Total posts: 1,328
-->
@Tradesecret
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
Created:
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
Created:
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
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again I'm arguing past precedent. U on the other hand r just being ridiculous
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
Created:
The recapitulation theory is part of the broader christus Victor theory, the dominant view of the early church
Created:
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
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
See my last post on why I don't arbitrarily say the minimum should be 25 or whatever
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i often associate you with bernie sanders type of voters, is why i make the points in the last post .
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
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?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
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".
Created:
-->
@Mharman
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.
Created:
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.
Created:
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[e]
Created:
-->
@Stephen
i wrote the colassions quote in the post before my last one. per the legal requirements being nailed to the cross.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
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
Created:
Colossians 2:13
Created:
i posted this in the wrong forum, so i'm reposting. i need to try harder to be careful where i post, this is like the third or fourth time ive made that mistake in the years ive been here.
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 does say that Jesus dying prevented God's wrath, but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath.
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 says 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 love conquers death ideas are present in all forms of atoenment historically, just not the critical part of the theories. it should be the critical part.
Created:
The bible does say that Jesus dying prevented God's wrath, but the distinction is that that don't imply appeasing God's wrath.
Created:
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.
Created:
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.
----
some other points. there are credible medical doctors who are exorcists who say they have seen supernatural phenomenon. there are credible doctors who study young children who remember past lives, and say that the children couldn't know the details they explain. i think there are professors out of the university of virginia for example who study this.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
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.
Created:
it has to do with more than the fact that 'they were indoctrinated' at school. it has to do with more than the fact that they probably have student loans and want a hand out.
what are your theories?
isn't it fair to just think that trump voters are just not as educated and are lower information? that's what it looks like. i can't see any objective person who looks at the quality of thought in the real world, or even on here, of the different voters and reaching a different conclusion.
if you are a highly educated high information trump voter, do you admit that you are an outlier? if not, how do you weasel out of reaching my conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
wylted is our daddy. dont make him turn this car around and force us to go home.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
you make a lot of good points. what about the general point, that if the rich dont feel the pain at the pump, they wont switch to alt energy sources until it's too late. a lot of poor people will get hit hard, by the time the rich feel the pain. the idea, is if we give tax breaks and such, without picking winners and losers, then the market will be catalyzed to switching sooner and benefiting everyone. the idea, more specifrically, is that it's inevitiable and necessary for society to switch fuel sources, so why dont we speed up the process? if we do nothing, it will just prolong the pain. there is something to be said about gradual and stable, but there's more i think to be said about prolonging the pain.
and, the basic idea, that when we invest in alt energy, we are saving money given fossil fuel is more expensive. it's a win win when society as a whole invests, governments included. that's proven by other countries, too.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It can't be called voting when you steal from somebody and offer to not steal as much or to return some of it if they do what you want. That's called extortion.
you keep reverting to this basic argument. but as we've discussed before, there are ways to get around the idea that taxation is theft. you are just being a stubborn like a donkey making this your argument instead of arguing why, if the government could do better, we should have them do it better, and you should be arguing why they cant do it better, but instead you deflect to your moral argument here.
There are plenty of rich people who say they believe carbon dioxide concentrations are an existential threat. Do you believe they are lying?
i know you are educated enough to know about how the market doesn't monetize all negative externalities and that there's the tragedy of the commons. things like enviro pollution isn't priced very well by the market, cause fat cats make more money destroying it, even though the enviroment benefits everyone. and the tragedy of the commons, says that the common areas and resources of society will be explioited without intervention. you are so obsessed with market fundamentalism, that you ignore these basic theories that disprove your point.
and, on that specific point, maybe there are some rich people who think climate change is a problem, but there aren't enough of them to do anything about it right now. espeically without the government invervention with tax breaks and direction, without which would make the problem even worse, these things which is what you dont support either.
on the point that if the rich have not enough incentives, you just ignore the fact that i stated that the poor will suffer massively when the cost of fossil fuels are too much for the rich to switch to something else. that's a logical fact that you can't get around and are ignoring
im actually surprised you are making such terrible arguments here.
No, that assumes the default state is government enslavement. What you are doing is replacing one dysfunction, occasional fads, with another far more unjust and dangerous dysfunction: government enslavement.---------Guide is a nice word, but it does not describe threatening people with abduction and deprivation at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter how well the stick works, the carrot is the only moral way to move peers.
i can be convinced, if you actually made the argument, that government intervention could be worse, the worse dysfunction, but you keep reverting to this deflective moral argument, yet again.
What do you suppose the future of energy is?Long term? Magnetic resonance fusion. Medium term should be fission but it might be resurgence of coal burning or mass investment in solar panels.
i agree with these. except i will say, weren't you the one sayin how the market is too stupid and short sighted with the solar panel thing? how they use plasic instead of glass? and you, the non expert, knows that much.... yet instead of sayin how the government could regulate that point, you just revert to how taxation is theft and might be more dysfunctional without really arguing very well that it would be more dysfunctional. you say solar panels might be the way for now, but you just want to let the market keep being stupid. they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
If the initial investment for a novel technology is too great for normal corporations then there is nothing wrong with an investment facilitated through public institutions.Such institutions could be called government or private depending on definitions, but need not and should not have anything to do with the law or use of force.As an individual I could easily be convinced to invest in fusion research and I don't have any objection to that research being organized and overseen by properly organized public servants.
that's commendable that you'd make an allowance for fusion research, but i dont now why you dont look at other areas where the market fails and reach the same conclusion... that the market is incompetent and needs regulated. i dont know how you make this distinction other than with cost. and also, you arent saying how the government is too dysfunctional to do the research, so this area is magically okay for it to intrude upon? when the moral green light is there, suddenly the practical wisdom is also there? don't you see how inconsistent you are being?
i think instead of all the distraction arguments you make, you should take each specific proposal people make, and say why the government involvement would end in a worse result, and not make the moral arguments you keep reverting to. you point out lots of solutions yourself, like using glass instead of plastic, this is an example where you should debate yourself and say why the government guiding on this point, is worse than the government not doing anything.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If we don't inventivize alt energy then rich people won't vote with their wallets what direction alt energy should go. And that will really really hurt poor people down the road.
You sound more knowledgeable about the science than me. But that's the idea, get knowledgeable people to help direct the path of sustainable manufacturing. If we don't direct anything, you admit yourself that the market can be irrational.
What u r doing, is replacing one dysfunction, the government, with another, an irrational market. I'd like to think we can use expertise to guide a market that isn't always effective.
What do you suppose the future of energy is? Do u think it'd be best to get to it via the free market? What about all the problems I'm pointing out? You r right the government has its own problems, but u r not convincing me the free market purely is better
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it sounds like u r describing market failures and market inefficiency and lack of rational actors. all things free market fundamentalists carry on about. wouldn't it be good if the government required all these new energy technologies to be recycled? they use a lot of unsustainable minerals, but my understanding is it'd be sustainable if the products were recycled. especially when it comes to electric car batteries. is the government not the solution to this? i would guess you'd make the argument... how is the government the problem here, unwise use of tax breaks and subsidies?
Created:
unrelated topic... but i also like to ponder the mystery, of the question, did humans invent math, or discover it?
Created:
men and women were made for each other
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Shape shift. Nose to the wind. Shape shift. Feeling my head spin. Shape shift. Back to the meaning, back to the meaning of... life.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
what is your view of NDEs, the afterlife, and whether there is evidence for the afterlife?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
there is something to be said about becoming thirty, just to quench the thirst. like postponing frequent orgasms, to heighten the effect of orgasm when they occur less frequently. or pissing or shitting when you are about to burst.
i wouldn't say deprivation itself feels good, but the release does feel good.
Created:
Posted in:
If God punishes sinners, they say God is bad. If God doesn't punish sinners, they say God is bad.
I see these impossible standards all over the place when it comes to religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Where do u live? U r an underachiever financially so I'm curious if u live out in the country and how u afford it. Maybe the boondocks
Created:
That's really cool, the technology and how well it works. I would think it'd be weak on the finer points compared to an expert in a given field
Created:
A common standard among progressives is that everyone should get a free income of 1k per month. I think that's excessive. Instead, I think everyone with below average income should get 100 bucks in cash stipend and a hundred in food stamps. It's too much of a struggle to survive for lower income folks, and a small amount is helpful without being excessive. The philosophy behind it, is social contract, where the rich shouldn't be allowed to hoard excessive wealth while the poor languish. It's something like the top 1 percent own more than the bottom half of the country, and that's unacceptable. A simple wealth tax can help with this redistribution. Yes a work requirement can be fitting for the stipend.... welfare already has work requirements elsewhere so it's a functional established practice
Created:
Posted in:
the airing of grievances. where everyone gets called out for their shit
Created:
i think you could make the case men are superior with classic reasoning. men are more dominant and women submissive. men are stronger. more are more competitive and aggressive. there are more men geniuses, even if there are more men retards. men earn more money, even if it's just cause women struggle with children in the job market. then at least for elite men, there's the one's who are the most attractive, can have their pick of the liter over attractive women, given cream of the crop men are so desired by women. men lead relationships, usually. men are the entertainers, even if they often are dancing like monkies to do so. men are the ones who keep the economy ticking with hard and advanced jobs. men lead medicine and law, two commonly thought of advanced fields.
just some ideas that could fit that argument. women have some points in their favor, of course.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
on this site, you've gone from a cookie cutter conservative, to a cookie cutter liberal, and now your positions are more like radical conservatism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
it's not fair or apples to apples to say canada or UK are worse because they are socialized. canada has few doctors than us so they have longer wait times. only canada is worse than the usa that i know of... so if canada is worse it doesn't rearlly prove anything. in the UK, the government owns the healthcare sector, which to us i think is an obvious flaw in providing care. those bad exampels dont represent the total remaining univeral care in every other develoepd country. also, on the point that cancer survival is better here... that's probably because we have better technology and more specialists and less wait times for that speicialized care. we already knew that speicalizesd care is better here... but that doesnt mean other countries can't make their specialzed care more like ours. i know it's hard for governments to tweak policy rationally... but it is certianly possible. and remember that the usa is generally one of the worst on wait times. and they can also spend more on medical equipment. in a way it's not a fair comparison, because the usa is one of the biggest innovators on technology, so of course it will be better. just remeber that china does just as good or better at innovation and they have government healthcare. our abiity to innovate though either way, reflects our economic system more than our healthcare system, too, so remember that. i think you are getting kinda lost in the things you aren't aware of, it seems.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the main way other countries have affordable care that covers everyone, is because they regulate costs. so your theory that it can't be done, is for practical purposes disproven. it's just an abstract theory, im sure there are some good points about the theory that sometimes works in some situations, but it's disproven by the way things are done.
we'll have to agree to disagree on charity v social contract. i can't see how you think it's fair for the governmetn to deprive people of natural resources, even if the resources are privately held, and not compensate proportioanlly in response. yes a farmer would shoot trespassers, but the tresspassers up to a point have a natural right to shoot back. that's the key. you say we steal by taxation at gunpoint... you deprive people of resources at gun point. it's the government by force teling people they can't have God's creation.
why do you keep arguing we should do laissez faire libetarianism if you can't show any examples? i already showed you that there are none that exist now. do you think every developed country is wrong and you are the sole beacon of truth? how arrogant can you be? maybe it worked good enough in our early pioneer days, but back then if you wanted land you could take it etc. we have massive populations and for practical purposes a free market isn't workable. it's an untested theory, at best, that you want to foist on everyone.
i mean no offense to you personally, as you are very intelligent... but all these hoops you jump through to argue, is why i call libertarians clowns.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
like i said, it's a good point. but every other developed country delivers care to everyone at half our cost per capita. with better wait times there. so if we can stop those unnecessary deaths, and do it better than we do now, then we should. plus there's quality of life that merely preventing death doesn't addresss... routine care isn't fixed by the ER
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
around 50000 people died per year from no health insurance before obamacare. that number isn't as high any more. i admit fifty thousand aint a lot, but it's significant, plus there are other diseases that dont kill you right away that people have to live with with no care. ER care is only for emergencies and doesn't do routine care or mos thigns that people need.
Created: