Sidewalker

That's where someone who has the highest approval rating wins,

or choices r ranked by each voter and the weighted averages system decides the winner. Way better system.

America almost re- elected a terminally ill president. 

Sacraments are real when the eucharist actually has Jesus in it and baptism actually has salvific power, and if you define other things as sacraments (as catholics do) that these also are binding and efficacious.

Eucharistic miracles can be verified by analysis in labs.

Most convincing argument for Catholicism: any church without valid sacraments is automatically 0/10 and

only the catholic church has verified eucharistic miracles.

Although they aren't 100% proven they have the most evidence that their sacraments are real.

He is a closeted Pagan that keeps saying he knows Bible.

If you have the right skin color, shame isn't an emotion you will ever be compelled to feel.

I suggest laying out in the sun a few hours and learn to talk with a bit of sass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MJ8xiNHgA4

Gay pride is the big thing.

Transsexual pride next I suppose.

Is homosexuality and asexuality sexual disorders?

Information about the live debate will be posted soon. Feel free to have a question and answer discussion here on this thread regarding it.

What religion are you

As for Islam, it is impossible to be a true Christian and consider Islam valid.

The 10 commandments render that fundamentally implausible due to commandments 1 and 4 among other things in the Bible.

I always assumed that was the case. 

Afterall, how could Jesus be the messiah if he did not fulfill one of the prophecies, The Third Temple of Israel? 

The temple was destroyed by the Romans after Jesus’s death. The temple was destroyed in 70AD.

the Jewish Messiah is in the future,

Their mistake. Jesus was the Messiah, and Orthodox Jews then and now, as a whole, do not recognize him. However, on an individual basis, there are some who have converted, and I am close to at least three families I know who number among converts.  All that you mention of a future Messiah, for whom Orthodox Jews, and others, await, is Jesus Christ, and they will, again on an individual basis, recognize him and worship him, and he will accomplish all that has been said of him to accomplish.  There will, then, still be those who oppose him still, including Satan and his minions.

Yes, Luke was likely a convert. But, Luke, while being a disciple, that term is not synonymous with "apostle, " of whom there were twelve, and all of those originally chosen were of the House of Judah, and from no other of the original 12 tribes of Israel [Jacob, renamed to that name], while it is true that those original twelve apostles [less Judas Iscariot, who was rejected, and died by his own hand,  and replaced by Mathias] will, among others, like perhaps Christ, himself, be "the judgment of all" when that time comes for all tribes of Isreal, and all others, as well, who have ever lived on Earth.

Do you even know what the first commandment is?

Idk what you quoting those verses proves.

But Joseph is of King David's bloodline.

Lets say messiah isnt Jesus. Then who is and who are gentiles meant to follow to get to heaven?

No, Jesus fits the messianic prophesy and was of the bloodline of King David via Mary.

Idk why they also point out Joseph even more directly being from King David since that contradicts virgin birth. Pretty irrelevant if Joseph is of King David's bloodline as he is a stepdad dad of Jesus.

All the Apostles were Jewish. Theres a guy called Luke who wasnt.

Jesus said the only way to the Father is through him.

Was that for gentiles only?

The non-odthodox Jews must explain who the Messiah is if not Jesus.

I just love how these Trumpers, who are obsessed with him, who worship him, who have devoted themselves to him, 

All that you say I am gagging for TRump, is heresy. I worship Jesus Christ, and him alone as worthy of my adcotration. TRump is just a guy who happens to be the p

resident, but he is not my moral advisor, and do not need him as such.

I'm sure 99% of these discussions are hypothetical thought experiments.

You ignore the several Bible verses that describe not one, but many anti-Christs. That makes sense; there are many, just members of this site, who oppose Christ. 

Not to mention that most of the verses you have taken from whatever Google gave you, and told you they were descriptive of anti-Christ, describe other beings having traits that the anti-Christs have, do have, and will have, but are not Donald Trump. He just occupies such a significant portion of your head, rent-free, I'm  surprised you don't use his name.

Having another subject to discuss would be refreshing.

Before becoming pope.

Over the course of five decades, Donald Trump has been accused of sexual assault, tax evasion, money laundering, non-payment of employees, and the defrauding of tenants, customers, contractors, investors, bankers, and charities. Also filed 6 bankruptcies. Trump paid 88.5 million to E.Jean Carroll for raping and defaming her. Trump was charged with paying hush money to porn stat Stormy Daniels to keep secret their sexual encounter while Melania was pregnant with Barron. Trump's false or misleading claims total 30573 over 4 years . Yet, he has continued to amass wealth and power. In this book, criminologist and social historian Gregg Barak asks why and how?

Trump has been impeached twice, indicted 4 times with 91 felony counts. Ordered to pay 88.3 million dollars for sexually assaulting and defaming E.Jean Carroll. Trump was fined 464 million dollars for business fraud and is in court for paying a porn star Stormy Daniels hush money to keep her silent during the elections. Trump's false or misleading claims total 30573 over 4 years Trump has been charged with tax fraud in Chicago to the tune of 100 million dollars. A New York jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — the first time a former U.S. president has been convicted of a crime.

Airmax. David. Now you.

Your duty is to keep us in accordance to God. Therefore, please keep him in line.

He talks shit and blames it on Autism all the time

Elon Musk: Autistic and a Nazi.  Cuts government spending quickly; doesn't care if people suffer.

Chris Rock: Autistic and hates soft a's (except he actually uses the N word).  He doesn't care if it offends blacktivists.

Chris Rock - Black People VS. Niggaz (Bring the Pain 1996).  This video was made before Trump came along.  Chris Rock says he wishes they would let him join the KKK.

When you go to a KKK rally; pretty much everyone there is autistic.  Neurotypical people don't join the KKK because they care what others think about them wrt political ideology.

One autistic guy I met on the internet even said it's fine for a white man to rape a Mexican woman.

Autistic people aren't known for being empathetic or for talking with a filter.

Autistic people are extremely politically incorrect.

So it's funny to me how leftists claim they support the autistic community; when autistic people get power, they act like Chris Rock and Elon Musk because they flat out don't have empathy.

Autism doesnt mean we do not empathise.

Those are very great points.

I'm thinking about a discussion that talks about which faith is more strongly supported by scientific and historical evidence.

He is:

1. Not a Jew
   
2. Hated Jews
   
3. Hated Judaism
   
4. Said Jesus was a valid prophet (did not mean it but said it still, invalidating himself as a contender)
   
5. Said Yahweh lied about being a Father of any sort, to the Jewish tribes and that his real name is Allah.
   
6. Did not remotely adapt the law of Moses, instead replicated it and added more severe violence and bloodlust.
   
7. Said sex slavery is not just permissible but entirely fine.
   
8. Claimed the Holy Spirit was angel Gabriel faking being God.
   
9. Believed that Allah controls Shaitan and Iblis who work as Satan and demons of New Testament do except the Jinn/djinn are also angels.
   
10. Said Gods creations are to be covered up as much as possible.
    
11. Said Gods creations are illicit to ever depict.
    
12. Made all dancing and music Haram unless it was Arabic and Rhythmic in nature. This includes all Jewish dances and music.
    
13. Said Allah wills people to Hell predestined from Birth, which invalidates the wrathful and regretful motivation all times Jewish God got angry and did things like the Flood and plagues.
    

I am blessed to have had a Catholic Church near enough to me to visit weekly. A lot of the world does but not enough yet.

However, the fact is it is the OG church and only Coptics rival it in age afaik.

It is also the only church to blatantly claim to be founded by Jesus himself rather than a second one later. The Nicene emperor that sort of 'founded it' being finalsied doctrinally duebto the first Nicene council being catholic in thinking vs later ones that became Byzantine, hence eastern orthodox, did not name himself as founder. In fact they considered St. Peter the first Pope.

Catholics are why we have hospitals human rights and most science vs what the Greeks did.

This post is about Orthodoxy vs Catholicism vs Protestantism, and it's directed towards christians.

In my personal studies, I've noticed the divide in these denominations. And it's by no means uncommon for the denominations to talk smack about each other. 

The differences that caused these splits was always due to church politics and tension over differences of scriptural interpretation. 

Where do you stand on the side of church politics, if you are Christian?

If you are a christian that believes all churches are universally acceptable, so long as you have faith in God, then this post doesn't apply to you. 

Protestants, evangelicals, orthodox, catholic... I want to hear from all of you what denomination/church you represent and why it appeals to you the most, versus other branches of christianity.

And now he's going to declare that he's in charge, AGAIN

He is not even in charge. He is just getting some attention this way. He sticks to the book "48 laws of power" which told him that he needs to do everything he can to get attention so that he can gain more power somehow. He says he has changed, but thats the exact "smoke and mirrors" chapter in the book he follows.

In 'Satire' the website is having a user right now with profile poc of Trump and a swastika.

You mean Sidewalker's profile? I mean, no one ever complained about that.

I wish someone would help you. Whatever precedes these unhinged sardonic myopic ranting sessions cannot be healthy.

FYI, for my 20th year running, I celebrated Earth Day [4/22] by turning on every light inside and around my property for five minutes just to snub Mr. Al Gore, the Inconvenient Truther, whose AlGoreGooeyJuice to replace petroleum I await with panting breath. Without it, net zero ain't happening, my friends, no mater how long at hard you howl at the moon that claimate change [yes, that is spelled correctly] is an ongoing, existential threat to life on Earth. Bullshyte. Tell me the cause of Snowball Earth, and how, in spite of covering the Earth in ice, volcanism continued, and that for the last 28 years [since 1997, when NOAA began measuring Earth temperature - surely by using all the same continuously calibrated equipment with well-trained operators who always use the same measurement technique at all the same measuring stations all over the Earth, and all the equipment used is accurate to 10x the measurement specification tolerance [all the foregoing is necessary, or your data is insufficient to demonstrate that those 28 annual measurements all demonstrate continuous warming of the Earth...

Bullshyte.  NOAA began measuring Earth temperature annually from 1970 - 55 years ago [through 2024] of those 55 years, there is a general trend of rising temp, but actuary measurements show 28 years above the trend and 27 below it. That means 49% of the measurements are cooler and 51% are warmer. That is, statistically, an indication of normal variation, not spiking hot temperature. 1.1º C rise in temperature in those 55  years. Whoop-di-doo.

Face it, all arguments used to justify US independence are either emotional or refutable.

Rather than becoming North Mexico, I think Canada should annex the United States, we will also need to rename the gulf again, The Gulf of Canada. 

Mexico speaks Spanish; the US speaks English; we should be separate.

Canada has 1/8 the population of the US; it's like the difference between the EU annexing the UK and the UK annexing the EU.  The former makes sense; the ladder is a nonstarter.

Why do you support self-determination for the United States and not for Canada?

Americans want independence; right.  But lets say the US didn't have self determinationism.  Who would control us?  Mexico?  Mexico speaks Spanish and the US speaks English; I'd rather not. 

If the US were to get annexed by Canada, then I'd be fine with that; the only difference between Canada annexing the US and vice versa is the name, the flag, and the stereotypical colors (all irrelevant stuff).

There would be a vote as to if the US or Canadian constitution should take over (the American one just makes more sense; each state gets 2 senators; house of representatives is based on population; Canada has an unequal number of senators per province (even where provinces like NB have more senators than provinces like AT despite NB having way less people) and representatives aren't proportional to population).  America has term limits; Canada does not.

Canada also has like 1/8 the population of the US, and it makes more sense for the bigger nation to annex the smaller one than vice versa.

But who would take US sovereignty?  It would have to be a larger Anglophone nation, and no Anglophone nation is larger than the US.

So, read a book, find somebody besides me with an economics degree, it’s even as simple as using Google, they will all tell you that a sales tax is a regressive tax

I said that there are reasons an imperfect sales tax can be regressive, and a lot of those sources are combining income taxes with capital gains (even though it tends to function differently) or not addressing real dollars at all. Regardless, it seems like you're appealing to authority to shut down discussion and avoid addressing any of the points I'm bringing up.

You should at least be able to explain why my logic doesn't work.

none of them will say except for “in real dollars” and not if “all money is meant to be spent”.

I've seen some people make the argument I'm making, but again, I'm arguing based on how purchasing power works, not based on who agrees with me.

How come the American left supports self determination for Canada and not for Crimea?   If one consistently backed self determination, then they would not only support Canada being independent, but they would also support Crimea joining Russia (as well as any other areas that wanted to join Russia that are in Ukraine).

If your primary ethos is self determination for national borders, then be consistent with it.  But virtually nobody is.

It isn't that autistic people don't like to experience emotions, it's just that they tend to express them differently from neurotypical people. Differences in emotional expression do not equate to a dislike of emotions.

I'm autistic; I'll tell you straight up; I process emotion very minimally.  Like, I could see a child get mass murdered on TV and I wouldn't care because it's a video on the internet that happened 4 years ago or so and me caring is at the end of the day; pointless because that child will always be dead no matter how much I care for some stranger.

My dog died 2 years ago; my siblings were in a lot of emotional pain; I didn't really care.  I shed no tears; I actually kind of laughed because that annoying dog is out of my life.  He's useless and annoying; I'm glad he's dead.  Now, I would never murder or r@pe anyone because I think murder and r@pe is immoral.  But if I see someone get murdered or r@ped, then I'm thinking, "55,000 murders and r@pes happen annually; it is what it is; life isn't perfect; ending r@pe and murder is out of my control, and being upset about something you can't control is pointless".

the concepts, definitions and mathematical formulas of modern-day economics

What concepts, definitions, and mathematical formulas supporting your position might there be?

Yes, inflation is expressed as a percentage increase, and no, that doesn't change the fact that a sales tax is a regressive tax.

I'm not following. Is a sales tax not effectively inflating the price of all goods? If the burden of permanent inflation is proportional to income, why isn't the same true for a sales tax?

The economics world just doesn't understand economics.

I don't know if I'm missing something, but I've explained why the burden of a sales tax is proportional to income. It seems to me that you haven't explained why you believe it would be regressive.

I get it, the mantra "money exists to be spent" is a principle of faith for you, but the idea that all money is spent on sales taxable consumption is an absurd fantasy

Why is this an absurd fantasy? I'm open to hearing your opinions, but I have trouble following what your logic is, beyond potential loopholes, which I've already acknowledged that a tax ought to account for.

Money that is never used is worthless, since it doesn't serve the main purpose of money: spending. If I threw paint on 50% of your money and ruined it, you would be 50% poorer. You still have the same amount of bills, but your purchasing power has been cut in half since you can only spend half as much. That's kind of what a sales tax does in raising all prices by some percentage.

it represents a larger percentage of the lower income, making it a regressive tax

The burden is reduced purchasing power, and that reduction is a consistent percentage.

the idea that all money is spent on sales taxable consumption

I specified a sales tax that avoids loopholes. That would mean all consumption is sales taxable. There are loopholes for income tax, too, it's really not that different.

sales tax percentage of total income is isn't equal, and hence, sales tax is regressive...the terms "sales tax", "progressive", "regressive", and "proportional" are explicitly defined economic terms, it's simple mathematics. What's the point of just changing definitions?

I'm not changing definitions. Regressive taxes create a larger percentage burden on lower incomes. Sales tax doesn't. 

Even if you define it in terms of dollars spent, the rich person will eventually spend their money (it exists to be spent, after all), or someone who inherits it will. All that changes is when the tax is paid.

Yes, there is inflation, and no, that doesn't change the fact that a sales tax is a regressive tax.

A sales tax causes inflation, which impacts everyone's purchasing power by the same percent regardless of income.

No, you buy stocks to make more money, and when you make more money then the sales tax you pay becomes an even lesser percentage of total earnings,

Not really. With 20% income tax, I earn $100 and keep $80. I put it in the stock market and it doubles, giving me $160. With 25% sales tax, I earn $100, which would buy as much as $80 would without the tax. I invest the $100 in the stock market and it doubles. I now have $200, which buys as much as $160 would before the tax. Either way, someone who makes $100 would only get to buy 160 widgets after investing. With ten times as much, they'd get 10 times as many widgets, and 20% would be a ten times bigger loss.

I'm ignoring capital gains tax, but that's because that tends to work separately from income tax. A sales tax + capital gains tax would function the same as an income tax + capital gains tax.