Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@linate
97% of Americans are not affected by the "death tax".
Steven Mnuchin argues that the 3% that are subject to the "death tax" are unaffected because of their masterful estate planning.
Therefore, we should raise the estate tax to 100% because apparently nobody would be affected by this.
If nobody is paying the estate tax, why are the republicans so desperate to repeal it? [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
People on the left constantly need to be told what they believe is acceptable.
People on the right constantly need to watch conservative pundits and listen to conservative radio and attend weekly religious meetings in order to be told what they believe is acceptable.
Why do you think they always use the courts instead of referendum to reaffirm their beliefs.
The results of this referendum process show once again the difficulty of attempting to assign broad labels to the American population. The people have decidedly mixed views overall, and the results show that over two-thirds of the American people say they would vote "for" both a number of what could be considered traditionally conservative issues, as well as what could also be considered liberal propositions. [LINK]
The single greatest fear of anyone on the left is having their views put to public scrutiny by vote.
The results of this referendum process show once again the difficulty of attempting to assign broad labels to the American population. The people have decidedly mixed views overall, and the results show that over two-thirds of the American people say they would vote "for" both a number of what could be considered traditionally conservative issues, as well as what could also be considered liberal propositions. [LINK]
When they do have a referendum and lose what id the first thing they do? Call it unconstitutional and have it over turned.
Which is exactly what conservatives do. If you don't like a judge's ruling, and you have the resources to appeal, then you appeal.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. [LINK]
Just look at the last Presidential election. They lost fair and square. What do they do? Try to take down the president by any means they can.
Nobody believes a president is above the law.
The left cant stand to lose or have their views questioned or challenged.
Do you believe the right loves to lose and loves to have their views questioned and challenged? That people instinctively react defensively when their core beliefs are challenged would seem to be true across the board generally and not somehow unique to lefties, and as you, yourself have even pointed out, liberals seem to be much more open to the idea of open civil debate than conservatives.
Look at our College campuses, a perfect example where the left cant stand to have any other point of view heard. They threaten and kick people off campus.
Conservative and Christian colleges have their own set of standards and practices and also kick people off campus for being gay or having premarital sex.
Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, schools are prohibited from discriminating based on sex. In recent years, the Department of Education has interpreted this prohibition to include gender identity. However, the law allows exemptions to this standard, and others listed under Title IX, for religious schools that apply. These exemptions are a way of balancing two increasingly competing American values: equal protection under the law and the free exercise of religion. [LINK]
Where am I wrong?
I'm not saying, "you're wrong", I'm just trying to point out that your data appears to be incomplete.
Tell me this truth you speak of.
Please be more specific.
Created:
-->
@linate
What most people overlook is that "free" emergency room visits are already paid for by taxpayers.
A homeless person who has an aortic cyst will be given emergency heart surgery that costs the state about $125,000 dollars. [LINK]
Your taxes are already paying for "free" health care. And emergency room costs are out of control. [LINK]
The other thing people forget is that while "taxes" will inevitably increase if a single-payer system is adopted, TOTAL COST will DECREASE.
For example, an average family might be paying $280 per month (AFTER TAXES) for health insurance. [LINK] This is a decent car payment. The only other monthly expense that is consistently higher is their rent or mortgage payment.
The other problem is that this $280 a month is basically flushed down the toilet if you get diagnosed with something your insurance company doesn't cover. This $280 a month also gets flushed down the toilet if you don't get sick at all. And even if you do get sick with something your insurance company WILL cover, they still CHARGE you thousands of dollars if you use an ambulance or any of a number of apparently standard procedures like an MRI or an anesthesiologist.
Sometimes a person without insurance will actually pay less out of pocket than someone who is fully insured.
Perhaps we could increase income tax by 2% and capital gains by 2% across the board, no exceptions, no maximums (like with social security) and that might be enough to at least make reasonable (preventative and comprehensive) health care available for the homeless, poor and working poor, who are already costing everybody an arm and a leg with emergency room care. [ADAM RUINS HEALTHCARE]
Created:
-->
@linate
King Solomon apparently had 700 wives and 300 concubines. [LINK]
While it seems that monogamy was the norm in Judaism even in biblical times, I don't think that there was any kind of prohibition against polygamy until Rabbeinu Gershom (1000 CE). Consider this: Jewish law makes it difficult to for a man to meet the obligations to provide for more than one family. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yet there own scriptures make it clear:"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", Isaiah 40:22
Flat-earthers believe the world is a circle. A really big circle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Canadians don't have guns either, so the government can collect whatever the Canadian public will bear, until they have yellow shirt protests like in France.
22% to 29% of US citizens own at least one gun.
Three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns in the US. [LINK]
26% of Canadians, over 7,000,000 people, own firearms. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I never really got the objections to style while ignoring substance. They are so annoying. Being comprehensive is a lost art form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Segregationist
I feel like Negroes and the white Southerner have innately different learning styles, and that integration hurts us both.
I hope you're at least 90 years old. Or a Russian bot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Because people on the left need to have their views reaffirmed constantly.
This would seem to be true for all people. Why do you think religious people have regularly scheduled meetings?
That is why the left always uses the courts to affirm what they believe.
Do you think the courts ever affirm conservative beliefs?
If left to society the left would be laughed out of town.
Citation please.
Debating simply makes them feel better about their views.
Are you suggesting that conservatives never employ debate in order to try and convince others?
They can't just know what they believe is right or wrong, they need to argue that it is.
Action without belief is blind. Belief without action is lame. Belief without reason is insanity.
They need this to justify what they do and believe.
Are you capable of defending what you believe with logic, or do you rely on pure instinct?
I am on the right so I don't need to justify anything.
This is what we commonly refer to as, "a bald assertion".
There is right and there is wrong, To me it's simple.
This is a classic appeal to ignorance.
To them it one giant grey area. Right can be wrong and wrong can be right. Which way it goes depends on how it affects their life style and feelings.
Your logical fallacy is, [Black or White].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I got an offer for you. More environmental regulations in exchange for abolishing Roe V Wade.
You don't seem to understand how laws work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The lawmakers and those who are making proposals are inept which isn't surprising but this sinks to the level of malpractice if they could be held to such a thing or maybe they are truly stupid, it's so hard to tell.
Well stated.
but really we need to start at the beginning and eat this elephant one bite at a time, which hasn't been done yet imo
You make an excellent point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
does there have to be, to propose a hypothetical?
Was it a hypothetical? It sounded more like a non sequitur.
your personal opinions really get in the way of reading the plain words before you, some self reflection may help.
If you are not suggesting that pro-choicers are baby killers, then simply say that.
The real question is, who do you suppose is choosing to kill babies instead of putting them up for adoption?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
irrelevant, children old enough for foster care =/= a new born, sad attempt there bucko.
It appears that Christian Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide free pre-natal care and a nearly 99% adoption rate for infants less than one year old (excluding identifiable genetic abnormalities). I'm not sure why you didn't just say this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
b.s. I am doing no such thing, read what is written and stop trying to interpret motive.
Oh, I see. So what exactly were you referring to when you said, and I quote,
the real question imo is why kill the baby... [LINK]
Has there been a single person anywhere in this discussion who has proposed such a thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
thats horrifying, and definitive proof that some of the things people in this thread are saying would never happen if they were legal have already happened
That is horrifying, and definitive proof that there are already existing laws in place against murder that actually work for your hypothetical scenario.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the real question imo is why kill the baby vs immediately have it adopted? There's a system for those who need organs, organ transplant lists. Wouldn't be too difficult to do similar adoption list.
428,000 orphans in the United States are currently in foster care awaiting immediate adoption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are making a false appeal to popularity by proxy.
Your argument is basically, "all pro-choicers love killing babies".
This statement is provably false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Because it is none of my business.Why can’t you give a yes or no answer? Do you believe giving a 39 week old fetus a lethal injection because the woman decided she doesn’t want a baby would be morally permissible?
The decision you propose is a private matter between an individual and their doctor.
There is no "morality" involved.
Your question contains the snuck premises of both, "an embryo is not part of the mother and is therefore equivalent to a baby" and "killing a baby is instinctively repulsive".
I've already made it perfectly clear that an embryo is part of the mother, and everyone already agrees that "killing a baby is instinctively repulsive" which is off-topic and immaterial and absolutely moot.
You are making a false appeal to popularity by proxy.
Your argument is basically, "all pro-choicers love killing babies".
This statement is provably false.
And then you try to make an appeal to ignorance with, "if a pro-choicer can't answer with either a yes or no, then that means they love killing babies".
This statement is also provably false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you believe it would be morally permissible to give a lethal injection to a fetus at 39 weeks because the woman doesn’t want a baby?
A human being has personal sovereignty and an inalienable right to privacy.
It is only at the moment of birth that an embryo becomes a citizen.
It is the magical spell comprised of enchanted ink and precious parchment, imbued with the magnificent and holy power of the state that we commonly call a "birth certificate" that bears witness to this most joyous and auspicious event.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
When asked, the co sponsor of the Virginia bill said that the legislation would permit abortion up to the moment of birth. The governor of Virginia suggested leaving infants to die if they were unwanted. I’ll take their word for it, not yours
There are already laws that protect post-natal children who are left to die.
The moment of birth is a theoretical demarcation point.
There is no such thing as an "emergency abortion".
You must make an appointment and wait an average of seven days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
thanks for proving my point that public opinion is almost impossible to nail down
Public opinion evolves based on the phrasing of the survey, but that does not make it impossible to track.
It certainly seems like you've moved significantly from your original imaginary >1% to a somewhat more reasonable 13 to 20% range.
Imagine if the question was posed to the public. Is an abortion seven days before the expected delivery date for the sole reason that the woman changed her mind morally acceptable? It’s impossible to know for sure until someone polls it but I except far, far fewer than 13% would approve
Your imagination may be unreliable.
Look at your own link. When the woman does not want the child for any reason (specifically opposed to or in stark contrast to the other named exceptions), specifically in the third trimester - 20% of respondents approve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
No, I think something like that would be extraordinarily rare. However that doesn’t mean it would never happen and that certainly doesn’t mean it should be legal, as mustardness and 3RU7AL are advocating
Your proposed scenario is ridiculous. There are no obstetricians that also perform abortions. The waiting period for an abortion is currently about seven days. If a woman goes into labor, IN A VERY PRACTICAL SENSE it is quite simply too late for an abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Trying to figure out public opinion is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
Not really.
Only 13% support abortion in the 3rd trimester (https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx) and I would imagine among those people there are a lot of caveats.
At your same link, on the same page there is a list of caveats. There is no need for you to "imagine" what they might hypothetically be.
And strangely they are all HIGHER than 13%.
When the woman's life is endangered - Third trimester 75% approve
When the pregnancy was cased by rape or incest - Third trimester 52% approve
When the child would be born with life-threatening illness - Third trimester 48% approve
When the child would be born mentally disabled - Third trimester 35% approve
When the child would be born with Down syndrome - Third trimester 29% approve
When the woman does not want the child for any reason - Third trimester 20% approve
I can’t imagine that many people even in this group would be okay with the position you and mustardness seem to be advocating,
An argument from lack of imagination.
that an abortion mere hours before delivery for the sole reason that the woman changed her mind about wanting a baby would be morally acceptable.
Your proposed scenario is ridiculous. There are no obstetricians that also perform abortions. The waiting period for an abortion is currently about seven days. If a woman goes into labor, IN A VERY PRACTICAL SENSE it is quite simply too late for an abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."
Dust in the wind, [KANSAS]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You makes some very well reasoned and intelligent arguments. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I just wanted a simple yes or no answer because supporting abortion on demand up to the moment of birth is an incredibly extreme position that’s probably shared by <1% of the population.
29% of respondents selected "Abortion should be legal under any circumstances". [LINK]
"The number of abortion facilities that are publicly known to conduct abortions throughout all nine months of pregnancy have changed very little since 2009. None of them are Planned Parenthood affiliates." [LINK]
True Facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Mercury - deadly and ineffective
Radium - deadly and ineffective
Spinning chairs - ineffective and permanently damaging
Ice-pick lobotomy - deadly and permanently damaging
Electric belt - ineffective and damaging
Trepanning - deadly and ineffective and permanently damaging
Bloodletting performed by barbers - deadly and ineffective and permanently damaging
Urine therepy - ineffective and potentially damaging
Heroin and opium - deadly to children and adults and permanently damaging
Tobacco enema - ineffective
Strangely, regarding male and female genital mutilation [Judge rules that federal law banning female genital mutilation is unconstitutional].
Abortion is not deadly, ineffective or permanently damaging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It is difficult to fabricate any sort of protest whatsoever against such a narrow statute without de facto defending obviously mean-spirited behavior.perhaps for you it's difficult, but not for me as I understand the agreed upon definition of harassment and that there are laws against it already. The challenge to this law is pretty easy. I believe you even admitted it was redundant, thus already existed and not needed. So we set that aside.harassment= behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize themyou say everyone should be treated equally and yet this law doesn't do that and you are fine with it. Giving anyone special treatment in the law is not treating everyone equally is it?
I agree with you that this particular statute is inequitable and pointless and unconstitutional.
It is also harmless.
I disagree with you that this particular statute is egregiously inequitable and pointless and unconstitutional compared to other extant laws.
And, regardless of how inequitable and pointless and unconstitutional the law might be, the law must still be challenged in the courts, which seems unlikely since getting fired for being rude would seem to be a much cheaper option for employers.
And, it is difficult to fabricate any sort of protest whatsoever against such a narrow statute without de facto defending obviously mean-spirited behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
Another option for an anonymised ban log would be something like,
CoC Rule 1 violations - 17
CoC Rule 2 violations - 22
CoC Rule 3 violations - 7
CoC Rule 4 violations - 4
CoC Rule 5 violations - 46
CoC Rule 6 violations - 12
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
That is true, but doesn't give access to the full records that we have
An anonymised ban log would not be a full record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
Is it true that a ban explanation is currently available to anyone by private request?No. We maintain a private ban log via google docs, but we do not share that specific doc with anyone.r
I am moderately certain that bsh1 posted at least once, something like, "if anyone has questions about why someone was banned to ask by PM".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
your implication and accusation that I'm outraged over this law is wrong and rather insulting in your assumption. I like to discuss legal issues, challenge and debate them and that is all. That is one of a few states I would never live in for a variety of reasons, so to think it would affect me in anyway is also wrong. Any frustration I may have exhibited is the need for me to repeat myself almost verbatim to finally get my point understood and acknowledged.your injection and claims about my emotional state I find dishonest and I don't recall this as being how you are previously, perhaps you were getting too emotional on the subject, or having a bad day, regardless don't make a habit out of it.
It is difficult to fabricate any sort of protest whatsoever against such a narrow statute without de facto defending obviously mean-spirited behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
This is kinda why I hoped the ban log would pass. An anonymized ban log would kinda defeat the purpose because they'd easily be able to figure out who it was.
Is it true that a ban explanation is currently available to anyone by private request?
If this is the case, then the "ban log" is de facto public information already, and is merely unposted.
A properly anonymized ban log would not "defeat the purpose" because only the person banned would know if the ban in the log matched their violation, and they themselves would already be privy to that information regardless of whether there is a log or not.
A ban log would be something like,
"User temp banned for CoC violation"
"User thread deleted for gross CoC violation"
"User warned by mod for CoC violation"
"User perma-banned for gross CoC violation"
Then you just jumble them up so they don't display chronologically.
The funny thing is that if you don't delete the offending content, the violating post is a de facto ban log anyway (merely obfuscated).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Please consider proposing an anonymised ban log.Can you explain what you mean by that?
2. Should there be a public ban log?
An anonymised ban log would be a good idea. Something like, "(anonymous) was banned for 4 days due to harassment and or other specific CoC violations." I would like to see this in order to be able to quickly tell if people (mods) are enforcing CoC and what content they are focusing on. The order in which the log appears could be randomized in order to make it more difficult to match a 1 to 1 violation to a specific user by chronological order alone.
Without this information, secretive (or obfuscated) enforcement can easily appear to be capricious and tyrannical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Who do you believe knows more about medical science, and the specific details of a particular patient, doctors or politicians?
And, what medical procedures (categorically) do you personally believe should be criminalized?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
compelled speech
Bingo. What took you so long?
Regardless of how inequitable and pointless and unconstitutional the law might be, the law must still be challenged in the courts, which seems unlikely since getting fired for being rude would seem to be a much cheaper option for employers.
It is difficult to fabricate outrage against such a narrow statute without de facto defending obviously mean-spirited behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Please consider proposing an anonymised ban log.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you believe in doctor patient confidentiality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Well stated.If Mike will create a way to red flag, gray out, or strike through offending posts, it can demonstrate to others what sort of conduct should be avoided. It can also demonstrate that the administration does not condone the offending post even though it has been left up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein. You may have a long wait ahead of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
what a stupid argument. People aren’t “sovereign” in the sense that a state is sovereign, a baby isn’t a foreign invader, and abortion isn’t a deportation, it’s an execution
(IFF) a person is NOT considered sovereign (THEN) they are a de facto slave (property) of the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I fail to see why "willfully and repeatedly" would apply to every word and action, except misgendering, can you explain that for me please?
"why would harassment laws already in place not also include not using someone's preferred name, pronoun "“willfully and repeatedly”?" [LINK]
We're talking about identity and the right of any individual to decide what terms they would like to be referred to as, in face-to-face interactions.
The principle is "personal sovereignty".
I've said this a few times now, because it offers a special protection and extra punishment for behavior already covered by law for a group of people with specific characteristics. That's not equality under the law is it?
Once again, while I agree with you that people should be treated equally under the law, however, when compared to an overwhelming number of inequitable laws currently on the books, I have trouble understanding why you or anyone else would consider this particular law especially and or remarkably inequitable.
common courtesy and historical norms are very important to me and it's sad society has turned it's back on those generally speaking, however I don't think morality should be dictated by law.
So, no more FCC regulations for profanity or nudity or excessive violence? Are you suggesting that you are also against legal restrictions on recreational drug use and alcohol and cigarettes and abortion and public indecency? Law is de facto codified morality.
the law itself might not be harmful but the prescient is, you may have more liberal views on government, it's role and the power or limit it should be under, but that's more of a tangent.
Precedent is only set by actual court cases. Depending on the mood of the court, this statute may be ruled to be either too specific, or too broad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
What does that even mean? What does late term abortion have to do with immigration?
(IFF) a person is considered sovereign (THEN) they can deport foreign invaders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you support deportation on demand up to the moment of entry?Do you support abortion on demand up to the moment of birth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what more could I possibly say? if you don't or won't understand what I have already said, I'm at a loss.
I'm not sure you've failed to communicate. Your key point seems to be "the law is pointless and redundant". I agree that the law seems to be redundant, but it is not harmful. However, when compared to the overwhelming number of redundant and pointless laws currently on the books, I have trouble understanding why you or anyone else would consider this particular law especially and or remarkably pointless or redundant.
harassment already covers the issue this new law is suppose to address, this law singles out and is aimed at a specific group in an attempt to give them more protection and punishments for the offenders all because of a specific characteristic.
It draws attention to the problem, and gives it some vague threat of legal action. Since nobody seems to care about common courtesy or historical norms anymore, the only way to get people's attention is to tell them they might go to jail.
how does this new law protect this group of people that the harassment laws which have already existed don't?
Apparently the harassment laws were not preventing employees of retirement homes from engaging in this particular practice.
having laws that treat certain people with certain characteristics differently is a huge problem for me, as it should be for anyone who believes in Constitution.
Once again, while I agree with you that people should be treated equally under the law, however, when compared to an overwhelming number of inequitable laws currently on the books, I have trouble understanding why you or anyone else would consider this particular law especially and or remarkably inequitable.
this is purely political
Accusing legislators of being political is like accusing a fish of swimming.
I don't see how you are not understanding this.
My current hypothesis is that you may be overreacting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
One makes modern mathematics and engineering possible. That's what I call "efficacy".I would argue precisely because we are made in the image and likeness of God, thus we get it right when we think His thoughts after Him.
That sounds like Deism to me.
Without being there at the origin of the universe there could be many pieces of the puzzle we are not understanding. We have to assume the present is the key to the past, or to put it another way, that what we see in the present helps us understand how things were in the past. And we build on a particular paradigm.
Yes, we have epistemological limits. Our understanding is incomplete and imprecise, however we can derive and test certain principles for efficacy and therefore avoid the pitfalls of faith and dogma.
And Newton corrected those before him. Newton was a theist, a Christian. Funny, Bohr believes that some things just pop into existence. But as you point out, we don't know if what is thought in the present will be true in the future when something else changes the paradigm.
Yes, we have epistemological limits. Our understanding is incomplete and imprecise, however we can derive and test certain principles for efficacy and therefore avoid the pitfalls of faith and dogma.
It uses the man and his limited mental capacity as the measure.With amazing, real world, tangible results.Until you realize that nothing is nailed down regarding origins. Our thoughts today are only as good as the paradigm.
Yes, we have epistemological limits. Our understanding is incomplete and imprecise, however we can derive and test certain principles for efficacy and therefore avoid the pitfalls of faith and dogma.
The Bible has been exposed to more criticism than perhaps any other writings in history.But it is immune to criticism if "true believers" "know in their hearts" how true it is.It has been examined perhaps more than any other ancient writings.
Perhaps. I'm not sure examination proves much of anything.
Prove to me that it is untrue, that God has not spoken,
Unfalsifiable claims are not necessarily true. Prove to me that invisible unicorns don't exist.
...that Jesus did not exist and that His claims of who He is are not true.
The Jesus is a historical person. This is not evidence that any supernatural claims attributed to such a character are valid.
Joseph Smith is also a historical person. This is not evidence that any supernatural claims attributed to such a character are valid.
You are on as shaky a ground as origins are without a Creator.
Deism, remember Deism? This is the creator. Nobody is claiming there definitely "is no creator".
Science makes more practical "prophecies" than religion.The Bible is not a scientific book.
No kidding.
It concerns God's relationship with humanity and with a specific group of people.
The bronze age Jews.
It is Him revealing Himself, the problems of humanity, and the solution.
(IFF) that is the case (THEN) the plan must necessarily be perfect.
Does the ancient holy scripture accurately predict anything verifiable, specifically within my lifetime?It does not predict things concerning our generation.
Ok, so the "prophecy" part would seem to be of zero practical value to me or anyone else who is currently alive.
It concerns itself with a time in history where God sent His Son to a specific people for judgment and salvation. The message of salvation still applies to us today, however. So, to answer your question, it answers prophecy concerning those people and that timeframe.
Ok, so the "prophecy" part would seem to be of zero practical value to me or anyone else who is currently alive.
A non-commital deist is simply not sure of what he believes.I know exactly what I believe. It seems strange to me that someone would imagine they have any authority at all to speak about my beliefs.I questioned whether or not you were such a deist.
Sure. "A non-committal Christian is simply not sure what he believes." - This sounds like an obvious non sequitur.
As for whether or not I have the authority to comment on your beliefs, I believe the Bible gives me insight on how to evaluate what you believe, once I find out the specifics since all beliefs but one tend build inconsistencies into their system of thought that undermine the belief.
It would seem to be more effective if you actually phrased your "question" as an actual question.
C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN 100% of the time he is arguing IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY in the specific video I linked to.He was not always a Christian. He stated in his books as much. I think it was Mere Christianity where he described this shift.My apologies. I went back and listened without distractions to the whole video. You are right in your assessment. Although he was speaking of materialism/atheism etc., it was not his belief at that point in time.
No problem. I thought it was an expertly crafted argument.
Then you need to examine what kind of deist you are. What kind of deist, BTW? Are you a Buddhist, an Eastern Oriental deist, a New Age deist, a monotheistic deist, or don't you know?Are you familiar with the Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata?Nope. When you speak of Ethica, are you speaking of the philosophy of George Edward Moore? If so I will acquaint myself more with it. When you speak of Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata, are you speaking of Baruch Spinoza and his system of philosophy?
Also known as, Benedictus de Spinoza.
Created: