n8nrgim

He's back, let the trump bashing begin again 

I have the book that has the science in my room... I'll get back to you on more details

That's not a credible authority as a website. Also I realize your explanation might explain some incorruptibles I'm skeptical if it explains all of them. If u want confirmation that skeptics might have some basis to be skeptical then u got it. Ive seen studies that conclude a certain body has been investigated by science with no way of showing a natural explanation. I don't have this study and can't verify for sure the science. I guess all we can do is retreat to our asdumptions

There r some Marian apparitions that looked supernatural, such as the one in Egypt or Fatima etc

you've been presented tons of times with hard science that indicates we are more than elaborate flesh robots. you reject that science, with irrational reasons. then lack common sense, and conclude to yourself that we can't even know if we are more than elaborate flesh robots. you are a special kind of lost in your own twisted logic. 

there's also the incorruptible bodies of dead saints, that take a long time to rot. skeptic claim it's things like adipocere and good conditions to prevent rotting, but believers say this has been studied scientifically and no explanations given. if skeptics can assume that's wrong, i can assume it's right. maybe my standard of proof of just believing the proponents isn't adequate, but it looks good enough for me. 

Google the logical argument, "argument from the absurd". It's absurd to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots 

There's also something to be said about the inexplicable origin of life, especially human consciousness 

It's also kinda stupid to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots

It should be added that the atheists that don't become theists with ndes just gained no special knowledge of god

There's also something to be said about letting certain things slide. St paul said as Christians we have to learn to let things slide. 

The nonviolent resistance thing is a good point too.

There's not enough to go on that self defense isn't at least an option sometimes but like Jesus we have the option to let it all slide as a sacrifice out of love

If there's a train going at 5 and all u have to do is pull a lever where it changes course and kills only 1... it's immoral not to pull the lever even tho ur action resulted in someone's death

It's based on Judeo christian but to call it that is just playing with words. I think there were lots of antagonist figures in the past before chirtianity. There's even religions that look a lot like Christianity before it that skeptics could say its based on

I always thought debateart was a lame name but it's hard thinking of another. 

Debatecentral? I dunno

I think they boil down to whether the ends don't justify the means, or whether proportionalism is moral. I think dogmatism goes too far with trolley problems and things like terrorists and torture and abortion etc

u do have a good point, that it's certainly plausible biblically and historically to argue penal substitution. but it's fair for me to criticize other christians and state why i think my theories are better. as i said, penal substitution is rooted in paganism, and it wasn't very established until st anslem wrote about a thousand years after jesus. i would also point out, that the old testament passages you point to, could just basically say a scapegoat or jesus bearing our sins, is when he deafeats our sin and death, he bore the sins of the world on him, even in my theory. i admit there's a certain 'pure logic' to penal substitution, i just dont think with my spiritual eyes that it's what God intends. i realize a lot of the other atonemnt theories are hard to rationalize as right, but recapitulation seems pretty solid as a christus victor model. i understand my love conquers death point isn't very established within christianity as a central tenant of atonement, but it's always been part of every theory of atonemnt. if st anslem can break ground a thousand years after jesus, there's no reason i can't break ground two thosuand years after jesus. i think a skeptic would argue the jesus atonemnt thing just doesn't make sense, and all us christains trying to come to terms with it and being scattershot with it, just shows we're 'rationalize' something that dont make sense. but i prefer thinking with spirtual eyes and biblically... and as i said, it's fair for me to say why i think my or our version of  atonement is better. this is a debate website, after all. 

i think your argument is somewhat formidable in the USA, at least to the point that maybe the minimum wage should be something like 10 bucks or what it is now.... just that we should have one i think is hard for you to argue against. 

i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. you did a good job arguing your case. you are a smart and capable and fun sparring partner. if we were arguing free v fair trade, i would be a lot more likely to insist on my ideas of fair trade, cause laissez faire free trade would necessarily lead to 'a race to the bottom' given that there is effectively an infinite labor pool globally. 

You keep harping on the consent of the worker, but that doesn't remove exploitation, because if there's effectively unlimited labor or subpar workers, it's easy to take advantage. I know we're talking about minimum wage but this is especially true with fair trade globally.

You ask if I can do better than what it seems to be best to me. Neither of us can prove we're right, but I do have the history of the USA and the rest of the developed world who says minimum wage is good. I'm just sticking to what works and not allowing for your untested theory. If we had no minimum we know for a fact people would be expolited and we'd be outside of civilized society.

If mcdonalds sells something for 2 bucks, they r maximizing profit. They can't just ask for more money to make up for a minimum wage... they'd be forced to cut their workers in on profit. It is true that wages in aggregate can effect prices but only at the margins, not at the levels I'm proposing.

Not everyone can unionize etc.

I accept u have a point that paying decent 10 and having two unemployed could morally be argued with. I just disagree that it's worse, it's a principle. Plus if the wage works the way I hope then in the aggregate people won't lose their be unemployed to begin with. It might cause shifts in employment and the market tho

N8nrim and my former account n8nrgmi... innate energy am i. I could have left the mi part off but I want it to be the same as other websites and apparently I'm not the first to have thought of n8nrg

Innate energy 

So if u believe in penal substitution... do you think God punished Jesus on our behalf? I think it'd intuitively not sit right with a lot of Christians to say God punished Jesus. If you don't view it as punishing, how do you distinguish to say he wasn't punished but yet was our penal substitute? 

Googles ai intelligence says there's no consensus on if Jesus was a scapegoat. It depends on how u define scapegoats. Eastern Christians and the various theories of atonement of course allow for bloody sacrifice but the meaning varies by regions and by theories etc

I think it's possible to look at Jesus's death beyond scapegoats. A proper understanding of sacrifice is offering one's gifts, ones first fruit. Bloody sacrifices with the intent to substitute one's own sins is rooted in paganism.... bloody sacrifices with the intent of offering a gift is not pagan. Intent matters. As I said the bible says burnt offerings and such r not what matter, it's a heart matter. Yes Jesus death was substitution in that he defeated sin and death on our behalf and was a sacrifice of himself, the greatest act of love. 

Bloody sacrifices boil down to intent and proper understanding 

i think belief in reincarnation is growing among christians. the catholic church taught against it, and there's that bible verse that says something like 'we're appointed to die once, and then the judgment'. so that's why christians dont believe in it. i think it's being too literalistic, and i think considering it's so common with NDE type of people, and that there's good science behind it... it only makes sense to be open to the idea 

Yea but do u agree that literally the bible says we no longer have a legal relationship with God? There's not a lot in the new testament about it, but that verse I quoted said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Western Christianity hangs everything on that point, legal atonement, but it don't seem biblical so far as I can tell

There's often people who come back from the dead.... they're dead or hours or days, as far as we know anyway, and still come back despite that it's inexplicable. Often there r stories of those in a morgue waking up. Or someone under water for half an hour. Granted it's very rare for a Christian to pray and bring someone back or at least the stories that we know of, and the stories r usually nde related... but it's not unheard of for extended dead to come back to life

a better argument you guys could make is that instead of fifteen, it should be closer to the average wage historically. or the average wage internationally. or the maximum wage internationally, which is closer to 14. of course, this would require you to accept that there should be a wage to begin with, instead of just being outside of civilized society and arguing there should be no minimum wage. there are other ways to argue for you guys, better ways, but instead ya'll are just being weak AF.

I think u said that u r the type that believes miracles have ceased for humanity? That u use the verse where st paul describes love and how everything will cease except for love. Is this still your view? U seem open to the idea of miracles

Besides the academic work on reincarnation at the university of Virginia, here is a book with documented examples of people verifying details of past lives.

As usual, skeptics can't attack this stuff on the merits, so they resort to denying it and contortions into illogical arguments 

Jesus said greater love has nothing greater than this, to lay down his life for his friends. Jesus made one of these greatest sacrifices one can make... that's also central to a proper understanding of atonement

Again I'm arguing past precedent. U on the other hand r just being ridiculous

Also I googled it, and only 12 percent of the workforce makes less than 15 right now. Maybe I'm wrong and 15 isn't the sweet spot, but paying 12 percent of workers more isn't going to break the market, it's just giving a raise to the bottom and those toward the bottom. Plus I'd rather 10 get paid decent with two unemployed than for all 12 to be expoited

You are doing good at showing me the theories that say a wage increase is bad. I showed my theories that say a balance is needed, cause no minimum wage is exploitative plus also bad for our economy. I can't say for sure what the best wage set should be, just that it seems that there should be one, and that past precedent shows what has worked before. You r just arguing theory... I'm arguing theory plus using past precedent. Your theory lacks real world application, it's just theory. Which is a recurring issue that always arises with libertarianism. (That is, back to the idea that there r no successful libertarian countries) so that should be said too... minimum wage is standard in the developed world too.

Plus supply and demand determines prices, not wages primarily. Mcdonalds sells things for 2 dollars cause that's where it maximizes profit. To some extent, wages affect prices, but its predominately supply and demand. And if u look at the industry standards, walmart and mcdonalds, they're already starting around 14 an hour. This is all within current territory anyway is what I'm getting at. Making it 15 is just setting the floor, setting a standard.

The recapitulation theory is part of the broader christus Victor theory, the dominant view of the early church

That link has some atonment theories. I think my love idea is in all of them, but mostly the recapitulation theory. I think most would focus on the obedience of Jesus, and that's fair, but I would just as much emphasize God love conquering sin and death

See my last post on why I don't arbitrarily say the minimum should be 25 or whatever

Yes it will cause inflation, but it will disproprtionately help those in minimum wage territory, which is the point. Some conservatives say increasing the minimum wage is pointless cause inflation will offset it... but that's irrational. The only way a wage increase would be pointless is if everyone's wage was increased artificially. 

My theory is that if the minimum wages of the past was good enough for our country and the country still prospered, it's good enough for us now too at that rate. Notice I'm basing it on past precedent, not arbitrarily picking a number that I like.

A decent wage is good for those workers and stimulates our economy and overall job growth, even if some businesses cant handle it. Lowering our minimum would be bad for stimulating our economy and bad for overall job growth. Its counterintuitive to say lowering the wage is bad for job growth... but the masses of people r stuck down there, and their aggregate effect effects business output and thus jobs. Some businessess will expoit our working class if the wage is lowered and gain us some jobs, but the overall effect is bad for our ecomomy. We need a balance and past precedent is the best way to make that determination. 

i often associate you with bernie sanders type of voters, is why i make the points in the last post . 

a year ago bernie sanders said he thought 17 an hour was a good idea, or maybe more. i actually thought that by now he'd want it to be a lot higher, given in 2016 he thought 15 was good. i wonder what his current thought is? 

at a certain point, it just boils down to some things are the way they are... just cause that's the way they are. we grow out of turmoil... could we grow without turmoil? maybe, i dunno. i know love that overcomes something is made to be refined. difficult people and situations help us grow. why is it that way? because free will and love require it, to be made pure. if you keep asking why, though, it boils down to 'that's just the way it is'. same way, when jesus chose not to fight back, he conquered sin and death. he was attacked by it, just like us ordinary humans are. he overcame struggle, just like us humans. God wanted jesus to be like us, and it's a certain poetic. and like the overcoming turmoil thing... if you keep asking why, the ultimate answer is 'that's just the way it is'. answers are given to you constantly... you just dont like the answers. the bible says God's ways are above our ways, and God's ways are foolishness to the world. that doesn't mean God's ways are wrong. 'let God be true though every man a liar". 

i dont like penal substitution theory. i dont like the idea that we have a legal relationship with God. i dont like that the point is to satisfy God's wrath and blood lust. i dont like scapegoats. it's based in paganism and isn't biblical other than as a possible interpretation. so, i prefer 'christus victor' theory, with my focus on god's love conquering sin and death. 

We reached a milestone this year... in 1974, the minimum wage was 2 bucks per hour. The average inflation per year has been 4.13 percent since then. That means, if the wage kept up with inflation, it'd be 15.13 today. So considering that I've always said our minimum wage should be the same as the 1970s, after all these years my position is officially that the minimum wage should be 15 bucks.

i wrote the colassions quote in the post before my last one. per the legal requirements being nailed to the cross. 

It ain't so much that blood lust satisfies God. It's that sin and death, took down Jesus, as Jesus chose not to fight back, and divine love brought him back to life

Colossians 2:13

The bible does say that Jesus dying prevented God's wrath, but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath.

The bible does say that Jesus dying prevented God's wrath, but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath.

I think that instead of us having a legal relationship with God to appease God's wrath, we have a parent child relationship to magnify God's love. The relationship is like the prodigal son.

The bible said Jesus nailed any legal requirements to the cross. Literally, instead of saying we have a legal relationship with God then like is said in western Christianity, we no longer have a legal relationship with him.

There r verses that say Jesus became sin for us, and by his wounds we r healed. But these just mean that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice. Love wouldn't let Jesus die, Jesus conquered sin and death with his sacrifice. He could have engaged in the Christian doctrine of self defense, but he chose to offer himself instead. The Bible days the spirit that rose Jesus from the dead lives in us and will raise us from the dead. We are adopted children of God and brothers of Jesus when we believe in Jesus and try to do his will.

This is basically, christus Victor atonement instead of penal substitution. Christie Victor was the predominate view in the early church, the other was minority view. Penal substitution is also based in paganism, a blood sacrifice on a technicality, instead of a sacrifice of first fruit, an offering of ones gifts in sacrifice. The bible says god takes no pleasure in burnt offerings but prefers gifts of the heart. Of course, they usually talked in terms of ransom, I think, so me saying love conquers death as central might be heretical or not pure doctrine. My ideas are present in all forms of atonment historically, just not formally.

i use two unconventional proofs for god. one is healing miracles, i dont see the kinds of miracles that happen to theists happen to atheists, or even non christians honestly, despite looking for that evidence and asking around. i realize that just because we dont see it, doesn't mean it's not there, but this is still significant. 

the other one is that the large majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it's irrational to say there's no evidence for the afterlife, when you get into the science of NDEs, and the credibility of NDEs lend credbility to all the atheists that convert. it's also been objectively studied that christian NDEs happen at a much greater rate than non christian themed NDEs... such that jesus is a common component of these experiences. nonchristian themes are very rare, and hard to quantify or qualify, and open to interpretation, and might be unreliable. 

there's all the philosophical arguments for God, such as the design argument and the causality argument. these are best kept at the level of philosophy but dont get much beyond just corroborating the God theory. 

in fact, all these points could be said to be just consistent with God, and if you wanted to split hairs, not evidence. a skeptic on this site made that point once, is this more about evidence or just 'consistent with the God theory but not evidence'. but with the miracle and NDE point, it's majorly lacking in common sense to stay atheist.

Do u honestly look at trump voters and think they are just as smart and educated? I mean even if they r not formally educated, they could still be just as educated. 

I think u r good at giving opposing theories but r lacking the common sense part, the sniff test so to speak.