Neil wrote:
I refrain from my usual critique of science here.

DJC49 wrote:
Of course, ... John Calvin is quite the inferior theologian, expositor, and commentary writer of Scripture when set along side your pre-Tribulation, pre-Millennium Dispensational guru ........... Gil Rugh!
Ha!
Give me a MAJOR break, Jim!

Mike wrote:
Mr Calvin isn't there anymore. Someone should tell them.

The article's author wrote:
This year the city once known as the "Protestant Rome" is honouring Calvin's 500th birthday with publications, exhibitions and performances. The celebrations, however, have been somewhat muted, perhaps in deference to the 16th-century theologian's stern views on life and excess.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
...Governments are generally bad at running anything but churches they are a disaster.
In this case it would be like the tail wagging the dog. [URL=http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=dabney]]]The Perils of Popery[/URL].

Sven Goran Eriksson wrote:
ruthless?
blood thirsty?
Pass your rose-tinted spectacles, and while you are at it Saddam's non-existent WMD.

Ruthless, for certain; all politicians who rise to the top of their parties are. Bloodthirsty is coming unless it is true that all the Scandinavians with spines emigrated to America 100 years ago and more.

BTW, the phrase "rose-tinted spectacles" implies having a more optimistic view than is warranted, which is more appropo of socialists who think that sprinkling the magic fairy dust of wealth redistribution will fix all known problems. Oh, that's right - Cuba and North Korea have the world's most robust economies! How could I have missed it?

And I must need some of those spectacles in order to see all the progress toward peace in the Middle East that has been accomplished in Oslo. Wait, there's the bloodthirsty part - the blood of every Jew killed by a Palestinian in the last 10 years is on the hands of the Norwegian squareheads who apparently really believed the Palestinians just wanted some land to call their own.

Mike wrote:
You must have got that definition of socialism from a socialist, Pew View. Or from Obama. Ownership and control vested in the community as a whole? That's pretty funny. Is that how it actually works in your neck of the woods?
Here's a better one:
"An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning."
Sovereign state ownership and control. Not much democratic free willism there.

Mike wrote:
But not for the sake of anarchy do Liberals promote anarchy. Anarchy becomes a problem, which then may be "fixed" by said Liberals. Control, and more control. Liberals=

Revelation 9:
20And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

21Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Revelation 16:
8And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

9And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

10And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,