Josias B

I'm putting on a swing/blues dance and I'm searching for songs to play. In particular, I want some more, unexpected modern songs to play. I'm having trouble tracking them down. Here are some examples of what I'm looking for:

Outkast: Idlewild Blue

The Clash: Brand New Cadillac

Swing Set: Jurassic 5

**As an aside, Indie/Hipster bands with such songs are also game, it doesn't have to be by a so-called 'mainstream' artist, just one that you wouldn't normally associate with swing/rockabilly/blues.**

The classics and neo-swing stuff are easy and abundant, so I'm not asking about those - PLEASE do NOT post songs by artists such as Benny Goodman, Frank Sinatra, Brian Setzer Orchestra, The Squirrel Nut Zippers, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Jerry Lee Luis etc. You get the idea.

Thanks in advance to all who reply!

I will be staying in Reston for a little while, and I love to cook vietnamese food. I have a tough time finding certain things like nuoc cham sauce. Where's the best place near Reston to get vietnamese groceries.

I recently see many treating certain religions as wrong or right depending on the writings in their holy books. I.e. I hear people say that Islam isn't bad, only the misinterpretations of the Qur'an. I.e. I also hear that Christianity isn't bad, only sects that misinterpret the Bible.

My question is, is it actually the book that defines the religion, or the beliefs? Should each different interpretation of a holy book be considered a different religion in and of itself?

This consideration leaves open the possibility that religion creates a worldview that can be harmful to society. Thus, some religions, then, can be partially responsible for creating some of the problems we see in the world around us because of the way they teach people to think.

What I mean is, as an example, one cannot say Islam is responsible for terrorism, but that the religion created by the way Muslim extremists interpret the Qur'an is partially responsible for inclining people towards terrorist activity

Recently I asked a question regarding evolution. I was accused of having an already set-in -stone view based on myprevious comments. However, new information came to light and I became skeptical of my stance of evolution, so I asked a question. My accuser seems to have forgotten to take into account the variables of time and change that can influence a persons ideas. I am continually disappointed by these boards as they seem not to be centered around answering questions as much as they are centered around shredding apart people's reputation and credibility. To the jerk who gave the 18th answer to my question on evolution, you've lost my respect and my ear.

Given the needed phenomena and implications of the Theory of Evolution, would you say that it attacks the foundations of Christianity? If you think it does, please list which Christian concepts evolution challenges and how. If you think it doesn't, explain how the idea evolution and the ideas Christianity could possibly coexist in harmony.

I have not given my stance on this issue, so please do not waste space by ridiculing my question. Inquisition is one way by which one may attain knowledge that he does not already have. Care to share what you know?

For this question, the definitions of terms used are

Evolution = the development of species into different types of animals over very long periods of time. e.g. fish evolving into modern day birds. A fruit fly evolving into another species of fruit fly is too short sighted. Evolution here is taken to mean evolution from one type of animal to another type of animal and include theories in like character to the Cambrian Explosion.

Science = "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." (www.dictionary.com)

Philosophy = "1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. 2. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them." (www.dictionary.com)

I am aware the question has been asked before. However, I wanted to ask the question myself, providing concrete definitions of critical terms.

An article I found at an online news site revealed that some public schools have begun introducing books into early elementary school curriculums that include homosexual behavior (such as same-sex parenthood and mild homosexual romance).

Examples:

A fairy tale called "King & King" about a King who turns down 3 princesses, but falls in love with and marries one of their brothers.

A story called "Spacegirl Pukes" is about a girl who gets sick before she takes a trip to space and is nersed back to health by her two mothers.

I wonder what the general reaction is among all of you at Yahoo! Answers? What do you think about this?

The article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...

Many claim that governments should be run apart from any religious beliefs. I am going to make a couple of base points about this then open this up to the answers board.

1. Without religious beliefs, what is there to keep the government's view in line? With a religious system, there tends to be clear line of moral guidelines. What guides these morals if there is no religious system? If people are naturally decent, you must give sufficient evidence for that claim.

2. A follow-up point from point one. If it is the unguided majority that guides the societal morale, then what prevents the 'evolution' of the majority thought to end up with a society where the majority believes murder, rape, thievery, etc. is alright? A sort of anarchist mindset, if you will - survival of the fittest.

I realize this question has probably already been posted. Please don't waste time criticizing me for not wanting to use the search function - I have the freedom to ask the Q: again.

Thoughts?

I hear so many atheists claim that religion is a kind of disease that cripples society. Then, you always point to the middle east, the Crusades, etc. for your evidence.

I say, atheism is at least as harmful. I point to Communist Russia, which pushed atheism (and even forced it). This society is considered one of the most wicked societies in recent history. So if atheism works, then explain why Russia, particularly under the rule of Stalin, produced such terrible results.

I have a family rooted in Protestant Christianity. My cousin and I have both converted to something outside of Protestantism, but have chosen different paths in the process. I'm now Eastern Orthodox Christian (not a huge change). She is now Pagan (quite a huge change). I would ask her what Paganism is, but sometimes her explanations are a bit fuzzy to me (I love her, but we think on completely different planes).

So, I'm looking to understand Paganism better so that I can better relate to my cousin. What are the practices? What are the core beliefs, values, etc.? What is it's background and historical context?

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not in communion with one another. The Oriental Orthodox reject the 6th Ecumenical Council and claim it contradicts the 3rd? Ecumenical Council most decisively. I am aware they also only accept the first 3 Ecumenical Councils and regard the 4th as heretical.

I am aware that the split was over Christology. The Eastern Orthodox accuse the Orientals as being Monophysite or Miaphysite. The Oriental Church accuses the Eastern Church of being Nestorian. Although the Eastern Orthodox refuse the title Nestorian, and the Orientals I have heard reject both the Miaphysite and Monophysite (and Eutychian(sp) ) titles.

So what do these Churches actually believe about the will(s) and nature(s) and person of Christ? Also, what seperates these Churches in theology so that they are not in communion with each other?

Finally, which of these Churches do you think holds closest to the understanding of the Apostles?

So many Catholics on here seem convinced that their Church is the True Church, started in 33 AD. My guess is that some of you either do not know of the Eastern Orthodox Church, do not know much about it, or believe something that causes you to believe that it is not the True Church and that, in 1054 it is the Eastern Orthodox that split from Rome, and not Rome that split from the Eastern Orthodox.

My question is, what do you believe about these Churches, and why do you believe it?

If you are Catholic, I would like to ask how you reconcile with the doctrinal changes that have occurred in the Roman Catholic Church over time, despite Papal Infallibility. I'm willing to consider that I don't understand Papal Infallibility.

I ask this in the kindest way I know how, I do not wish to give rise to dissention and anger. I'm just curious what everyone believes.

**For simplicity, I've left Oriental Orthodoxy out, but you may bring it up if you like.**

I love Rachmaninoff's stuff. Are there any other classical composers that sound similar?

I've been slowly getting into more classical music. I wanted to know what people here thought of Andrea Bocelli? I heard his album Romanza and fell in love with it. Are there any other opera singers like him?

I'm a bass in my Church Chior (Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Church). I love the sound of the Byzantine chants, especially out of Greece, Georgia, and Rus. Does anyone know much about how to sing this style of music well? It seems difficult to find someone who knows much about it in my area.

I've heard many explain faith alone to me as true faith produces works, but works cannot produce faith, nor will God grant faith to the man who attempts to do works. My question is, if this is true, then why isnt everyone who believes Faith Alone Calvanist?

Consider that if there is nothing you can do to achieve faith, and works are to no avail, and all good works flow from Faith anyway, then who can come to God of their own choosing? It must be God who grants Faith to some, but not to others. Then it is God who decides who is saved and who isnt, and the man has no say in the matter. Was the man who pleaded "Lord I believe, help my unbelief!" pleading in vain? Or is there something, some work, that us men must do in order to receive God's calling us to salvation? If so, doesnt that make it not faith alone, but faith and works both? Even if this work is only accepting Christ into your life, is this still not a good work and not by faith alone?

For all of you protestant Christians out there, if the Scriptures are sufficient and contain all that a person needs to know God and walk after the example of Christ, why can't any of you agree on anything? If your interpretation of Scripture is guided by the Holy Spirit, then does the Holy Spirit not know Himself since you claim that the Holy Spirit is God? I know protestant Churches that believe in the sacramental view of baptism, communion, marriage, and still others that say it is all just a symbol. IIf this is not important, why did Christ and the apostles put so much emphasis on these 'unimportant' things? If your God is personal and can be known personally, then how calm no one can agree as to whether He double predestines people, whether He gives true free will, whether He judges people based on faith alone or on faith and works both, or just works, or just Grace? Some can't even agree that God is Trinity! If you knew Him personally, wouldn't you know His personality?

To be Protestant you must believe the Church became doctrinally corrupted at some point, otherwise there would be no reason to be outside it.

Can anyone show when and where this change happened? For example show that the Church believed one thing in the second century and changed it in the fourth.

I am not interested in personal disagreement with any particular Church doctrine, but in historical evidence of a change.

Paul said that we as Christians should be of one mind and have no divisions amongst us. When confronted with Paul’s claim, many of the Protestants I speak to say they are united over the primary or important doctrines, which deal with our salvation. They, however, disagree on the secondary or unimportant ones that don’t affect our salvation.

My question is where can I find in the Scriptures this idea of primary and secondary doctrines?

Despite what is clearly written in the book of James most of Protestantism believes that we are saved by faith alone. Can someone find for me within the canon of scriptures where it says we are saved by faith alone.

I am not looking for scriptures, which say we are saved by faith; they are obvious and abundant. You must find scriptures, which specifically say, we are saved by faith alone. If you are using a Lutheran Bible, you must justify how Martin Luther has the authority to add the word alone to the book of Galatians, which doesn't exist in the Latin or Greek texts of the New Testament Scriptures.