n8nrgmi

it seems to me that i see miracle happening to christians, but not much to muslims. i see near death experiences with christian content, but none with islamic content. this sort of stuff should bother you. 

i believe Jesus is my savior, i believe he is lord and that he rose from the dead. i believe all the bible definitions of what it means to be chrisitan. if you dont buy it, that means, you must not be the christian. or, more likely, you're a heretic. 

the story of noah contradicts science.... you can't give reasonable or scientific explanations for it... try these questions out...

taking the story of noah as true is admirable only for those new to the faith or children. for adults or those knowledgable, it becomes heresy to take the story of noah as literal. it's putting religion before the truth, and above God. 

i was looking for detailed verses. here is an explanation at reconciling jesus' birth. you didn't give details so i won't either by breaking it down for you....

the people in the new testament acted like the story of noah was a real event. the bible doesn't take the story as figurative, that's why so many fundamnetalists don't either. but the story contradicts science, so it's a myth. 

1 Peter 3:20, KJV: "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

here are verses that say jesus is God

this link has examples of miracles occurring. it has evidence of people seeing things out of their body while dead, through experiments and anecdotal evidence of credible people. you have no reasonable explanation for why there's such a consistency with near death experience stories... if it was just a hallucination it wouldn't be like that. to suggest there's a story embedded in our brain or genes is stupid and far fetched. 

please show me a smoking gun bible contradiction. i'm pretty sure i'll be the one to show you how it's not. 

i stopped watching after he evaded the question about people outside the militia age limits. he just said old people had guns too, but didn't say what gave them the right to a gun if they were in a militia. what about public officials who weren't in militia or people outside the age limits or priests and people like that? half the country wasn't in the militia after all. 

i had one request. show me evidence of those outside the militia having a right to a gun. you failed that test. 

it'd also be much better to write a short statement or cite something in writing, instead of a convoluted video. 

i do beleive people have a God given right to self defense, and most of the time that involves a run. i just dont think it's in the constitution, and it's not best to put it there like that. 

"There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the peoplple, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

"From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."

how the NRA rewrote the second amendment 

show me one piece of evidence that someone outside the militia was entitled to a gun?  you can't do it as there's no evidence for that. 

george washington said people should be armed to be in a system that has a well regulated and organized and disciplined militia. most people aren't in a militia now, what gives?

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite"

no, the people have a right to a gun for a militia. the text means what it says. 

there's always someone who will find quotes from founders that are taken out of context or fraudulently altered to show something that wasn't there. but there's no evidence that someone outside of the militia was entitled to have a gun for self defense. i've had this debate with you many times, so i dont know why you stubbornly refuse to learn the truth. 

that link has plenty of examples of things to cut that anyone can find something they would cut. it also includes spending increase possibilities. for example, i am not fundamentally opposed to the head start program, but i dont think the end results are worth the cost. it's just a trumped up day care system in the end. 

you are correct that social safety net policies are socialist policies. but you can't say that it's a socialist system. just because you have a few socialist policies, in a capitalist system, doesn't mean we support socialism. we support some socialism. that's a more accurate way to describe it. a capitialist system with socialism for a basic social safety net. 

i really dont know if i would support war with iran to take nukes they already have. 

you are incorrect, and you are distorting history 

i like the current set up of government, the feds. im status quo. i mean, wed have to find things to cut, such as the head start program which is basically just day care in the end analysis. i also dont support anyone paying over half their taxes to the government. the status quo though unless you have kids or are lucky, is you get healthcare, food stamps, and education taken care of by the government if you need it. that's all a homeless man might get in this country usually. healthcare and food and a means of making a living, is a human right, 

i'm not sure if id be for war with iran if they already have nukes. only to stop them from getting them. 

univeral healthcare isn't socialist. healthcare is a human right in a country like the usa. socilism is when you redistribute money to everyone and have almost all human needs taken care of by the government. if all you do is give people food stamps healthcare and education, which is all a homeless man here might be lucky to have, that's not socialism, it's just a basic social safety net. 

i think the government isn't always incompetent. if every other country can provide healthcare to everyone, usually with better wait times than we have, and costing half as much, i think it's presumptive that we could comptently provide healthcare to everyone. if every other country can do it, the burden is on those who say the government is too incompetent to show why we are different. 

i dont think it's necessary to define socialist, just look it up in the dictionary. warren is more liberal and i guess you could say more socialist, but she doesn't call herself one which is signficant, and she at least on student loans has limits on paying everyone debt, unlike bernie. 

there are many things that can be done to reduce gun murders with gun control. but i think you are concerned about how it may violate the second amendment. the thing is, even conservatives violate the second amendment the way they want exceptions for machine guns and grenade launchers and such. i think it's best instead of reading any infringement as violating the second amendment, to read any 'reasonable' infringement violates the second amendment. that's the way the first amendment is treated by courts too. another way to approach the amendment is to read 'well regulated militia' to mean we can have guns well regulated. i agree this argument isn't historical, in that well regulated actually means 'well functioning'.... but this argument makes as much sense as conservatives saying 'bear arms' means to carry arms when the evidence shows that's almost never what it meant historically.... the phrase meant to have a gun in a militia. i would say if conservatives can distort the amendment, i'm not below distorting it too. 

but the bigger way to get around the conservative reading of the amendment is just to reject it as the least reasonable and least historical. im for originalism in the constitution, and if the framers wanted people outside of the militia to have guns for self defense, they certainly would have said that somewhere. all their emphasis was on having militias.also as i said, bear arms historically meant have guns in militas. and, if you read 'keep and bear' as one phrase instead of two, it reads you should keep guns to bear them. i mean, i never hear people say they have the right to 'keep' arms, but the only plausible way for conservatives to win the argument is to make that statement, instead of saying they have the right to 'bear arms'. 

i think the debt should be forty percent of GDP, that's how big the government should be. that's the historical average of how much debt we've had, and is the number proposed by committee for a responsible budget which is a non partisian budget group that is well respected. 

is there a quick way to quote and reply to each part of a person's response? that doesnt involve copy and pasting and such?

i do not support war with iran except to prevent them getting a nuke. ive backed away from backing trump from getting out of the nuke deal, because most of iran's terrorism backing was plausible self defense and interest and didn't really affect the usa as much. 

i support limiting abortions and reducing spending like republicans do. 

warren is worse because she supports everything sanders does except she also wants universal child care. sanders might support that but never says he does, but if he did i'd support warren because she puts restraint on student loan discharges and isn't a socialist. we need fiscal restraint, again.

trump is worse than hillary because the biggest issue facing the country is runaway health spending, and that issue trumps generic economic arguments because it's the biggest economic argument. illegal immigration is blown out of proportion by trump, and it's actually the liberal position to not want free trade. i can kind of understand blue collar workers wanting trump to protect their jobs, but overall trump's bad qualities are worse. trump will also get rid of mercury and air pollution among other environmental problems. literally, many of trump's policies will result in human death. 

so yes i support public healthcare, and yes that is the biggest thing we can fix to help society. 

the problem with the federal government is that liberals and conservatives can only agree to borrow more money. they can't get enough consensus to get the deficit under control. a natural compromise would be to cut spending for conservatives while raising taxes for liberals. of course those conservatives who signed pledges never to raise taxes are hurting the country with their uncompromising ways. 

i would support that measure. who disagrees and why?

do you have any evidence of miracles happening to muslims in recent time? do you have any evidence of near death experiences with content that verifies islam in recent time? 

why does your church choose to ignore the early evidence that the pope is the leader? why should mistakes on the part of the catholic church trump christian unity? or, do you think the two churches should reconvene with pope as the historical first among equals?

yes i would consider it because they have the eucharist and are generally doing things the way the earliest christians are, and they believe the pope isn't infallible. unlike the orthodox though, i believe the pope is or should be the leader of the church, because that's what the historical evidence suggests.

another reason i dont, is because it looks like most orthodox just make assumptions about what official teachings are, so you get followers following all kinds of different things and acting like it's official.... there's no good standard of authority.

i'm a liberal christian. the consensus is that jesus existed. i believe the bible says that jesus is God, even though most arguments in that regard are weak. i believe the bible is inspired, but not error free, but would like to believe it's error free on essential theology. the noah story is an example of a myth, because i believe in miracles that have evidence for them, but the noah story is contradicted by science. there are examples of bible contradiction that show the bible is not always consistent, at least with best judgment, but it's hard to find a smoking gun contradiction.i think miracles and near death experiences help prove god, and to a lesser extent christianity. i think faith makes more sense than faith and works in that debate. i think catholic eucharist and pope as leader makes most sense historically and would consider calling myself liberal catholic or orthodox, because i think the pope should lead the church but that he's not infallible. i think something causing the universe makes most sense per causation and God. 

feel free to ask about any topic. 

i have a liberal bias but am moderate more than anything. i support limiting abortion, a public option in healthcare, more aggressive gun control, reduced government spending with higher taxes on the rich, among other things. if i was a dictator i'd amend the constitution to suit me but then put it back to the people after i die to lead themselves because i trust no one but me with the power of dictatorship.

feel free to ask about any topic.

he thinks black people are inferior. 

which is more likely: we just so happen to have come across a political party that gets everything right, the republicans.... or that you are looking at these issues in a distorted way?

anyone who says conservatives or liberals are always right or wrong, is brain washed and stupid 

you probably are just looking at issues with rose colored lenses. a liberal might say 'the welfare state is a myth' and then point out that a homeless man in this country usually is entittled to no more than food and education, and if he's lucky healthcare. but all you hear is welfare is never abused, when it obviously is, sometimes. 

if you aren't willing to state in words a clear standard for depriving someone a gun, we can't have a meaningful discussion. of course you are right that people on the no fly list deserve a chance to state their case, but the point remains that, generally, if you are too dangerous to fly, you should be too dangerous to have a gun. conservatives say "reasonable suspicion" someone may commit a crime or violence isn't enough, but why not?  what if someone says "on christmas day i'm gonna kill some bitches". ? that's not an immediate threat like your standard, but it's enough to probably get them on the list and should be enough to prevent a gun sale. there is a spectrum of examples ranging from obvious to deny a gun to obvious not to deny... but if you are too gung ho about gun rights, people start getting guns and murdering people when they should never have been let have a gun to begin with. 

also don't you suppose that many or most of the people on the do not fly list are 'immediate threats' of some kind or other? so if a court verifies the intelligence, they shouldn't have guns either. 

so in words what is your standard? beyond a reasonable doubt that theyve murdered someone? that they were violent, how violent? probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that they will commit a crime? 

that sort of thing 

what do you think should be the standard for depriving someone a gun? 

the point is that you're making too much out of the right to a gun, and people who fly could get just as touchy but that's not how we act. if people want a formal way to verify everything in court, that's fine, but it's just a formality. the underlying standard should be the same in court as in the list outside of court,,... reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is enough to deprive them of a gun.  not  probable cause  that they already committed  a violent crime.  courts use 'strict scrutiny' in depriving constutituional rights, so it's debateable in that framework. 

actually people have a constitutional right to travel. the way gun nuts get touchy about every gun they can like assualt rifles, there's no reason they couldn't get touchy about every mode of transportation too, like flying. 

if they had non atomic bombing campaigns that killed just as many people as atomic bombs, during wwii, why would it have been so wrong to just use atomic bombs instead?

the no fly lists prevents terrorists and other dangerous looking people from flying on a plane. if you are too dangerous to fly on a plane, you are too dangerous to have a gun. 

the reason they can have a gun, is because due to gun rights they need to be shown to have beyond a reasonable doubt already committed a crime. that's the wrong standard to use, though. it should be that if they are reasonably foreseeably going to commit a crime, they shouldn't be allowed a gun. of course, this could mean we'd have to amend the second amendment, but this would be worth it. 

well, it might be possible to use my standard even with the second amendment, but the courts just don't.

how do you view my ideas in post 18?

it's a crisis because students cannot afford to get houses and spend their money on other things, stimulating the economy. it's stagnating the economy, student loans are. 

students are forced to borrow a lot just to keep up, cause costs keep rising. students can find ways to keep costs down, but it's still a problem. 

you need to do more problem solving and less criticizing. 

how do you view my views below?

how do you feel about the government using price controls to stop colleges from charging too much? every other developed country and to some extent, the usa does that to some extent now with healthcare, so i dont know why we couldn't do it with college costs. 

i also like free community college. government loans past that only for the top twenty percent of students based on test scores, or for STEM like science degrees. i also like paying only ten percent of your income per year till you reach ten years or maybe half your debt, whichever is bigger, to prevent students from just charging too much cause they will get it discharged. 

i had assumed that trump was a big proponent of E verify. but then i realized, that if he was, it was undermine the reason why we need a wall and to deport illegals. so i googled it, and see that trump is hesitant to enforce e verifty, basically because it works too well! 

think about it. if e verifty stop illegals from stealing jobs, and illegals only commit as much crime as a native born american, why is the wall such a big deal? don't get me wrong, i would support a wall, but it's over blown and he's exploiting the issue without being effective or consistent on dealing with it. 

to be sure, trump is right that farmers would be hit too hard if e verifty was required. but we can make an exception for agriculture. but otherwise, we should strictly enforce e verify. we can dedicate a reasonable amount to deporting illegals, but we don't need to go crazy, cause unless they start committing crimes because they can't find jobs, it's not the end of the world to live around illegals. i would propose gradually phasing in strict e verify, to give immigrants a chance to leave voluntarily. 

do you contest what the generals say, that if iran got nukes they would funnel them to terrorists? if you did contest it, your position would at least be plausible. but, ive heard it multiple times, and from what i can see, iran supports terrorists that even goes against USA interests at times, like our troops. i can acknowledge that there are two sides to every story, and iran has an argument to make at why it does what it does. but that doesn't mean we should give power to them when they've already establshed they are bad actors, and our military and government deem them to be a nuclear proliferation risk. if you see people in a bar fight, using bad tactics, both with some merit to why they're fighting, and that spills over to our people and interests.... do you let them both have guns? doesn't it make more sense to stop them and prevent things from getting out of hand? 

also, iran supports terrorists. to continue the analogy, if a person engages in violence too much even without a gun, we still try to stop them from getting a gun. iran is evil and conducts evil violence. for some reason all you can do is fall back on some sort of moral supposition that they can do whatever they want cause they are an independent country. i don't know what you're smoking, but that makes no sense on this planet. 

you might not agree with me, but i'm not being illogical. i think preemptive action is warranted. it's a rational thought. you on the other hand is trying to say people killing others with guns shows that we shouldn't try to stop them from getting them? actually, i can't make sense of what you were trying to say cause it makes no sense. 

but yeah it makes perfect sense to let all the bullies on the school ground gets guns, even if the teachers and our best military minds think they will murders others, even if we can stop it. how could i have thought otherwise? i would much rather respond to those bullies after they get guns. makes perfect sense. 

should all the kids on the play ground get a gun, cause they are all soveriegn? even the kids who are bullies and show their willingness to use the guns to murder people? even if we can prevent it?

get real. 

we can't stop people from killing with guns, but if they are bad guys with a past, we can try to stop them. you aren't making a legitimate point. 

you're being illogical. 

all you are doing is showing why as few countries should have nukes as possible, with showing all that sparring. when they are in bed with terrorists as much as iran is, that's all the more reason to stop them. 

that's one of the stupidest arguments ever. evil countries shouldn't have nukes. it's not complicated. reality is harsh, and you either eat or get eaten in these sorts of situations. that's why evil people can't have guns. why should we limit the rights of people to have guns if they are bad actors, in their own home? 

military generals take it as a given that if iran gets nukes, they will funnel them to terrorists. would you rather deal with iran before or after they get nukes? 

you're being stupid. you are out of touch with reality  

you're also making those other countries sound worse than they are. pakistan probably didn't officially give shelter to osama, he probably just stayed there. the terrorists from saudi arabia probably weren't sanctioned by the government, that's just where they happen to have come from. and north korea as far as i know doesn't support terrorism.... they might have the capability to do major damage, but that doesn't mean they are supporting terrorism or wanting to destroy other countries. 

where's the support for terrorists from the governments of those countries? where the talk of wiping out other countries? 

those other countries may be worse than i realize, but that doesn't mean iran should have nukes. if we could have stopped the other countries, we should have too, if they are bad actors. do you seriously think it's alright for evil countries should have nukes?

are those other countries known for supporting terrorism? if they do, i dont hear about it like i do with iran.

do those other countries state that their goal is to wipe out other countries? iran did that while obama was president about israel.

are those other countries religious fanatics? they seem more secular as far as i can tell.