Dan52

According to IRS Publication 502, eyeglasses and contact lenses that are required for medical reasons are deductible as a medical expense. Eye examinations, saline solutions and enzyme cleaner are also deductible, along with Lasik surgery. Many states also allow the deduction. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1945037

I did announce a couple month break, but reconsidered. I chose to become a less frequent, but friendlier poster. Meaning, I'll post my views, but will try harder to phrase things without making people angry... If and when possible? I personally don't care if others get angry about what I believe, but don't like making them upset about what they believe. I think there's a polite way to disagree without being offensive. Judging from reactions to your post, both of us could probably be a little less direct and a little more considerate. The 7th deadliest sin (pride) makes people defensive about their beliefs, so its prudent to walk on eggshells when commenting on topics that others might hold close to their hearts. So instead of leaving, I'm giving myself a slight attitude adjustment in an effort to be more of a communicator and less of a disturbance. So far, so good.

1. Why are we actually here and what is it exactly apart from the biochemical and other components that we are? We are spiritual beings existing in temporary carnal bodies. Our purpose is to accept or reject Christ. 2. What is the point and purpose of existence? Free choice , we either choose to love our heavenly Father or we live for the world. 3. If we presume --as some, that there is no afterlife, then why are we (most) clinging to life? If we go with that theory is it not easier and better to end it sooner or later? People cling to what they have for as long as they can. Some people do end it early, having no purpose in life often leads to depression. 4. Why have children--simply to perpetuate the cycle of suffering? We were created with a natural inclination to reproduce, its to perpetuate Gods plan, which is to test every soul. 5. Why are we killing each other, the planet and all of creation deliberately? Its the struggle between good and evil, evil pollutes and is destructive, but its a temporary condition that will end..........soon I hope.

Thank you all for the "stick around" comments and messages, I really thought there would be more of a collective sigh of relief, with a general feeling of "good riddance". Its not my intent to abandon the forum, but to just circle the airport awhile. I feel the need to temper my communication skills and won't post on a regular basis until I learn how to sugar-coat my opinions, kind of like telling a woman; "You look so beautiful in the dark." I noticed that after Christ told the religious fanatics what he thought, he would flee for his life (John 8:59), so I might try the same hit & run tactic. Just for practice, how's this; "Mary was a wonderful woman, the mother of Christ, so I certainly understand why Catholics respect and pay homage to her. But I can't quite comprehend why they address prayers towards her when Christ instructed us to pray to the Father? Perhaps someone could explain?" That sounds pretty diplomatic, and is better than "Mary's dead and not divine, its blasphemous to pray to dead saints". Changing the way I phrase things should make a difference, so I'll attempt to improve my people skills and begin the slow transformation into a sentimental puff-ball.

After a little thought, I've decided to exit the forum. I'd like to thank everyone for all the interesting discussions that I've enjoyed participating in. I'd also like to apologize to all the members that I've managed to tick-off, and that's probably most of you at one time or another. Never-the-less, I'd like to say that I've genuinely enjoyed discussing the bible because I believe it, but its become very evident that my views have upset quite a few members, even Christians, and that was never my intent. I don't apologize for my beliefs, but I do apologize for being too blunt when expressing my opinions. I guess part of my personality is to not mince-words, which tends to make me a direct person who says exactly what he thinks, and that doesn't exactly make me Mr Congeniality. So it seems wise to voluntarily step-out and avoid the inevitable boot-out. Again, thanks for the opportunity to learn from different perspectives, I'm certain I've grown spiritually from the views many have shared here and am confident I'm a better person from the experience. I may stop back in a few months, but swear I'll never comment on anyone else's beliefs. I'll leave this picture for everyone who indulged my many postings, I think you all demonstrated remarkable patience. God's speed, Dan Patients is a Virtue

That's terrible news... My sincere condolences and sympathy.

These are some of my objections with Catholicism; "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). Christians believe God is the Holy Father, not the Pope. "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words" (Matthew 6:7). Roman Catholics borrowed the idea of praying with beads (rosary) from the pagan religions. Catholics are taught the virgin Mary never had sex after Jesus was born and that Jesus had no brothers or sisters, but Matthew 13:55-56 states differently. The Pope teaches that Mary is the mediator between God and man. Catholics also engage in more praising of Mary than Jesus Christ himself and actually pray to her (Hail Marys) to have their prayers answered. "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). The Pope says only very special dead Catholic people qualify to be called "saints", but Paul refers to all Christians as saints in 1 Corinthians 1:2, Ephesians 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Romans 1:7. Catholics claim Peter as the first Pope, but Peter was married; "Now Simon's mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever" (Mark 1:30) No babies were baptized in the new testament, also baptisms were by full immersion, not sprinkling water. The concept of confessing sin to a priest is not taught in Scripture. The New Testament does not even teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant, its the Old Covenant where people approached God through the priests, who were mediators between the people and God. But the temple veil tore in two at Jesus death, which symbolically destroyed the dividing wall between God and humanity. We can now approach God directly, without the use of a human mediator. Catholics still seem to hold to the old traditions (Levitical priesthood), but the high priest is not the Pope, Christ became the high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 7:17). The letters that comprise the new testament may have been officially compiled by the Roman church, but each existed prior to the church canonizing them, and Catholics didn't write them. In fact, the church translated them into Latin more-less hiding the NT from everyone but priest. For myself, I don't consider the bible to be a collection of man-made traditions. I never denied the presence of Christ when partaking of the sacraments in Holy Communion. Where does the bible say that scripture is not authoritative? The only prophets I accept are all biblical, there's nothing man-made about that since I believe the bible to be inspired by God.

Try to lower your expectations ......No offense intended... I assume your voting the Romney/Ryan ticket? Christ established his church, he's the foundation of the church. Mormonism has their own separate prophet, their own scriptures, and man made tradition. Catholicism also has its own church tradition, a pope/papacy, worship/adoration of Mary, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, etc. Seventh Day Adventist have their own prophet, scriptures, and invented traditions. The new testament doesn't mention any of these religious tenets and Revelation 22:18-19 warns of adding anything to what's written. For me, the Church is not a place, denomination, or organization, but is comprised of every individual that believe and observes all things commanded by Christ (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus told the apostles that within the church there would be a mixture of “wheat and chaff”, I'm confident that He will sort-out the self-deceived religious zealots from the genuine saints. We can only compare ourselves to what Jesus actually did and taught I guess.

Lighten-up guys, there's nothing funny about magic underwear...

I'd classify the Church of LDS as an offshoot of Christianity, even though they have some non-biblical beliefs, they accept and practice much of what the bible teaches. Most Mormons are good people "Ye shall know them by their fruits". Comparing the LDS to Islam is a joke, and Catholics are further from Christ than the Church of LDS ever was imo. Mormon's accept the trinity, but each of the trio as separate functioning entities.They also accept the revelation of Christ, with what's added in the Book of Mormon. Nice people, just a little confused. From what I understand, they believe some weird things; They think the church is the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh, they belief Zion is in America, and they think Christ's return will be in Jerusalem and in Jackson county Missouri, where temples will be built. Joseph Smith was chased out of MO, I think some Mormons (Osmonds) even set-up shop in Branson thinking Christ would return there around the turn of the century Smith moved the church to Nauvoo IL (I took the tour) where he was arrested and killed in 1844, he had 4 wives at the time.

Well, the poll shows over twice as many pacifist as non-pacifist, so my perception was spot-on. Thanks to all who participated.

I don't think the 37th Psalm is referring to physical protection, but spiritual deliverance from evil and wickedness. Everyone experiences affliction, physical hardships, and suffering, but we can be protected from our ultimate enemy---sin. This is why Christ prayed; "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil". The prophets and apostles experienced tough times and death, so God's protection would seem to lean more towards inheriting eternal life, rather than physical preservation. We fight evil with good, and sometimes using a good club to put evil in its place is necessary.

Imo, you should be proud because you did the right thing. When some angry idiot is trying to pull your car door open, your not the one who's initiating violence. The situation was forced upon you and you took a defensive stand. I've always kept a bat, crowbar, or hammer in my car for such occasions, there's too many retards out there looking for trouble, so its always good to keep something handy to protect yourself.

Jesus never denied anything God did in the old testament. The message was actually the same, but we are now living under grace and judgment has been suspended until time ends. The first sentence in Revelation clearly states its the revelation of Jesus Christ given to John, to say otherwise is tantamount to saying that the law of Moses were not God's laws. JMO Yes, I've re-accessed what others consider pacifism, and learned that most pacifist are pro self-defense, at least those participating in this discussion. My initial impression was that their anti-war stance extended into their personal lives too, but it became apparent that most of them would resort to violence as a matter of self-preservation. So my colorful adjectives accurately described a coward, but were inappropriately directed towards pacifism. I do know pacifist who are nonviolent in every aspect of their lives, including one of my own sisters, but it appears that most self-described pacifist are capable of violence, but only after exhausting every other avenue of resolving a conflict. In that sense, I myself agree with a loose version of pacifism, and could possibly be defined as a pacifist myself?

Well, judging from the over-all acts of God in the old testament, I don't get the impression that He is a pacifist or anti-war. In certain cases of aggression by evil, pacifism would expand the scope and magnify the consequences of evil. So God stopped it in Noah's day, against the Canaanite's, and will eventually put a permanent end to violence; "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords" (Revelation 19:11-16) To me, the basic gist of Matthew 5 seems to encourage us to try and avoid trouble by walking away from it whenever possible. Jesus was contrasting the Pharisaical interpretation of the law with the law's true intent, he stressed reconciliation instead of retaliation. Jesus is not saying, “Don’t defend yourself when you are attacked” or “Don’t help a woman who is being raped” or “Don’t defend your country when it is being attacked. To be struck on the cheek was symbolic of being personally insulted, not physically attacked. To turn the other cheek meant to ignore insults and not take personal revenge. He was not negating the judicial principle of an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. I also interpret Jesus message as telling us not to take it upon ourselves to straighten others out, but to just try and peaceably negate problems by not escalating potential conflict. Thus, be nice to those who want to abuse you, be a peace maker and pray for your enemy. "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Romans 12:20). "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). " It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him" (Luke 17:2-3)

I thought true pacifist were 100% nonviolent and philosophically opposed to using physical violence to any degree, for any reason, but apparently most here who profess to be pacifist make exceptions. If resorting to violence under certain circumstances is the creed, then there's probably not much difference between myself and a pacifist. Hell, I might be a pacifist myself if the definition is stretched a little . If pacifism is an attempt to minimize violence, then defending one's self is not an act of violence. That makes more sense to me.

If your daughter was being raped, even a good dog would naturally attack her rapist, but a pacifist would not physically lift a finger to intercede. Where exactly is the spiritual victory in that? If an assailant broke into your house and came at your wife with a butcher knife, a pacifist might crawl over and brown nose the attacker begging him to stop. What exactly is the spiritual war the pacifist is fighting? And where's the victory? Imo, nonresistance in the face of evil aggression is neither a physical or spiritual war, but a wimpish surrender at best. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just fail to understand how a pacifist stands or fights for anything? What spiritual victory is achieved when a pacifist stands idly by while innocent people are hurt or killed? Violence is a method of resistance, self-defense, and survival, so I doubt I'll ever respect a pacifist for refusing to protect themselves or help out a fellow citizen who's being attacked. No offense intended, jmo.

Not at all... Jesus didn't resist his crucifixion because he was fighting a spiritual war, so he willingly and bravely died for a purpose, it was the reason he came into the world. Jesus suffered and died for the sins of the world so others might live. No coward would die for someone else, a coward would have wimped-out and ran for his life when the Sanhedrin came to arrest him in Gethsemane. Sacrificing or endangering your life for the sake of others requires an unselfish act, and that is something a pacifist would never do. Remember when the crowd was about to stone the adulteress to death? Jesus stepped in and stopped it from happening, a coward wouldn't have cared or interfered, but would have been content to sit by and watched the show. Also consider that Christ drove the money changers out of the temple area with a whip, no pacifist would have done such a thing. “There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heaven…a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3).

I didn't call anyone anything, its just my opinion that there's little difference between a true pacifist and a coward, in that neither will fight for anything. "No human being has greater love than this, that one lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13). I guess so, but only until someone knocks them on their butt

What's the difference? A coward runs, hides, and refuses to fight against injustice, and so does a pacifist. Who profits from ideas like that? Doesn't surrendering to evil perpetuate evil? Doesn't allowing evil to reign define our morality? To me, when we refuse to confront violence and wickedness, we are enabling evil. That's why I think that surrendering to evil is not so much an ideology, but a justification for cowardice. Pacifist also force people with courage to defend their delusional sense of moral superiority. Pacifism doesn't work in an imperfect world. As I wrote before; "Standing by and refusing to act while harm befalls a neighbor is not a virtue; it is a vice". I guess I just don't understand how a person can profess to be against violence while simultaneously refusing to stop it. Your philosophy doesn't distinguish between good and evil, in fact it embraces evil because it eliminates any and all repercussions against it.

The same thing in my book... Most pacifist will stand for nothing.

Exactly correct.... Pacifism is a trait that your enemies pray that you possess. I think pacifism encourages violence, bullies are more aggressive when they know you'll head for the hills at the first sign of trouble. Enemies always attack weakness. For the right cause, yes.... I personally did not agree with the Iraqi war either, but that doesn't make me a pacifist. Everyone should selectively choose what battles are worth fighting and which aren't.

Then I don't think your a pacifist? Unfortunately, we live in a world where violence is often the only recourse in resolving certain situations. Some folks would rather die than fight, but I think when push comes to shove, most of us would man-up and do what's necessary to survive.

Yes, the basic definition of pacifism really just pertains to war, but aspects of pacifism seem to carry-over into other area's of a persons life where nonviolence is prevalent throughout, such as personal conduct, religious persuasion, crime & punishment, etc. Imo, a conscientious objector is a pacifist, most were drafted and are non-interventionist, non-resistant, or anti-militarist. While there are degrees of pacifism, I personally think that a person who claims to care but refuses to act, is the walking definition of a pacifist. I'd disagree that a person who resorts to violence would have little regard for human life. In fact, they often use violence because they are trying to prevent abuse and seek to preserve life. The Founding Fathers did 'care' about human life, they didn't engage in the Revolutionary War for the joy of violence. But of course, I guess there are examples of the opposite too. Dilemma was a bad choice of word on my part, I should have said, "I understand your point of view"

Thanks for participating... Just curious, if you don't believe in enduring evil and aren't happy letting evil thrive, then why do you define yourself as a pacifist? It seems like you care and are bothered by injustice, and I doubt that a true pacifist would care. I think if you saw a rape in progress that you would at least call 911, while a pacifist would walk on by and not get involved.