I heard a Christian pastor allude to this, (I thought), and I was curious because I'd never heard anything like that before.

I know we're to love all people.

In case any part of that was unclear,

I know.

We're to love.

All.

People.

I'm talking specifically about false religion.

--I'm not talking about Christians with whom we disagree, such as is popular in the modern "discernment movement" where self-appointed "prophets" call others heretics because they disagree with them on an issue that the church has never labeled as one of the fundamentals of the faith.

I'm talking about religions about which the church has built *consensus* as existing outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism, Islam, etc....

Please pay attention to the question, because I really, really want an answer here.

If you answer,

"Jesus tells us to love everyone!"

--It means you didn't read the question.

If you answer with a statement about 'how Christianity sucks and one of the false religions listed are wonderful', please respect: *I* took the time to ask this question, and the issue of whether or not Yahoo Answers is an open forum or not is irrelevant. --It simply doesn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask, "What does the WORLD think about, 'Love what the Christian God loves and hate what He hates"; my question was, what does CHRISTIAN theology think about the statement and what is the biblical evidence for it?

--It doesn't mean I should buzz off and go to a Christian website, it means I, as member of an open community, am exercising my right to take the time to formulate a *specific* question. Maybe you should buzz off a go to a website where you can spew anti-Christian hate with impunity.

Now! that that's all settled, my question please. :)

Thanks and blessings.

I STRONGLY prefer Christians who are theologically astute. No offense, but little Joey or Susie fresh from bible study probably can't tackle this one.

Pastors, teachers, theologians...........

Am I wrong to hate it?

I know I'm to love muslims.

But their "faith" is so evil. It denies Jesus as Christ. And the oceans of innocent blood it has shed and continues to shed just turns my stomach. To boot, it's joined with modern, anti-Christian, American liberals in this propaganda campaign that spins the truth about itself in a way that just adds insult to injury. It all makes my blood boil.

Now, here's the question.

Is there a SCRIPTURAL basis for Christians being called to: "Love what God loves and hate what he hates"?

Is "hatred" of anything the province of God alone?

I tend to think it is, and as wicked as Islam is, I tend to think I'm wrong.

Seems like as with "Vengeance is mine", so holy hatred is for God alone (as with Esau).

Now, another thorny theological issue:

What's your take on muslims (supposedly) descended from Ishmael?

I'm not asking why they're ignoring it. That much is obvious.

But this trial, killing newborns outside the womb, is so heinous and so gruesome, it raises media bias to operatic, symphonic levels.

It's not the same as calling George Bush a meanie on MSNBC.

Is *anyone* calling any prominent liberal journalist to task on this blackout and the bias it reeks of???

If so, please include the link(s) or at least their response. How did they try and justify it???

Yes, in a perfect world, you should be able to have both: beautiful visuals, and a great story.

But I'm watching this owl movie, Legend of the Guardians, and there's so much color-bursting eye-candy, so much fast-moving fanfare, an almost masturbatory self-indulgence with the visuals, that if there were a story lurking underneath, I'm not sure I'd notice.

We could add to the list just about every Tim Burton movie ever made.

I think it's possible for an over-the-top production design to actually get in the way of story; especially if the script is underdeveloped. (--Which there is no excuse for in today's Hollywood.)

The fortunes spent on movies nowadays just isn't warranted. CGI has made it cheaper to make movies. There's enough talent in Hollywood that stars who want tens of millions of dollars for a film can be told to go pound sand. Big names don't always translate into big box office, anyway...good ideas, good writing, and good films do--it's shown time and again.

Here's hoping more producers and more studios grow some backbone and begin spending more on the *best* writers (not their friends), and less on...crap.

Agree/disagree?

Tell us about your answer(s)!

--I normally emphasize best writing, and I know this is subjective as all get out...just for fun.

--But I swear, even though it's not scripted, no show is more interesting, fascinating or fun than Pawn Stars!!!

Here are mine:

1. PAWN STARS!!!

2. ER

3. M*A*S*H

4. All In The Family

5. The Practice

6. The Walking Dead (yes, I think the writing is that good)

7. I Love Lucy

8. Star Trek (both original and TNG--morality plays in space...both fantastically written)

9. The Sopranos

10. Family Guy - it's silly at times, sure....but I think the satire at times borders on genius.

Honorable Mention: Smallville and Friends. Fantastic writing and execution

A friendly and honest challenge: please don't dance around the question.

I challenge you to answer yes, or no, and defend your reason.

...then how to come up with the other 20%?

Is this what is known as "hard money"?

Are there *reputable* businesses that can be found online that specialize in hard money investors?

What I've heard:

You can have crappy personal credit and still establish corporate credit fast and easy! A corporation is a separate, legal entity and one has nothing to do with the other.

What I've also heard:

In a word, bull****. If you have a corporation and apply for credit, the bank wants to see your personal credit too.

These terms seems really ill-defined.

I see them more as a pejorative terms used by non-Christians, particularly liberal atheists, to describe all Christians, or basically any Christian who dares to take their faith seriously.

I further see them used interchangeably in the news media as anti-Christian slurs.

Are there *actual* definitions that have consensus across the Christian faith for these terms?

(Bonus Question: agree or disagree: I think it would behoove us as Christians to spend a little more time defining our terms...it would improve the quality of discussion and discourse and prevent many misunderstandings. For instance, there are Christians who believe in a firm Calvinist theology, the gifts are gone, prosperity is a sin, God is the author of any and all diseases for the greater good, but they raise their hands in church so call themselves "Charismatic", ya know?).

Particularly on matters of theology and belief?

Problem: all supposedly "unbiased" organizations I read about are all biased. --Like similar, supposedly "unbiased" political organizations. All biased.

(Christian Research Institute is not neutral, sorry--they're radically, hyper-Calvinist. Whether you agree with them or disagree with them, biased is biased and this isn't what I'm looking for).

Thanks!

Problem: all the supposedly "unbiased" organizations are radically biased.

Now here's the key:

I'm interested in learning if any stats or surveys have been done on Calvinist vs. Arminian *basic beliefs*...not just titles. For instance:

It's obvious that many believe the basic principles of a Calvinist mindset (predestination, no free will, everything that happens happens because God makes it happen) without ever having heard of John Calvin, TULIP, or anything else...

...Likewise, there are many who have a more Arminian view of faith (Covenant Theology, God's in charge but gives man choices, can be counted on to operate within certain promises He's made, etc.), without ever having heard of Arminius.

I don't want to get into a theological debate on one over the other. (It's just becoming frustrating to use Yahoo Answers, see 8 responses, and none of them answer the question). Please have the courtesy to read the question, and respond if you know of any stats or percentages on these two views of faith.

BONUS QUESTION: Are there any *neutral* Christian research organizations who might be contacted regarding this? (CRI is not neutral, they are radically hyper-Calvinist...sorry. ;)).

Thanks and God bless!

I'm seriously interested in knowing.

Is it because Romney is more Conservative?

More electable?

Or both?

I always had the impression Gingrich was not only the more Conservative, but had the guts to stand up to Congress and do the right thing for the economy whether popular or not.

Romney strikes me as the type who will put his political finger in the air before making a decision.

But these are just impressions. Like to learn more facts with sources, please...