We're talking about using the tax code to punish behavior. That is what I take exception to. If Congress votes to ban incandescent bulbs, I would be against it, but that is another matter entirely.

How is a regular income tax an attempt to change the behavior of taxpayers?

I didn't say they weren't needs. I said we shouldn't use the tax code to influence people's behavior.

You're introducing something new. The question wasn't banning incandescent bulbs, it was whether or not the government should use the tax code to make them economically unfeasible.

The tax code was not created as a tool for the government to use in directing people's behavior. It was created to give the government revenue to serve the people. The government was created for the people-- not the people for the government.

We're already paying income taxes. Our income taxes should go to provide for essential government services. I for one think the government has already done too much to influence our behavior. I not convinced that mercury containing light bulbs are the best way to benefit our society either.

I would rather see the tax code used to raise a reasonable amount of revenue to meet the true needs of our country (defense, roads and other infrastructure), things that government really needs to do. Other than that, the government should keep its hands out of people's pockets.

Books are good, but magazines can be a big time waster though.

I have to agree with the original poster. Usually Microsoft is criticized for taking someone else's work and adding their own proprietary elements (e.g., their own version of Java) which is incompatible with what everyone else is doing. It may not please their developer community, but it may lead to other people willing to develop for their platforms.

Please try a little harder.

I perceive that further discussions will not be fruitful. I disagree with your conclusions, but I wish you the best, and as I end my participation on this topic, I will pray (privately ;) ) that God will give you a love for his Son Jesus Christ and his best for you life. :-)

You must have my response mixed up with someone else's. I don't believe the two passages contradict one another, and I said so. Jesus was not forbidding public prayer-- he was forbidding public prayer for the sake of drawing attention to one's own piety. If Jesus was forbidding public prayer, the Church could not get together to pray corporately, as it clearly did at times in the Book of Acts. I guess we disagree on what prayer is. To me, prayer is communicating with God, whether it is giving thanks, making a request, or confessing sin. In my view, petition is an important form of prayer, but not the only one.

Why can't he? Haven't you just got through saying that right and wrong are merely people's opinions?

Godwin's Law doesn't judge the validity of a given argument, but only on the likelihood that a comparison or reference to the Nazis will be made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

My purpose is not to debate every alleged contradiction in Scripture. My purpose was to reply to the statement that was made earlier, i.e., your implication that there is a contradiction between the passage where Jesus condemns hypocritical prayers offered for the sake of impressing others and other passages where the Church is shown praying publicly.