Dragonlord Stephi :

I think he expects you to have the maturity to get correct facts or admit defeat to the better opponent. Correct me if I'm wrong.

thenumberone :

I doubt its a chip as well. It most likely is a reference to the mark of Cain in Genesis 4, but for some reason everyone takes the whole book like its a thing of history.

What are the things you disagree with? I bet we're in closer waters than you think.

thenumberone :

Being a sheep has to do with trust, not mental blockage. Asking questions is not only permissible, but good. There are hundreds of different outcomes from the "instruction manual" because it is "written in shorthand". No one wants to go research context and original text and check if references are being made and yada yada yada all day long. The first person to give them a decent answer is usually who they'll stick with. Too much work otherwise. On top of that, everyone naturally "wants to build the shelves their own way". This includes those that are reading the manual legitimately wanting a guide.

SoL@R :
play4fun :

Actually, Ecclesiastes 12:7 fits perfectly with my soul sleep stuff. I don't equate a soul and a spirit. In Latin, these are the animus and spiritus (body is corpus). The soul sleeps, and body decays, and "the spirit will return to God who gave it". However, this spirit that returns doesn't sense any thing. Its not like it can see God; it has no eyes. There's nothing in our "spirit" for memory or anything that could comprehend that we were in the presence of God. Our soul could through "intellectual/beatific vision", but it's napping.

The thief on the cross also supports my assertion. Jesus went to Hades for three days, how can he be with the thief in paradise at the same time? If the thief had soul sleep, subjectively, the time would be the same day.

2 Cor. 5:8 is not a statement of "I'll be happier while dead because I'm with God", but rather a of how they currently have no fear of death because absent of the body does not mean non-existence. Corinth was a town of Epicureans, those who sought as much pleasure as possible while avoiding as much pain as possible. This is not the Lord's call. This is supported by verse 6: "So we are always of good courage..." and by other translations of verse 8: "Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." Death has no fear. Death to a Christian only means no more work and eternal life is nigh.

Hebrews 9 works in my system as well. The judgment is not when you die, but at resurrection, in correspondence to Revelation.

The main argument against me is that I should not use Ecclesiastes as I do. That is so large an interpretational difference I don't quite know how to attack it. I haven't known for 3 years. However, within my understanding of philosophical metaphysics, I have no objections in my system and many objections in the other.

rcarter2 : Ah, I did get my terms mixed up. I thought negative reinforcement was anything under the banner of correcting behavior by causing unpleasant stimulus. Thanks for the correction.

Oldschool41 : If I have an expertise, it would not be in child psychology, but a parent, when punishing, should always choose whatever punishment is most effective at teaching the child how to act. Only positive reinforcement will not teach a child there are negative consequences in the world. Both are necessary. So, the negative reinforcement of spanking is permissible, but must be used appropriately.

Oh, and for the record, I was spanked.

Traduweise : "If you just want to say that homosexuals cannot become married in the Christian tradition of marriage, fine..."

I hate that your language demands that my religion be false. I can just as easy talk about what you believe is false. Perhaps you will learn civility over time.

"...although you may find that your belief is not universal among Christians."

I strongly doubt if those people are Christians beyond their own definition of themselves.

"You're free to keep your Christian form of marriage, but don't think that others have to play by your religious rules."

Forcing people against their will is not Christian, but much closer to the modern definition of a cult. They do not have to obey Christian laws, although my doing so is not without reason.

Any further discussion will be off-topic, so until next time.

Traduweise : If you noted my last line, should know that I don't think that the government performs the union, but you seem more worried about what happens to the atheists. God actually unites there too. Even if they deny his existence, God is still the one uniting. I mean, he's still causing your existence, isn't he? At least he is interacting with all atheists that way.

Also, if you'll pretend my definition of marriage for a moment, you'll see I don't care what the government does or what they call marriage outside of Christianity. When I say "gays can't marry", I'm not using a governmental "lets give these guys joint income" definition. I'm saying "this isn't how God works". Also, I rarely ever use the phrase "gays can't marry".

If the question is "should the government give gay couples joint income?" then I actually say yes. Right now they are discriminating. I dislike it and would like to see it ended.

P.S. I'm a junior in college, philosophy major. My roommate is gay. Not just a little gay, but rather flaming. He's also one of my best friends. So sad he's graduating in May.

Traduweise : If marriage is a union by God, then it has nothing to do with us. It has to do with God. Christianity believes God unites only a man and a woman. We say this not because we "[have] a monopoly on marriage", but because this is how we think God works. If God does not unite, it is not a marriage. God unites the Muslim men and women. It is still adultery for them to cheat on their wives. There is no monopoly. It is our belief that God does not unite same-sex couples.

P.S. A wedding service, in my belief, does not unite. No service is needed. No witnesses, no priest, no legal documents.

catastrophicize : Ah, gotcha! I misunderstood your using of "proof". You mean it in the sense that it convinces the other person. I was thinking you were talking about how God is this unknowable thing but you believed this unknowable thing exists any way. Seeing that's not the case, I leave you with a smiley face and a picture of a baby otter.

My church is too small, but we have bunches of people. We have 2 traditional and 1 contemporary service every Sunday. The traditionals have the hymns and whatnot like you expect. The first service has the whole "dress up nice". The second one doesn't. Still traditional, but its mostly parents and they're kids. The contemporary service is the only ones with a guitar or drums. All of the services are liturgical, so the basic order of the service goes as follows:

Opening Song/Hymn
Confession
Song
Song
scripture Readings
Sermon
Offering (with song)
Apostles Creed
Communion/Eucharist (at least once a month)
Nicene Creed
Prayer (Finishes with the Lord's Prayer)
Closing song

This takes slightly over an hour, never over an hour and a half, even with a baptism.

Any decent Christian will say that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin against both God and nature. However, this has nothing to do with a country. If you believe that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman caused by God, then it really doesn't matter what a nation tries to do, they're not married. They might be getting joint income, but they're not married. The state may even call it married, but they're not married. And frankly my dear, I don't think its something the government should prevent. Go ahead, give gays joint income. Let them have ceremonies. But a good Christian will not support the homosexual activity. A good congregation/pastor/priest will not let them use the church building.

Note: I have no agenda to force you against your will to do what I say. I have no problem with you getting tax breaks for this. I don't support your sin though, and I will say this all my life.

catastrophicize : If there is no evidence for the spiritual, why do you believe in it? In fact, according to you, spiritual stuff is illogical. Wouldn't that make it really, really dumb to believe in a spiritual world? You have no reason to believe in the spiritual. Its "reasonless", or, "illogical". So your brain doesn't obviously rule your life, how about your will? Does God exist because you want him to exist? Nope. How about your emotions? Does God exist because you just feel he exists? Nope. So don't believe in him. Or, give me a REASON, because things with REASON are REASONABLE, also known as LOGICAL.

God is not illogical! If you want to believe that God cannot be proven, then none of my proofs will work. If you think that maybe its possible, your eyes may open to the logical necessity. He does exist, you're right on that, but why lump yourself in with those that deny working proofs? If you don't understand them, it doesn't make them wrong (not saying you don't actually understand them). If logic doesn't work, God is illogical and no one should believe in the concept.

My claim is that they don't get any richer if we raise minimum wage. They do get richer if we:

1) Increase the worth of the dollar
2) provide them with goods/services (really broad)

Just giving them more money will only devalue the dollar. I'd rather take that money we would be giving them and spend it on schooling or some program directed on decreases income disparity.

Traduweise : "Your assessment is too simple" is the worst reason I've ever been told on why I'd be wrong. You say, "there are many variables affecting inflation", but you fail to mention that minimum wage is one of those variables! Sure, you can control inflation by other means, but if you raise minimum wage you HAVE to control inflation. It's one of those variables! I much prefer to taxing the rich than giving to the poor. Taxing the rich gives you an extra option to control inflation: governmental surplus.

Taxing the rich and spending money on those poorer is so much better than just flat out handing cash over to people. I'd rather have funding for improving society than more flat screen TVs.

It would depend on the person. I personally LOVE philosophy. I could give them multiple logic proofs, some I stole from people and some I created myself. However, if the person was well below average on the intelligence level or otherwise didn't care, I'd have to change my tactic. The one thing that everyone relates to is that they know their own faults. At the very least I can explain how, with the gift of Christ, we can actually approach God as a personal being and have a relationship.

Brigand : I'd prefer not to let them starve. Blockade, but we still export food to them. I really want it that strict. Let them feel the burn. Only problem is getting China to agree.

Alright, I'll be more blunt:

Minimum wage does nothing but inflation.

They will temporarily make more, but prices will increase. The poor now have more money, so more money is injected into the economy. Increase demand. Therefore, since supply hasn't been touched, increase costs. Increased cost means that extra money the poor are getting? Well, they're not really getting any more. The extra money they get, in the end, is the extra money they'll pay. Ultimately, it helps no one.

Brigand : I didn't think it needed to go into the Christian Conservatives forum because I am not assuming Christianity to be true here. I am just explaining the literature. Debate was supposed to be over what the bible says, not if it's true or not. I see this as a big problem when debating: people disagree on what the Christian perspective is. The Christian and the non-Christian will strawman without even realizing it. I want a debate on the literature. If there is no debate, then it seems to be informative for debates.

SoL@R : Not that anything you said was un-Christian, but I do think that some things are false.

I'd like for you to explain the jump in your logic train. You go from "believing in Jesus Christ.... = heaven" to "...when you have chosen.... and die, you will immediately stand in the presence of God..." Could you give me a bible verse that says that? Because I can think of a few that say the exact opposite.

Ecclesiastes 9:2 "It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten."

Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (the grave), to which you are going."

Since Qoheleth (writer of the book, traditionally given to King Solomon) is speaking about "all" people, its not just unbelievers. This is what happens to everyone upon death. You can claim the book is false, but that might be less than Christian.