Total posts: 222
Posted in:
he also talked to manafort and his lawyers while they were supposedly supposed to be cooperating in a plea agreement.
he also went out of his way to call and tell the media that he might pardon manafort.
this all is starting to look like obstruction. i agree it's much ado about pretty much nothing, but an actual crime is becoming apparent.
on the campaign finance violation, i heard that cohen is going to be charged with that, and the only way he could be found guilty is if trump did something illegal too. that is, i thought trump had the benefit of the doubt that he used his personal money to pay the women he had affair with to stay quiet, but if cohen is being charged, they must think something different.
Created:
i think the woman was legally justified but i dont think she did the best course of action. she should have told him to drop the weapon and surrender, or something like that. she has total control given she has the gun. i think plisken is describing reasonable action and i think dred has the less reasonable response, and is skirting around the direct answer he thinks she has the absolute right to shoot him, because the world is not so cut and dry
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what facts am i missing? that he kicked in the door? that does help the woman's case, but it's not a slam dunk, unless you think a person has an absolute right to shoot someone in the situation i described and that you posted.
it's a simple question... someone is in your house uninvited and has a weapon, do you have an absolute right to shoot them based on those basic details alone?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
is it your position that if someone goes into another person's house uninvited, and they have a weapon, that the homeowner has an absolute right to shoot that person if there are no other mitigating factors?
Created:
the law isn't that you can just shoot anyone who comes uninvited into your house. is it automatically justifiable to shoot them if they have a weapon? i wouldn't say so, but they do have a presumption in their favor. we don't know enough facts from the OP link to say whether it was justifiable, unless your argument is that it's automatic when they are uninvited and have a weapon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
i dont know if most gun control works, but gun control as a general concept tends to reduce homicide. keep in mind, where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review below. being a literature review makes this a lot more informing than just being a single study; we see the consensus forming. also included is a link to a poll of scientists but a literature review itself makes the claims even stronger scientifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you could just define in the law how fast the gun is allowed to be shot. if it shoots too fast, then it's banned. in any case it's just a matter of using creativity to do the best you can in outlawing certain types of gun contraptions.
there aren't a lot of people who die from machine gun type guns. they say only a few hundred people die from even assault rifles. but i'm sure the bulk of those deaths are from murders, and a tiny fraction from self defense use. in any case, the potential is always there, and even a smaller amount of lives is worth the effort.
we can't stop every person who might go against the law or circumvent it, but we can stop some people. beleive me, having machine guns or that sort of stuff just laying around makes a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
also just because people might try to find a way around restrictions doesn't mean we shouldn't try. there would be less people who end up doing it if we put hurdles in place. and, should we just get rid of the ban on machine guns just because some people will find their own way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you keep saying that bump stocks don't meet the definition of automatic weapons. but that's irrelevant. i'm not asking why the president or executive doesn't ban them based on existing law, i'm asking why congress doesn't ban them based on a new law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you ignored and deflected last time we had a debate on this, as did all the other gun nuts...
if there was a decent counter to the science i posted in this thread, someone would be quick to state it, even restate it. as it sits, they all deflect instead.
Created:
Posted in:
the idea of banning bump stocks enjoys broad public support. and it makes sense that if you are against machine guns that you would support a ban. but congress must be afraid of the people who don't support that ban. it seems like an obvious thing to do, cause the amount of times someone will go on a rampage dwarfs the number of times someone would need a machinegun for self defense. so, gun nuts, why do you not support a bump stock ban? do you also think machine guns should be legal>
Created:
do you think the incorporation theory is also asinine? that theory says the bill of rights are incorporated against the states on a case by case basis. protecting free speech for example, was originally a safeguard only against the feds. but the fourtteenth amendment i beleive it is allowed judges to say it applies against the states too.
i know some ultra conservatives are against incorporation, so i wouldn't rule it out when i come across people who are pretty conservative.
Created:
i understand the reservation in giving judges too much power, but it isn't inconceiveable that some judges might read the words "liberty" and "due process" and try to determine what those words mean to them.
originalism isn't necessarily foolproof. it encourages justices to take uncertainty of the past, and dress it up in the clothes of modern day republicans, at least when that's their political affiliation. here is a good article on that if you are interested...
i agree that the judges should use orginialism to the best of their ability, but at a certain point, it's just reading and interpreting to assign meaning to the words of the document, the most basic part of being a judge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
by your logic canada should build a wall to keep out americans, cause some of the americans who go there will commit crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
according to the creator of the confederate flag...
“As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race.” Also: “As a national emblem, it [the Confederate flag] is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race.”
Created:
Posted in:
left of center, but hardcore moderate generally
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what say you on this?
'A, or 'the', major problem we have five percent of patients that cause half our healthcare expenses. this could potentially be regulated by creating a "high risk" category in the industry, where reimbursement is lower. If we reduced that category of expense by half, we should reduce the overall cost of healthcare by a quarter. (think of the GDP numbers, instead of 18 percent, we'd be closer to other countries) Think of the bigger picture- the average that is spent on each of those patients is $40,000 per year. You could hire a doctor to take car of just five of them and his salary would be paid for. Trying to manage care like that is easier said than done though. So what happens is we end up having the healthcare industry milk each procedure and charge too much overall, just because they can"
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/september/8-facts-that-explain-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-american-health-care
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/september/8-facts-that-explain-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-american-health-care
Created:
take the no fly list. it's common sense that people on the no fly list shouldn't be able to have a gun. if you aren't safe enough to fly on a plane you aren't safe enough to have a gun. but the individual rights theory says you have to show, i believe, probable cause that they committed a crime or that they are dangerous. why isn't a 'reasonable suspicion' standard enough?
Created:
Posted in:
he fired comey and then, sessions. he said he's doing it because of the russia thing. i didn't think it was obstruction when it was just comey as maybe comey just didn't seem competent to trump or something. but now we are getting into territory where an investigation might actually be halted or impaired because of trump's direct action. that is starting to sound like obstruction which would warrant impeachment. like they say, only in washington can you be prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit. point being i dont think trump actually did anything illegal per russia, but the crime is in the process, the cover up, that sort of thing.
Created:
Posted in:
that it's so overblown is a great example, of trump being a demagogue
Created:
Posted in:
1. the mexicans coming here are criminals? actually, they commit less crime than most americans do. it'd make more sense for canada to say 'we don't want americans immigrating here because they're criminals'. would that sound right to you, as an american?
2. the wall makes sense? i mean if you can get it cheap, sure. but what is it really accomplishing? if we really wanted to stop them from stealing jobs, we'd enforce the rules about not hiring immigrants. as far as drugs go, most will just find ways to go around the wall and smuggle them in, so it won't make much of a difference. i mean, we might save money on deporting them, but that costs less than a billion dollars so you have to consider the time value of money. we'd save money on putting them in jail, but most of them being in jail for just being illegal isn't worth it. who cares if they are here if they aren't doing anything detrimental to us? i mean it does cost less than a bilion to put the criminal immigrants in jail, but this is more like people commit crime so we put them in jail. it isn't really something specific to immigrants necessarily. and again you have to consider the time value of money. so i conclude the wall is only worhtwhile if we can do it cheap enough.
3. obviously saying mexico would pay for the wall never made sense from the beginning despite his supporters eating it up. everyone's all but gave up on that pipe dream.
trump said he doesn't talk about how good the economy is during rallies as much because people get bored with it after not too long. they eat up the immigration stuff though, so he just dives right in and it explains how and why he over blows it all.
Created:
Posted in:
You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix...
'As for Friedman’s claim that keeping a gun out of someone’s hands won’t disincline them to commit murder, Cukier said, “The evidence doesn’t support that. Look at the numbers.” She went on to analyze homicide statistics from 2016: “If you look at the rate of murders not caused by guns and you compare Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, what you see is that it’s roughly the same in all four countries, although the U.S. rate is slightly higher,” Cukier said. In other words, in a scenario without guns, the four populations exhibit roughly similar rates of homicidal behavior.
That changes when you look at the rate of murders that were caused by guns. “As soon as you add guns into the mix, you see that the U.S. has six times the rate of gun murders as Canada has. And Canada has 15 times the rate of gun murders as the U.K., and four times the rate of Australia. It’s very clear that the difference in the murder rates between those countries is a function of the availability of firearms, period.”
That changes when you look at the rate of murders that were caused by guns. “As soon as you add guns into the mix, you see that the U.S. has six times the rate of gun murders as Canada has. And Canada has 15 times the rate of gun murders as the U.K., and four times the rate of Australia. It’s very clear that the difference in the murder rates between those countries is a function of the availability of firearms, period.”
bottom line that this and loads of scientific evidence points to: murder is more likely if there is a gun involved.
i think i did this debate before and saw only crackpot replies. i'll hold ya'll's feet to the fire this time.
i know sometimes evidence can be open to interpretation but i just don't see a good alternative theory here. maybe i'm missing something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
you think gun control has no effect on the murder rate, despite the scientific consensus, so don't talk to me about who is being willfully ignorant. plus all the loads of other corroborating evidence in that link
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
here are the facts when it comes to gun science
i think an AR might be better if you have many people coming at you, given you don't have to be as accurate and are more likely to kill them if you hit them. i dont see the advantages outweighing the disadvantages though, cause using a rifle in self defense like that is very rare compared to the times people go on a murderous rampage with them.
Created:
Posted in:
doesn't the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in keeping them legal?
where are the examples of where an AR15 was needed over a regular gun when it come to self defense? i dont think i've ever heard even a single instance.
all the time you hear of mass shooters going on rampages with them. killers blow holes in their victims that ensure nothing can be done with them, given how the bullets blow large holes and inflict much damage.
i've heard it both ways on whether the assault weopons ban was effective or not. i think most people say it wasn't effective but i also see that if you do the math yourself, it looks like people are more likely to use an AR15 in a murder than a regular gun. that's looking at how many deaths are caused by ar15s and looking at the total number of those guns out there.
Created:
both of the following websites show this to be true. the first link i just found recently and lays it out pretty good. the second link shows more on that, along with general information on gun control science and policy
what we see is the father: required registry of guns, were opposed to stand your ground laws, required safe gun storage practices, were opposed to open carry, instead of encouraging guns to oppose the government made people swear an oath to the government and be not be resisting slavery, be able to keep your gun,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
the only way you can say the second amendment protects an individual right to a gun regardless of a militia, is to spin your way into it with the word 'keep'. the phrase 'bear arms' always meant to use a gun in a militia, so that would be stretching it to use that phrase. it would be one thing if the founding fathers talked about the need for a gun for its own sake, but all they talked about was the need for a milita. so, the only way you can say there's a right to a gun, is to assume they added that right as an afterthought while writing the amendment. the most natural reading of the text take 'keep and bear arms' together, especially given the whole context of the amendment with the preface and 'bear arms' all have to do with a militia.
Created:
Posted in:
the people have the right to have a gun for a militia. that looks like the best reading of the text. it's noted that if they wanted the people to have the right to a gun without regard to the militia, they would have at least made mention of this at the constitutional convention. instead, all we see there is talk about the need for a militia. it's stretching it to say they added the word 'keep' and absolute right to a gun, as an after thought.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
did he make being armed dependent on a militia, or a militia dependent on bearing arms?
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite"
i guess he didn't say 'prerequisite', which would no doubt say people having guns is dependent on militias.
but what if there is no militia? couldn't we infer from him that there isn't necessarily a right to a gun?
here is a founding father who said the militia of the founding days can change...
" I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. "
it seems fair to say if there is no militia there is no right to a gun
Created:
what OP poster's argument boils down to is chicago is in bad shape cause we give poor people food. really? i doubt he knew that's what his argument amounted to though, cause he's only fifteen.
Created:
the idea of a run away welfare state is a myth.
the federal government doesn't spend much more than ten percent of its money on poor people. so to think they are destroying the country is misinformed. even what they do spend though isn't sending checks to welfare moms to live off the dole, so much. the most anyone is entitled to everywhere in the country is food stamps and education. if you're lucky to be in an obamacare state, you get healthcare too. cash money is limited depending on the state, and usually it's for a few years tops if you have unsupported kids. section 8 subsidized housing is rare and like winning the lottery for poor people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
i would say your link did a pretty good job arguing penal substitution with the fathers. i would say a lot of those you have to be careful in whether they are talking about whether Jesus was taking the consequences of our sin, or taking the penalty of our sin. but there are a few that strongly seem to say he's taking the penalty. i suppose all that conventional wisdom that christus victor was only theory might not be true for the early days. i'm not sure which theory is prevalent but i'd still suppose it's not penal substitution. and, we see great figures throughout history who couldn't come to agreement on it. at any rate you've done a great job giving me something to think about, so thanks for that.
Created:
Posted in:
i am a christian. i believe Jesus is the Messiah and the son of the living God as Peter said. Jesus is god and was raised from the dead. i believe in him and rely on him. i believe all the essentials that define 'christian'. except i'm a contrarian to mainstream western christianity on the atonement. i dont view the requirements of faith to be saved to be clear, but i think i meet the basics well enough. if you think the requirements are clear, i could debate you on that point.
i argue though that my atonement views are more orthodox though, and note that you have not shown much proof from the early church that the penal part of penal substitution is true.
i do respect the information you gave about goats. that to me says substitution might be true, or satisfaction, generally. not so sure about extending it to the penal substitution aspects though.
you are doing a fine job arguing overall, as i haven't met anyone as knowledgable as you on this. you made me realize that i may actually believe Anslem and general satisfaction... just not the later developed penal satisfaction.
i think you read too much into the verses you quote. even folks like me say it's accurate to say Jesus bore our sins, or that we are justified by his blood, or death... or that we are saved from God's wrath. we just don't say Jesus was penalized on our behalf to appease God's wrath.
my bottom line is that love conquers death. Jesus was perfect love, and thus merited death to be defeated, for him and his brotherhood. i usually call that christus victor, but it might be more like anslem after i think about it, as long as the penal stuff is removed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
i'll wait for you to show me where penal substitution exists in the early church. i know you can find some substutionary language, but it's not necessarily wrong to say christus victor has substitutionary elements in it. that is, he defeated death so that we can live. we can never defeat death as we are mere sinners. unlike you argue my point is, i dont think we can stand before god on our own merits.
this link distinguishes statisfaction theory with penal substituion.
i'm not sure i'm being accurate to say christus victor includes substitution. i think the way it's formulated, i don't see why not. the only thing i would insist upon, is that it's not a penal substittue. that idea is pagan in origin and has no basis in the early church.
the bible does say to hold fast to the early church teachings both in what is passed down and not just what is written
Created:
Posted in:
here is an illuminating article on the world propitiation...
"Propitiation is a word that in not in common use today. Proponents of Penal Substitution use it frequently, primarily referring to Romans 3:25
"(Christ Jesus) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"
This is the passage that Luther was struggling with in yesterday's post and begins with Paul's statement "Now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe". We saw that this righteousness "apart from law" was about God setting things right when we trust in him to work for us and in us. It involves a fundamental change in how we understand righteousness and justice, not as performance, but "apart from law" as something God does for sinners. But how does that work? All are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" but how did it come? In the next verse (3:25) Paul says it was through the cross. And here we find that word (at least in King James) "propitiation".
Propitiation literally means "to make favorable". It is similar to words like appeasement (Lit "to make peace") and Pacify (again to bring peace). However with all of these the context is placed on the idea of turning aside another's wrath usually through a gift or offering. The immediate difficulty with such as idea is that God does not need to be "made favorable" since he is the initiator of reconciliation. God is the one who "first loved us". It is vital to note that virtually no major proponent of Penal Substitution sees the cross as God's favor being purchased through sacrifice (which is what propitiation means) since this represents a pagan idea of sacrifice. John Stott writes that propitiation "does not make God gracious...God does not love us because Christ died for us, Christ died for us because God loves us" (The Cross of Christ p.174) Calvin writes "Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us"(Institutes II 16:4)
Secondly, since it is God who makes the propitiation this amounts to "God paying God". You cannot propitiate yourself any more than you can steal from yourself or bribe yourself. What it amounts to is a word being stretched beyond the breaking point until it no longer fits. Propitiation is a concept that comes from a pagan understanding of the sacrifices where the sacrifice purchased the gods favor and humor. That is not the case here since it is God who makes the offering of himself.
So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? The original Greek word is hilasterion. Hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Luther in his translation of the Bible renders Hilasterion as "Gnadenstuhl" which is German for Mercy Seat. In context this means that "God has set forth Jesus as the mercy seat (the place where atonement and expiation happen) through faith in his blood". Jesus is thus "the place where we find mercy". Many new translations render Hislateron for this reason as "expiate" because the Temple Sacrifices to not have an element of appeasing of wrath in them and thus this seems to be a more fitting translation if it refers to the Mercy Seat in the Temple. Expiation literally means "to make pious" (similar to sanctify) and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.
The idea of propitiation includes that of expiation as its means. We are "made favorable" (propitiation) when our sin is removed (expiation). The problem is not that God is unwilling or unloving (propitiation), but that our sin causes a real break in relationship. As with any relationship, that break must be mended. This is what expiation refers to. Expiation is about cleaning or removing of sin and has no reference to quenching God's righteous anger. The difference is that the object of expiation is sin, not God. Grammatically, one propitiates a person, and one expiates a problem. You cannot expiate (remove) a person or God, nor can one propitiate (make favorable) sin. Christ's death was therefore both an expiation and a propitiation. By expiating (removing the problem of) sin God was made propitious (favorable) to us. Again not because God then suddenly loved us, but because the break in the relationship was mended.
Theologians stress the idea of propitiation because it specifically addresses the aspect of the atonement dealing with God's wrath. Leon Morris for instance argued for the translation of "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 because he said the thrust of Paul in Romans up til then had been on God's wrath. This is true. However the way that that wrath was dealt with was not though the anger of God being pacified through a gift (propitiation) but rather though God actually solving the problem by removing our sin as a doctor remove3s a cancer (expiation) thus making us "right".
Given then that virtually no proponent of Penal Substitution uses the word propitiation (or appeasement) as it is actually defined in English, it seems a bad word to use that leads to a false understanding of God as one who demands to be paid before he will love us rather than a God who pays what he does not owe because he loves us so much and gives his own life for us. God is not "made favorable" to us through a gift, rather God makes us favorable by giving his life."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
all the quotes you use could be used for 'christus victor' too. we believe Jesus died for our sins. we just don't believe he died to replace us in appeasing God's wrath, penal substitution.
if your theory is so orthodox, why isn't it ever talked about in the early church? it was invented by st anslem a thousand years after Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
she said if all you are doing is portraying as a character someone who is black, and you have no ill will, then it isn't racist or wrong to do blackface. the main reason this is true is because there is no racist intent. in fact, it's more racist to make things that are not racist into racist problems where they don't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
penal substitution says that God needed an infinite method of having his wrath placated. the only method that is possible, the theory goes, is Jesus dying. his death means you don't have to die as your sins are "covered".
the problem with this idea is that it didn't originate until a thousand years after Jesus and has little basis in the bible. during the early church, the language christians used is called "christus victor". Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, is the essence of the idea. i like to say love conquers death. anyone belonging to the brotherhood is also saved from death. so, penal substitution isn't orthodox.
what about old testament sacrifices, were they to appease God's wrath? nope. they were a means of saying "i dedicate what i have to you, and turn myself over to you". here is a good quote that shows the true basis for old testament sacrifices and how it ties to Jesus' sacrifice.
"In all of the sacrifices, the central theme is not appeasement, but representational consecration. That is, symbolically through the offering the worshiper says “this offering represents my giving to you my life”, or as you might hear in a love song "God I belong to you, here is my heart". It is not a statement of placation (as if God needed to be bribed into loving us), but an act of devotion, entrusting oneself to God, giving your life into God's hands. In the case of the thanksgiving and first fruits offerings it means that all that we have comes from God and so with these first fruits we acknowledge that it all belongs to God. The passover offering was about the birth of the people of Israel and marked the time of the exodus of God's people out of bondage, so the passover offering was about committing and aligning oneself on God's side against oppression. Finally along with all the other sacrifices the sacrifice of atonement for sin was saying “Here is my life, I want to live it for you Lord. I die to the sinful in me and give my life to you”.
In the same way blood was sprinkled to dedicate the temple, and dedicate the law to God. This was the case with the Passover sacrifice which originated as the people marked their house door showing their allegiance with God, consecrating their house as belonging to the Lord. Thus Jesus when he connects his death with the Passover speaks of a “Covenant” being established by his blood “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Lk22:20). It was the sealing of a promise, like signing a contract in blood. We can see here that whether a sin offering, or a thanks offering, or a dedication that in every case there is the common theme of consecration – dedicating to God. This sense of consecration is conveyed in the Latin root of the word “sacrifice” which means “to make sacred” or "to consecrate". We give ourselves, our lives, our need, our thanks, our allegiance to God vicariously through the ritual of sacrifice.
There is here the aspect of identification with the animal – you bring a part of yourself to the altar, in many cases laying a hand on the animal's head before it is slaughtered. Specifically in the case of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement we can see also an aspect of transference as the scapegoat was sent off bearing the sin away (Lv 16:21-22). And as previously mentioned there is here a clear aspect of vicarious atonement specifically with the sin offerings - that animal that died was you. The consecration here meant that the sinner brought their broken life to the altar Yet in all of this the writers of the Old Testament are emphatic that the main object of sacrifice is not about a mechanical transaction detached from relationship, but the outward ritual effecting inner change, devotion, and repentance. As David says
“Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean wash me, and I will be whiter than snow...Create in me a pure heart, O God..." (Ps 51:7,10)
David's prayer here is that the outward cleansing of the hyssop would go down and cleanse his inmost being. God, David says, is not interested in outward actions, but in the state of his heart. This is a relational exchange not a legal one.
"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it. You do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps 51:16-17)."
Created:
Posted in:
here is a link with working links for the stuff below
theists cant show things that look supernatural, but theists can
first cause per God is merely a philosophical problem and is the most likely scenario
=======
there are credible people in respectable positions of science who believe in exorcisms. there are credible people who say of things that look supernatural.
"Dr. Richard Gallagher is an Ivy League-educated, board-certified psychiatrist who teaches at Columbia University and New York Medical College. He was part of the team that tried to help the woman.
Fighting Satan's minions wasn't part of Gallagher's career plan while he was studying medicine at Yale. He knew about biblical accounts of demonic possession but thought they were an ancient culture's attempt to grapple with mental disorders like epilepsy. He proudly calls himself a "man of science."
Yet today, Gallagher has become something else: the go-to guy for a sprawling network of exorcists in the United States. He says demonic possession is real. He's seen the evidence: victims suddenly speaking perfect Latin; sacred objects flying off shelves; people displaying "hidden knowledge" or secrets about people that they could not have possibly have known."
"Gallagher agrees and has answers for skeptics like Novella.
He says demons won't submit to lab studies or allow themselves to be easily recorded by video equipment. They want to sow doubt, not confirm their existence, he says. Nor will the church compromise the privacy of a person suffering from possession just to provide film to skeptics."
more doctors discussing this from a scientific perspective
here is the leading proponent doctor giving an example of a 'true' possession
=======
evidence of the objective nature of NDEs:
people literally die and come back to tell us of the afterlife and God. it's hard to get much more straightforward than that.
NDEs of atheists
-most atheists meet a divine being and more than half of them come back believing in God. reading the examples at nderf.org seems to make one think almost all of them do. there is some decent arguments that NDEs can be somewhat subjective sometimes, but the fact that athesists dont just see an afterlife without God is significant.
of course NDEs of agnostics and theists involve this stuff too
out of body experiences
-the AWARE studies show people who have cardiac arrest and are resusitated. they die, experience the afterlife, and come back to tell about it. the first study showed someone experiencing both visual and auditory ability while clinically dead through an out of body experience. more studies are being done.
-one peer reviewed study showed someone who died reading numbers on a page while out of body, and that would only be possible otherwise if they guessed the numbers randomly and correctly.
-"In a little over 40 percent of my surveys, NDE"rs observed things that were geographically far from their physical body, that were way outside of any possible physical central awareness. Typically, someone who has an NDE with an out-of-body experience comes back and reports what they saw and heard while floating around, it"s about 98 percent accurate in every way. For example, in one account someone who coded in the operating room had an out-of-body experience where their consciousness traveled to the hospital cafeteria where they saw and heard their family and others talking, completely unaware that they had coded. They were absolutely correct in what they saw."
-there is the testimony of thousands of credible people who have died and told others what they were doing when dead, affirmed by both the dead person and the person observed. often concerning reliable witnesses like doctors. there are books dedicated to giving examples. a common example is pam reynolds, who accurately described the surgical equipment that was used while she was dead, and was said to not have been available while she was awake and not something a normal person would know.
consistency argument
'near death experiences' are consistent globally
-the near death experience happens to everyone in very similar ways. this even happens to people who have never heard of the phenomenon and to kids. to suggest that there is a story embedded in our brain is far fetched.
seems more real than real
"we ask that as a very direct survey question: What do you currently believe about the reality of your experience? And of about 590 NDE responders, 95 percent say the experience was definitely real with the other options being probably real, probably not real, and definitely not real. So among those that have these experiences, virtually everybody knows that it was a real thing. It"s just much harder to believe for those of us who have never had one. Seeing is believing. If you don"t personally have a near-death experience, which is again a blessing"obviously these people nearly died"it"s hard to understand these unearthly experiences."
non-hallucinatory
-there is nothing that reproduces the NDE and the closest drug that can like ketamine you can draw marked differences between that and the authentic experience. mostly by noting most ketamine and drug induced experiences are random, but NDEs again are consistent.
here is a load of scientific evidence produced from NDEs:
Created:
a key plus of that would be that the reimbursement to doctors would be less and there are less administrative costs (the main reason it's cheaper in other countries), and whether to take the option or be a doctor for those on the option... is totally optional. the existing healthcare system can remain for anyone who wants it. there will be obstacles in this process as perhaps the reimbusement should be higher, or there should be more doctors or RNs to service those on that program. or maybe there should be copays and deductibles for those who make enough to pay for it. all these kinks can be worked out as they come. the bottom line though, beyond the details, is that some sort of medicaid public option should exist in the usa.
here are some links arguing for public options of some kind.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
do unlimited things exist? isnt God unlimited as is usually thought? is he only maximal? if so can it be measured as if finite?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
isn't it all about priorities? the funds i'm proposing are extremely minor in the bigger scheme of things.
we could probably even do things i'm proposing with the aid money we have now but only spent more wise..... i can't see a reason you'd oppose that?
i guess you can legit argue we spend too much, but that doesn't mean we can't spend more on things that matter, or get spending better in line and then spend that aid money i'm proposing. society and a lot of us have decided that no every ill problem that affects the usa citizens needs to be addressed. so just because there will always be problems with our citizens doesn't mean we can't help other countries too. humanity doesn't have a border.... massive problems elsewhere trump more minor problems here.
Created:
Posted in:
we should be cautious due to mental illness and how pot can cause that. schizophrenia and such. i think using pot doubles the risk a person will experience that illness. so in a sense it's a lot cause it's double the risk, but on the other hand, i think it's only like one percent of people who will get that doubled risk and happen to them.
i mean if you dont care about stopping people from hurting themselves that's one thing. but i dont support legalizing all drugs and feel that sometimes people need to be saved from themselves.
i would probably legalize it because of how few people are badly affected. but it should be done with caution, and if we need more time to verifty the things i'm saying, then we can wait to make it nationally legal until the states are used as labs.
Created:
christus victor is a theory of atonement that says love concquers death, and that Jesus in dying defeated death and sin for mankind. this is in contrast to the penal substitution model which says that God needs an infinite sacrifice to apprease his wrath and the only sacrifice that can do that, is Jesus dying.
if you read the bible carefully, both theories are plausible. academics say penal substitution didn't even start until anslem and a thousand years after Jesus. before that, christus victor language was used and understood.
yet, when you read a lot of 'sinner's prayers' and baiscs about what must be beleived to be saved, a lot of times it has somehting to do with that sacrifice that is put in terms of Jesus taking our punishment. at least half the time noteably there isn't that jargon. no sinners praryers or ideas of what must be believed in faith to be saved, is the same.
did the early church just not understand it? are those who believe in christus victor condemned? are they at least just wrong?
what say you?
Created:
i wanted him to be nominated. if i have to choose between roe or no roe, i say no roe. but they are mishandling the claims. consider
1 she passed a lie detector.
2 they can give him a lie detector. in both scenarios no matter the outcome no one will really know if they are accurate. but if the tests are consistent on whether he did it or not, that's pretty big.
3. she wants an investigation. all it takes is three days to conduct one, as occurred with anita hill.
these are points i didn't know until i decided to look into them more. head line news is poor at giving the low down. as is usually the case, when i'm taking the republican stance, it's because i lack education on the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
i was reading some arguments on the internet that were interesting stated i suppose like ethan's: my hybrid chicken produces the first chicken, yet we know a parent is the same species as offspring. so what we are left with is hybrid is the same species as first and first is the same species as current, yet my argument makes hybrid and current not the same species. so i'm basically saying an animal can be two species at once. i suppose given the transitory nature of species, that's just the way it is: an animal has enough attribtutes to be called one species, yet it has enough to be called another too. it's an interesting point of logic, but if you are forced to define chicken, id argue my definition is best.... all the argument i mentioned amounts to is a curious point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
either you accept my definition of chicken as laid out in the opening post, or you don't. where is your cut off for chickens in their lineage? if there is a cut off, and i would argue there has to be, my arguments stand.
Created:
Posted in:
the first chicken came from a hybrid chicken, which could mate with both chickens and pre chickens.
Created: