fauxlaw

even yllis applies.

Of course, they were. They were human, yeah? Don't all of us have frailties? Nevertheless, several authors gave us the means to determine God's intent without having to depend on the scholarship of men. Moses gave us some pretty good advice in Exodus 20:  David's Psalms, collectively, are a gold mine.  Isaiah: poetic, but potent. I have often offered James 1: as an example of a very distinct process by which we, ourselves, can be inspired by God to understand his word, regardless of the human frailties it contains, boiled down to two words: Ask him. By the way; you're not asking about the weather. Have some respect, and sincere desire to know.

No, the Council of Nicaea of 325 CE did not develop the canon that is, today, the Holy Bible; their function was strictly the development and agreement of the Nicene Creed; a rather short dissertation of the nature of the Godhead. The Nicene Council was the first ecumenical council of several, but that which is recognized as the first complete canonical collection did not occur for another century.

Unfortunately, you are probably right, not because with the Internet, information is more available than ever before in history, but because there is little guarantee that anything found on the Internet is credible because anyone can post just about anything, and many people are not willing to spend the time researching beyond whatever they find has credible, accurate information. Not that it cannot be found, because I do take the time to research deeply, but not everyone does.

You gun control advocates cannot even define accurately what an "assault weapon" is. Until you can, what sense does legislating it make?  Hint: just equating them to military weapons doesn't fly because the AR-15, the primary target, is not a military weapon.  Not in the US. Try again. Definition, precisely, please.

You just did, three times in your post #30, straw man.

Actually, it does, because 1. It is a fallacy that the purpose of a gun is to kill, as I demonstrated in post #29 [read the cited article], and 2. police do not have a blunt license to kill  

The Constitution is not a living document in the guise of it being malleable by interpretation that is contrary to what it says, but in proper legislation of changes to what it currently says.

Voter

Thanks for doing this. I thought Mods had to set this up, or I'd have done it long ago. I'm not familiar with subscription and how it works,  but I've done it [had to find how to do it, but did. Dummy me.

Ys, I agree it is a good idea, and I suggested it to mods during the campaign to modify the voting policy, but the policy was modified without including that idea.

You're not convinced?

Water content in wine, by percentage: 85%  https://www.vivino.com/wine-news/wine-chemistry-101-what-is-wine-made-of

Water content in blood, by percentage:  60% of whole blood is plasma, and 92% of that is water. Therefore, 55% of of blood is water [not counting the water content in red and white blood cells.  https://web.archive.org/web/20090305043654/http://www.fi.edu/learn/heart/blood/blood.html

@ RM

That's well before my time, and I don't understand the post. Why are forfeits failed debates that don't affect rating? Doesn't the opposition win that debate, if voted on? Or does DebateArt mean something else?

Answer: the lighthouse effect.

By far, the greater majority of death by gunfire is fro handguns, so what's the big deal ab out "assault weapons," which is a term not very well defined at all. It's a catch-all.

"If the purpose of guns were to kill, cops would not be allowed to have them because, in civilized countries contrary to James Bond movies, they don’t have a license to kill."

By the way, too much water kills - an essential of life, no less. We call it drowning. Maybe if we called it killing, we'd have fewer deaths by water? Yes, absurd. So is your argument.

I do not contend that the Constitution is complete. The necessity of amendment occurs from time to time, and I find it remarkable that it is so well written, it has been amended only 27 times in 230+ years.

I am not opposed to regulations, when they make sense. But to impose regulations just because somebody has a hair up the arse about a product that is, after all, only generally reference in the 2A [it says "arms," not "guns'].

Water, because it is simple. What is the primary element of wine? Or, blood, for that matter? Therefore, as a symbol, it is valid. Consider that in the 1st century CE, fresh water was probably not as plentiful as wine.

There's a difference between calling an argument semantic, and a person pedantic. If you don't see that difference, your Dic APA isn't going to help.

I will thank you to avoid ridicule the Lord's Supper. It matters not the emblems used so long as they are consecrated to their use as personal witness of acknowledgment of the Lord's atonement for us, and our personal commitment to keep the commandments, and to repent of our sins when committed. The emblems used happen to be simple bread and water.

You accused Ramshutu of being pedantic; a personal attack. Deny it. 

I can cite OED all day long. You don't have access if you're not a member. That's on you.

Yeah, RM claims it, but I don't see it.In the top 10 debaters by rank, I lead that pack in unvoted ties [7 of them], but all my ties [10] figure into the calculation of my win/lost percentage. Now, whether it figures into my ranking, I have no idea. I've asked Ragnar, but he won't answer to that specific question.

Nope. just takes convincing some people. I read about the sale beginning when the customer says 'No.' I didn't buy the book because this customer knows what 'no' is. No biggy, though. All good. Enjoy, and cheers.

You just cannot let it go, can you? The very epitome of pedantic. Look it up.

oh, sorry, I did. It's not in your Dic APA. It is in the OED

Nope. I did say it is a mater of control, yeah? That's what I mean. 

You're a kid, within 20 years of diapers. That's truth, bud.

I don't drink alcohol, period, thanks. The pleasure I obtain from a fine, dark chocolate is satisfaction enough for me.

I will, however, drink just the cream. I make dark chocolate ice cream, the cream is 40% butter fat. Can't be ice cream when its made with milk.

Think it not strange, if heaven has a care

To justice, good, forthright and fair,

If, after our Lord brings us there,

He'll serve us chocolate, all seasons of the year.

A personally-written verse I one printed on a Christmas Card.

I've been amused by the interplay between these two members. on the whole, were this a debate on the features and consequences of fear, I'd give the nod to Ramshutu, almost exclusively because of Ramshutu's more generalized, common interpretation of "fear." As expected, Edge went directly to his goto, the APA, the Dictionary of the American Psychology Association, which, by the title, is a discipline-specific dictionary when politics is a separate discipline. Ramshutu does not define his dictionary, but it is not needed; the definition satisfies the common understanding. Edge becomes so wrapped in definition, rather than the point of the discussion, that it fairly dishevels his argument all on its own. Who needs to argue what fear is; we all feel it, across all cultures, genders, and generations, and the emotion is sufficiently consistent to understand another's experience. However, the real telling concern is the ultimate turn by Edge to personal attack; the last desperate measure when all logical argument is abandoned. Ramshutu remains aloof to that temptation throughout, but Edge just cannot, in his youth, avoid the accusation of "pedantic," which Edge actually exemplifies quite well, being familiar with the characteristic. Add some years, and experience, my friend, Edge. It will do you well.

perhaps there is the difference between us. You seek fun. I seek joy, and it does not come out ofd a bottle. I like dark chocolate, but not even that is joy. Joy is not packaged, as virtually all fun is. They are not even closely related, kid.

The pro's and con's of this issue, of both sides, talk at cross purposes because each side assumes:

1. the other side is wrong.

2. occupation of a territory at any given time justifies their presence in that territory.

3. there must be some historic significance that still determines the course of actions and consequences today.

4. discrimination of differences rules all attitudes

If none of the above are satisfactory to both sides, the resolution will never be had. The paradigms must shift. In fact, they ought to be eradicated, completely.

Did I say I make a choice of likes and dislikes? No, I did not. Please do not mix my words to satisfy your perspective. That is not at all what I said. 

And, no, while God wrote the commandments on tablets hewn from the mountain, they were copied onto another medium by men, weren't they? Did they copy faithfully? Who knows? Then the tablets disappeared with the Ark of the Covenant, didn't they? Lost by men. Then the copies were re-copied and translated, again by men. Extrapolate to today.

What were the circumstances of drinking excessively in the first century CE? Because I am not so naive as to claim that wine, then, was really just grape juice, not to mention that that wine, then, was probably healthier and more plentiful than most had access to fresh water. However, they did not drive their horse/ox-drawn carts at 80 MPH, either. The worst damage then was probably falling off the wagon, thus the origin of that idiom. Excessive drinking is far more dangerous to self and others today than when Jesus was pedestrian. No, I consider anyone today who drinks excessively to be acting like an idiot, because it is completely a matter within their control. They simply choose to abdicate control. That's dumb.

frankly, I agree. That many parents abdicate that responsibility, including my own,  it needs to be done by somebody. Personally, my best friend, the next-door neighbor girl, and I, at 7, figured it out for ourselves - at least the broad strokes.

My inclination is that time does not exist, period, so the notion of past/present/future melds into a continuous stream of present. The fact that it is possible to experience something completely new, such as, for me, jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, has no experienced past by which to factor any guesses about what that would be like. I can guess, just as I once guessed what it would be like to be in a jungle with no trail; having to make my own. I guessed for many years, then did it. Nope, no guess was close to the reality, particularly the lack of a guess that I would suddenly no longer be at the top of the food chain. That was not a reassuring thought when it did occur to me.

Sorry to be so blunt, but idiocy comes to mind. But, then, I don't drink alcohol. At all. It is amusing to watch people who do, however, and who think they are not drunk. Sorry to say, y'all can be such entertainment, and I reflect how much I appreciate remaining in control.

I agree with RM. The necessity of keeping separate accounts straight in your head is purposeless enterprise. Not to mention that the temptation to debate one's self may become overwhelming. Be yourself, everyone else is taken.

I approach the Bible as absolutely correct only insofar as it is written originally [by book, for it has many authors] 100% correctly, and then translated correctly by others. It cannot be otherwise, for God, himself, did not write one jot or tittle of it; it is a composition of men and women. Mortal men and women, meaning they have natural flaws, and they will be reflected in their writing. Such is the nature of man; a fact God understands and is willing to let be.  That God created, I have no doubt. That he created us perfectly is contrary to the intent of our creation in the first place. We were created to grow, to learn, to make mistakes, learn from them, and learn from our successes, and so progress  from ignorance to, ultimately, perfect knowledge such as God has. Creation is a process, not a complete act ended when it began. Therefore, since God did not write the books of the Bible, they have flaws. It's up to us to determine how to identify them and understand what should be a correct interpretation. How? I think James has the best answer. A read of chapter 1, in its entirety, is a valid process: ask God, trusting he will reply. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." [verse 5] The whole chapter is wisdom in a bottle. The other 4 chapters are just as vital to understand. 

I'll take Individualism is morally superior to collectivism for three points, Bob. [oro in disguise]:

I favor individualism over collectivism for just about any reason, but, in particular, it makes sense to a moral perspective because I believe in the infinite advancement capability of a person. I also believe there is no end to the body of knowledge, nor of capability to practically apply it; an ability called wisdom. So, if Jack believes this, and starts on a path of infinite progression in knowledge, and practical use of that knowledge for self-improvement, Jack can measure his progress periodically, and thus determine that he is, in fact, progressing at a pace suited to him. He can even determine, over time, that the pace may be increased as his body of knowledge and ability of its use increase. However, better still, Jack can realize that these abilities of acquiring knowledge and wisdom can be taught to others. Some will accept and try it; others will not, and each person's dedication to the effort is going to vary, person to person. Nevertheless, Jack will be successful in his encouragement of others to take the challenge of his chosen path and achieve it for themselves. This successful teaching of others is the ultimate morality, for it is beneficial to others as much as it is beneficial to Jack. Some may, in fact, achieve at a greater pace than Jack, and they who do so may return the favor and teach Jack how they have achieved, thus reciprocating morality in kind. After all, what is morality but the sharing of benefit to one another, individually to each agreeable individual?

We're too hung-up on time, particularly relative to movement and distance. To cover a distance in a shorter period of time, more power must be applied, or so we imagine, because we insist on a time factor. What if there is no time? Further, what if there is infinite power? Is that infinite power impeded simply because time cannot catch up to our movement, being all-powerful? If God can be omnipotent, why not us? All we have to do is learn how to acquire it. Who says that's impossible? People who argue for their limitations, that's who. Well, damn it, why listen to them?

@Stephen

It's real simple: Don't leave shyte about my profile if you're so sensitive about yours. I could not care less about your profile.

one might easily ask you if you think God would extend his question with... "... and don't tell me you voted for Biden, because, to be frank, I don't care.."

Wow. Let me just take a moment... In my year, plus of membership, I don't recall we've ever had a conversation. You're something of a legend in my book. 

Anyway, I believe there are certain... attitudes I guess I'd call them; rights, certainly, that are in the realm of being basic to our sense of humanity. I'm not sure the right to bear arms is among them, and that is this subject, but it's close in that it relates to self-protection as a basic need of survival. So, I'm not sure that it doesn't take much more than reflection to realize that such rights are central to civilization. Yeah, I get it that a gun may be an excessive need for protection, but, on the other hand, it will, mostly, get the job done. Yes, I agree that too many are killed indiscriminately that would still be alive but for the sheer power a gun has to cause death when a less lethal weapon would do. Frankly, I wish we were more of a mind to be better angels to one another.

@ Stephen

So, it isn't sarcasm when you dish it out? Such as, by your profile, what does one learn? Absolutely nothing. You're a cipher. You're closed. What? Dish it, but can't take it? Nice.

@Stephen

poundmeThomas keeps a list, yeah? Calls me a Bible fool. And you're bothered that I respond with a reminder? Let him deal with it.

Sarcasm? That's merely a suggestion to read the record. Have you, other than by cherry picking?

A simple understanding that there is more than heaven and hell. Sorry if youy're confused. like I said, stop cherry picking and read. All of it. Why must I keep reminding that it is that easy. Takes some time, but maybe you have more of that available than you think. Stop hurling vindictives here and speand a little more time reading. pondering. Asking God. Is that bad advice?

When? Seriously, in my post #17. If one wants to know a subject, go to the source. Read the account of Abraham. Is that so hard to get? Summarily, go to the Qu'ran. Read it. What is your aversion to reading? Same advice to Timid. Seems like an easy answer. Maybe too easy for Stephen?

@ Stephen

Sure, the same answer I've offered to you: Ask God.

The typical result of a bag-shag, not that I would know by any experience. Bag, as in, putting one over the head of...

or, not bothering because the shagee is a bag, but you don't care 'cause you're three sheets

What started as an interesting comparative subject has turned into a food fight. As usual interest in reading the commentary has waned. Too bad. Children can be cruel.

I'm opposed to a result of no-vote ties. Among the top-rated 10 - 15, I own more of them than anyone, which prompted me to suggest a volunteer team that would seek to prevent them from occurring, and I try to prevent as many as I can, but I can't do it myself. I have voted on some really stinky debates as a result, but, I figure everyone who attempts a debate ought to deserve a vote. So far, the Mods have been mum on the suggestion.

Who assumes? I assume no such things. I expect that sentient humans engage is sufficient research about sexual activity if not instructed by school or family, and even if they are, but I make no assumptions that they actually do. That's entirely on them and my opinions matters naught. Since I make no assumptions, what needs checking? I do the research, and jave made my own mind on the matter, What others do is on them.  Yes, I am very strict on how I look at sexual activity. I was a virgin until married, and have been utterly faithful to the covenant I made at marriage. If I can do it, anyone can; that they choose not to so is entirely on them and I wish them well, having witnessed those who do not do as I did first-hand. I am a happy man. Many of those who make no commitments are not. Make of that as you will. Yes, it appears we will never agree. 

I am not surprised the ACLU dos not support the UVVA; they tend not to support constitutional cicil liberties. But, the UVVA does anything but separate a woman from the fetus. The law stipulates two murder charges, one for the mother; one for the fetus. Two separate lives, but bound together under a single statute. Two persons, since murder is a charge that only applies to the willful death of persons.

Generalizations, in this instance [and seldom, do they apply] do not work. I did not say "people;" that's yours. I said criminals; a specific type of people, yeah? Try to understand the difference. You will find that I am very specific in my wording and I do not appreciate a general interpretation.

You are generalizing again. I said regulating guns limits law-abiding citizens because crimin al will acquire their guns illegally, without regard for the regulations. 

Not an over-abundance of them. I get the need to register gun ownership. I even get the need to limit military arms, but the term "assault weapons" is a generalized term because the term has no legal meaning. An AR-15, for example, is not used by the military, at all.  Beside the fact that such weapons, which fit under the general decsription of "rifle," and not "hand gun," are used in very few murders, whereas a hand gun is the weapon of choice for that crime.

Progressives progress with their sight focused on the rearview mirror, aiming for the origin of marxism, 1848. That time has passed. No, I am not a prog. I do not support the ban of all arms [note the2A specifies "arms" not "guns." You're generalizing. Again. and again.... and again.... and again... 

You see the  "  icon above in the menu bar above? That allows to separate quotes from others from your text entry. Click on in, a gray bar appears in the text entry field. Copy/paste  your quote in that bar, then add your text below the bar.

Statutory law is expected to be obeyed, thus making law-abiding citizens. However, since most statutory law does not, by itself, control human behavior, because we each control that ourselves, you have criminal activity by each individual's choice. Some people do not care what the law says; they do as they please. The only avenue we have of correcting that lawless behavior is by law enforcement, but your ilk seems bent on defunding that effort. Meaning, you expect people to just obey law regardless of their proclivities. Nope, doesn't happen that way. So, making further law to restrict the actions of people who are law-abiding only achieves a reduction of their liberties.

I get it. That is exactly the correct interpretation of the 14A, but SCOTUS blew it all to hell with their 1898 decision in Wong v. U.S., [I misspoke earlier dating it in 1895] creating birthright citizenship precedent.

like I said, we are, presumably, sentient beings. So, if we're going to engage in indiscriminate sex, it behooves the careless to educate themselves about all aspects of the consequences. What could happen? It's a simple question. It behooves those who are indiscriminate in their sexual partners to engage an act of intimacy only after some basics of human interaction possibilities are reviewed by serious contemplation. To do otherwise, one deserves what one gets. Cruel? Doesn't have to be. Just follow, simple rules of self-preservation. That is supposed to be inherent in our humanity, particularly to ourselves.

This is an absurd discussion because this stuff is supposed to be basic. If you want to throw out the sentience we have, and live lives of whatever, that's on you. Go ahead, who's stopping you besides your and your mirror? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

What part of criminals not needing to buy guns through a limiting gov't sieve do you not understand? You limit law abiding citizens to no purpose, because attempts to legislate bad behavior to capture criminals has huge holes in it since criminals don't obey the law, anyway. The numbers ought to teach you that.

You have law to offer law-abiding citizens their parameters. The alternative is chaos.

That may be the case in your homeland [I honestly don't know], but here in the USA, it is well known, by some, that the notion of birthright citizenship violates the 14A. Yeah, the Supreme Court stuck their nose in it in 1895, and screwed that pooch, but they were incorrect then, and still are. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." is a phrase in the 14A completely ignored by the Supreme Court, then, [I don't think they understood what it meant] and it is still ignored. But, the Constitution should not be subject to the jurisdiction of ignorant removal of words.

In the case of Israel and the West Bank, birthright was a big thing, too, and the birthright was given to Isaac, not Ishmael, and to Jacob [Israel], not Esau.