Total posts: 382
-->
@n8nrgim
No no. Im saying insurance is the higher percentage of a dollar when you pay for things. Including college. Insurance was not a thing when college was free. Over time people started to consider college as being liable for its environment. Insurance covers lawsuits and initial expenses when shtf.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Woe, word?
Created:
Ok so the errors. If we are to take everything litterally then the provided quotes contradict each other.
JESUS IS GOD: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Everything bellow this point is given by someone who is not Jesus.
Some are prophetic as to what will happen which does not provide moral expression that the actions done are accepted.
For the one acception, genesis, we can see no reference to infants. Perchance this is stretching it but again we are looking at all things literal.
We should also ask ourselves what is the moral objection in a god causing a person to pass from our world to an afterlife? We are assuming god exists therefore the afterlife exists.
For anyone wanting to suggest this implies murder is ok- no. As said before the morality between humans is not the same as morality between humans and other beings.
1. JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS AS GOD STATED: "Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9)2. JESUS AS GOD STATED: “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:16)3. JESUS AS GOD STATED: “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)4. JESUS AS GOD STATED: "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:3)5. JESUS AS GOD STATED: "So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them." (Genesis 6:7)6. JESUS AS GOD STATED: The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. (Hosea 9:11-16)
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Fantasitc. So what is your intent on posting the cited legal definition?
What message are you providing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Dude thats backwards. Republican party existed first and then democrat
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Woe. If the issue is govt. involvement, how is govt. forcing colleges to accept new terms be any different?
I think we can agree that insurance is the biggest influence for college costs. Anyone and everyone can be sued for what ever these days where as the days of old (where our parents/grandparents recieved college for free) put more liability in the hands of the individual.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Freeeeee!?!?!
Gotta do some major expense revamping.
My focus would be on land. Property is highly expensive to own amd upkeep.
What you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Fascinating. Circular reasoning?
Eh who cares.
Created:
Wont let me edit
."If you have to be born to be included as protected under the law then you are excluded from those protections. "
.....excluded if you are not yet born.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Hm...
Ok so first one points out that I have to argue some point of your position. i am not. I asked for clarity on your position. But Ill just skip this cause there be no point in argueing for fallacies.
A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean.
- (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
- (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
- (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
- (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
Ok. If we read homo sapiens and after birth. We can see that a homo sapien before birth is not included as being described by the words person, child, etc. So that when we read those words within that script, we do not read it to mean or refer to a fetus or an embryo.
As you say, "rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon persons upon their birth."
If you have to be born to be included as protected under the law then you are excluded from those protections.
What is your intent to provide the cited laws????
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you are against abortion, would it not be better for a person to agree with you on that topic than to go against?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
How am I lying about my own opinion?
I disagree. Abortion is a product of greed and distorted views which all humans can do.
So athiests you say are on the right tract for their position to be anti abortion. To say all athiests are pro abortion or abortion is product of athiesm seems to polarize the abortion debate for those who are unaware that they themselves (whom may be athiest) could be on either side regardless of personal belief.
Do you see how this can work against you? Any discussion with these people may make them oppose you on that ground by itself? I would figure you would want them to agree with you.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Strawman requires me to say something is your opinion and then argue that position. I never said what your opinion is, in my question which highlights what I see the cited law in doing.
If you do not agree that a human in the womb is excluded. May you provide a passage where such a human is mentioned?
If you do not agree that a human in the womb is excluded. May you provide a passage where such a human is mentioned?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I dont know enough to address o.p. many parts there that divert into other discusions. However for the title.
One thing to consider is how does everything affect us on individual level vs. community or group level. This is probably how some may seperate the issue that may relate to trans vs anti-vax .
Some argue that everyone should be required to vax because it affects people around them. Where as being trans does not affect everyone in the same way.
My criticism of this is the purpose of vaxinations to begin with. If it helps you prevent or lessen sickness then there should not be a problem if someone next to you is not. This would exclude, to some regard, parents and kids. If a parent infects a kid, that may be another emotional conciquence.
One thing to consider is how does everything affect us on individual level vs. community or group level. This is probably how some may seperate the issue that may relate to trans vs anti-vax .
Some argue that everyone should be required to vax because it affects people around them. Where as being trans does not affect everyone in the same way.
My criticism of this is the purpose of vaxinations to begin with. If it helps you prevent or lessen sickness then there should not be a problem if someone next to you is not. This would exclude, to some regard, parents and kids. If a parent infects a kid, that may be another emotional conciquence.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I acknowleedge my opinion you should do same .
Science can be subjective but cited law is objectively precise & related to science? This is not an opinion?
Cited law excludes all humans before birth. Do you agree?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You assert an opinion . yay
The cited law can contradict biology as it does allow open interpretation as to what is a person or human prior to birth. Thats not science. Science is a tested observational thing. Not subjective.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That does not mean athiesm is corrupt, but it is independent of abortion just as abortion is an independent issue apart from athiesm.
Athiesm deals with what ever belief or disbelieve a person has with anything supernatural. So keep it to that arena. Why make/turn abortion debate into a left vs right, us vs them type of debate? That will not help your position nor allow the debate to progress pass the verbal "trenches"
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Hey you provided a legal definition that can and does contradict scientific and general dictionaries. Yay. Just like african americans were considered 2/3 of a person & not being considered human at all. Wooh!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not all white supremists are republicans or right wing. Personally I say none are. Majority seem to follow socialist political view points which is a far left political scale.
Unfortunately there are opposing ideas about how political scale should look. The best scale to use should be based on govt. size and scale. Bigger govt. on left, less govt on right.
In terms of white males/females being racist and republican - well this might be based more on political arena. Historically speaking, everyone was racist. Democrats consisted of primary group that followed whitesipremacy where as some republicans may have been racist but didnt want to outright keep anyone down or out of society.
Hard to pin point a change as any change spans from 1950 on through to 1990.
Unfortunately there are opposing ideas about how political scale should look. The best scale to use should be based on govt. size and scale. Bigger govt. on left, less govt on right.
In terms of white males/females being racist and republican - well this might be based more on political arena. Historically speaking, everyone was racist. Democrats consisted of primary group that followed whitesipremacy where as some republicans may have been racist but didnt want to outright keep anyone down or out of society.
Hard to pin point a change as any change spans from 1950 on through to 1990.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Lthough you have interesting points. I encourage you to refrain from generalizations. There are many athiests against abortion and even non religious specific groups like secularprolife.org
.
Abortion in its own should be battled against with everyone.
Created:
Lol. Hm...
O. p. blends partial quotes that have different/opposing explainations within bible as they are explained by the paragraphs they are within. Just as those paragraphs rely on the entire chapter to express meaning. Quoting a single sentence will loose that passages's complexity and meaning.
Some times a sentence that others use to define faith in its entirety is really meant for a specific person or group of people for a specific time/era.
Christianity itself moves away from old testimont violence as human race transitions away from primal tendencies towards violence. Although we still have a long way to go, the world as a whole has seen less wars than previous years. Christianity and maybe even other religions express this transition in civilization.
"But christians fight and kill." Yes as many do. The main point still exists. Humans as a whole is moving away from that type of violence. Policies within Christianity reflect that even if individuals dont always practice those policies. Just as the safety policies in companies (like construction) now include safer practices (like fall equipment) even if not everyone practices those policies.
Looking at end results like how many people fall on the job does not give adequate depiction of the policies and safety protocols. Just as giving partial quotes and examples do not represent an entire picture.
2. We also must consider what does it mean for a god to kill. A human killing another human is not the same as a human killing a mountain lion or a tiger killing a human. Consider a whale killing a human or a human killing a turkey. All these "killings" require their own examination that will differ from how a human interacts with a human.
But of coarse the jump reaction to this point is an assumption that killing is ok. So I ask before hand, what is ok or not ok with killing?
I have no gaurantee I will be able to follow up on this or when so consider it for now a rhetoricall question. Although it may create another jump reaction please slow down.
The basis for what is ok or not ok - or good vs bad - may differ. The purpose for question is to examine for objectivity. What is it and where does it come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Are you a troll?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
1. Although what occurred and did not occur for latin america can be debated, I wish to focus on how the example of franciscan devotion order is not socialist just as catholicism is not a form if socialism.
Our primary evidence invludes:
A. )The franciscan order is based on volunteer participation. No one has to join and the practices in general do not reach across catholicism in general. Even for being the most popular order, it does not represent the majority.
B.) Franciscan order is not political. The order preaches individual participation not a national participation. This is done for a very personal and spiritual gain. Socialism is based on the growth and gain of the general population which sometimes causes the individual identity to loose if the population is to gain. Thus socialism is political as it depends on the majority.
The friars wandered and preached among the people, c). helping the poor and the sick. They supported themselves by working and by begging d. )for food, but they were forbidden to accept money either as payment for work or as alms.
C.) Socialist practices may include a health care system that everyone may participate in, but it puts on a limit to how far to help someone. Euthenasia and other means to limit help recieved by sick and impoverished are supported in socialist economies where they are not supported (at least by policy) by franciscan order.
D. ) As socialism uses the populas to generate an economy we can see that the ideal franciscan is supposed to live outside the normal economy. However this may have changed in our time, there is no political or economic policy to generate an economy. Nothing to influence the economy out side personal gain.
2. Is catholicism as a whole an example of socialism? No. Above points transition to catholicism as well. Times change and policies come and go right?
There are two aspects to consider. Catholicism in its begining and as it is now.
Many aspects about policy vs practice can differ. A person who may preach on "do not kill," May have a brother who kills. All religions have some example of members participating in some practice that violates that religion's policies. Catholism is no different. We are all human and exist in error.
However what a thing or group is, will be based first on policy. We see more examples within bible and other historical documents (letters, etc. ) where policy differs from that of socialism. Even in most extreme examples, where personal property is allowed and not collected.
B.) Furthermore, we see a full rejection of socialism by the church as a whole.
This is not nazism vs communism where a national identity struggles against a global identity.
If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the supreme pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno, 120).
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism” (Catechism, 2425)
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So you do not believe catholicism is similar to communism?
Or are you saying you believe it because you were convinced by authors some time ago, whose names and title escape you?
Cause that happens to me alot. Personally its like I am content with the info I recorved, and therefore move on to a different topic to preoccupy my mind.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The estimated number of inmates in the prison system was 1,574,700 people. Of these people, less than 1% (. 07%) of inmates identify as atheists.
I don't know what that has to do with my question about the iq. Im asking specificly about the study you reference.
You ever been to prison? I have not. I hear it is a hell of a place. Many people are depressed, deal with isolation issues and continued threat of violence. Harsh world.
Considering that athiesm has a lower population outside of prison, makes sense that such a populas would have a lower representation in prison. I guess it fair to say no one is entering prison for the sake of being an athiest. That would be unjust and unfair. Same may not be said for those apart ethnicity of a minority.
I pressume there are less people in political office that are athiests as well. Hard to say depending on country. China and all. Also what I identify does not clarify how I act. Shame but true
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Wow.
1. What kind of crime are you talking about? Because the word crime identifies violations to civil law.
2. Jesus says love your enemy. Do you marginalize people you love?
See if pope is wrong about what he said, then you are saying we must marginalize and maybe even attack peope who sin, yes?
How are you supposed to love a person you attack or kill?
3. Why are you quoting old law? Christianity repeatidly claim that old laws in leviticus are not to be followed because Jesus changed our obligations.
4. What book are you using/referincing?
"God’s enemies; insolent, haughty, vainglorious; inventive in wickedness, disobedient to their parents; 31 without prudence, without honour, without love, without loyalty, without pity."
Ah so people without love are god's ememies?
Further in romans we can read this""
. 23 All alike have sinned, all alike are unworthy of God’s praise.[9] 24 And justification comes to us as a free gift from his grace, through our redemption in Christ Jesus. 25 God has offered him to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood. Thus God has vindicated his own holiness, shewing us why he overlooked our former sins .""
Would people who are gay not deserve to be welcomed to God? Jesus died for them just as he dd for you.
Also why are we reading that a person worthy of death is to be dealth with by humans? What right do you obtain as a sinner to cast the first stone and kill?
5. You have failed to show Jesus' teaching let alone any teaching related to christianity. Instead you take individual sentences (some times fragments of sentences) and ignore related materials within the bible itself. You should meditate on why you are so rude.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Most recent is checking on iq after /during covid. Titled "great british..." What ever or such. I found it difficult but pleasureful.
I kinda criticise its effectiveness as it was open to anyone despite it being directly related to the u.k. also, it seems to better to have individuals partake in the test before and after getting covid.
Ive been looking for questions from the experiment you list. But have found none. Most articles just describe type of questions.
What is your opinion on relation between religion vs intellegence? What might I take away from your post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Inaccurate. Catholicism is nothing like communism. We have a spiritual obligation to tae care of each other where as such an obligation builds our spiritual stregnth.
No catholic is asked to give up so much as to not be able to take care of themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
You do have to be x age to recieve retirement or take money out of retirement accounts.
However it is possible to set up various accounts with purpose in saving and managing networth to recieve x amount of money for spending.
However reterment needs to be understood as a time to invest in something other than a career rather do nothing. People usually become unhealthy with doing nothing.
A few young people today have claimed to retire at 30 or 40 years old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
1 . the opening post does not depict the whole factual/accurate religious theology and practice.
As others have already stated, the rich man story highlights our own personal priorities vs. our convictions to follow Jesus/ be with God. If we cherrish worldly things then it will be hard to let those things go so we may put priority on experiencing God first whilst alive.
To some credit, there is accuracy in thinking that we may need to rid ourselves, completely, of things that interfere with our journey with God. Just like a recovering alcoholic may need to refrain from entering a bar for the rest of their live. A person addicticted to any vice or sin will need to plan their repentence. Sometimes this requires support systems in the same way an alcoholic needs a support system when practicing A.A.
2. In regards to heaven - the reward is always God. To exist with Him. Our joy in heaven is God. Why? God is explained to be a wholeness to things we are without on earth. Kinda like having a hole where no hole should be. Although hard to explain, the white cloud, get what you want, etc. Is not 100% accurate depiction as it feeds off analogies.
3. Hypocrisy. This part is tricky because the more standards a person has the harder it is to maintain all standards - and the easier it is to see failures. failure it self is not hypocrisy. Any christian may fail at being good but to be a christian is to follow Christ on a journey. We dont just become perfect just for saying "Im christian." This is an unrealistic expectation.
With that said the majority of christians are not hypocrites. Real hypocricy is saying x is wrong but I can do x. So anyone proclaiming abstinece for adultry but they themselves relishing in adultry (what ever that may look like). Even here it is important not to judge a person's heart. We can jusge the action and even to some degree a person so we may be smart and maintain safety. However to say they are and always will be damned does not help us in our own journey.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Not many atheists hijack airliners and fly them into towers while yelling Allahu Akbar!
1 This should not be a surprise considering atheists don't believe in Allah.
However, there have been numberous killings by numberous atheists. This should make sense, we are all human.
2. I have taken similar IQ test as you mention. Possed a section that asked participants to select an image from a series/collection of images as the series change. Basically testing response time, how long does it take for the brain to recognize an image. Im sure video game users are well adapt to this sort of test.
What would be your opinion of the test itself?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
1. Depression is a multi faced beast (metaphor) that often stems from inability to connect with others or our own emotions. If a concept of "you are not what you eat" applying to our actions is concerning, then a revisit to theology is in order.
2. Speaking of, I ask you to revisit catholicism. Depending on which year was your childhood upbrining, there are some decades where chaticism education was lacking. For example, did you know that all sins are forgivable? Yep. Not a one that is not forgivable - or the better wordage is to be saved from.
This part relates to "you are not what you eat." Because within catholicism, there are multiple points where a person is not evil because of evil deeds. No one is wholly evil until that person enters hell. But how do we get there?
Well evil is the complete abscence of God. According to chaticism and various teachings, God allows us to choose Him. If we refuse Him, then we exist without Him. Heaven is our existence with God therefore hell is our existence without God.
the Catechism emphasizes the fact that hell is primarily eternal separation from God. As CCC 1033 says: “The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed.” It is absolute emptiness and isolation beyond anything we can fathom. The pains are quite real, quite literal, and consist of both the pain of loss and the pain of sense—i.e., they involve the body after the resurrection of the body. They “follow from the very nature of sin,” or they arise from the inside out, not from the outside in.
SO, how much has Christianity f people up? The answer is NONE. yep. None. For all possible depictions and examples are examples of human nature. From atrocities to war, these are individual human decisions that had been weighed by the individual according to the situation in front of them. The outcome was their own doing. Why?
We can not blame a system the at its core is about forgiveness and peace. If I kill you how may we claim that my religion which says "do not kill" is at fault? I am choosing to ignore my own religion/fait
Created: