Zaha Torte said:

The topic is abortion. People keep claiming there is some magic argument out there, but they never share it.

Click to expand...

The topic is the anonymity of the doctors prescribing mail order abortion medication.

DaisyDay said:

I thought that was what you were getting at but you framed the question in such a way that all you've actually done is highlight your own ignorance and assumptions.

Your hypothetical defined murder a certain way then asked if something were not how you defined it, would it be what you defined - obviously, it would not. That has absolutely nothing to do with my morals and everything to do with your lack of logic. I am not the drifter here.

In other words, another clumsy, failed got-cha.

Click to expand...

My argument is that what is or is not murder can get complicated - but not in regard to abortion.

If any nation's government selected a group of people and claimed that it was not only legal - but that it was a good thing to kill them - that would not change the fact that that nation has legalized and encouraged murder.

If we operate by your flimsy and every flip-flopping subjective definition - then you would need to speak out against the results of the Nuremburg Trials.

DaisyDay said:

That's unlikely and an inflammatory accusation. Watch yourself - take a breath and stop making unwarranted attacks.

Click to expand...

You have given me no reason to believe that that would be unlikely.

You believe it permissible to kill the unborn because it is legal - so if you are willing to go to that extreme - why not the lesser evil?

DaisyDay said:

I'm not a Democrat, you know. And Democrats of the 1860s became the Republicans of the 1960s.

Click to expand...

That never happened and you are not convincing me.

DaisyDay said:

No such arguments are allowed here, so...

Click to expand...

I was speaking in the general.

Postvieww said:

A very inaccurate portrayal of Charlie who was well known for civil discourse with those who disagreed with him.

Again an inaccurate portrayal of his events . If there was outrage it was from those that mistakenly thought they were smarter and could not deal with his factual debate.

Click to expand...

"Civil discourse"... you mean like saying the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a mistake, or that Martin Luther King Jr. was a person of poor character? Or the same guy that said that gays should be stoned to death. How exactly is that "civil discourse"?

DOW breaks 46,000.

ETA: DOW falls below 46,000.

The bad economic news continues.

rambot said:

Hey man....WHATEVER it takes to make the right look good and the left look bad.

Click to expand...

Such a weird timeline we are in.

It's been a strange week or 2. I don't want this to be a political discussion, but now this one guy got shot dead too. It's just all been a reminder we're all on borrowed time.

Carl Emerson said:

I had experienced a prodigal’s return

Click to expand...

For a while I was quite into self-righteously judging and looking down my nose at pretty much everyone.

Carl Emerson said:

repeatedly, when God impacted a whole society

Click to expand...

Well, God's word says God gives "increase", right? So, if some whole society thing takes off, God keeps giving increase.

Carl Emerson said:

He sent word to John, in order that these would be no doubt, “the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.”

Click to expand...

That is what Jesus used with John who perhaps had given in to doubting. So, Jesus reached him at his level of that time. So, that might not have been the golden standard of how Jesus confirms Himself.

Carl Emerson said:

these signs confirm the presence of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Why are certain people giving so much attention to this outward confirmation????

Carl Emerson said:

in the early church

Click to expand...

And how mature were those Christians, who had just started in the Holy Spirit.

I would say . . . in any case . . . first be submissive to God, yourself. And you will have exactly all that God has for you . . . right *n*o*w*. And He will do with you all that He pleases, right now . . . because of you obeying Him now.

Carl Emerson said:

Those committed to our church work have become sophisticated and professional. They are generally well trained, talented individuals, able to lead, good managers, but are usually unfamiliar with the power of Jesus at work.

Click to expand...

So . . . if we obey Jesus, this will connect us with others who are obeying Jesus . . . now. So, I would not spend much time on ones who are not obeying the Lord Jesus who died for us and rose on the third day from the dead. We can have a way of connecting with ones who are like us and who support how we are ready to see things.

Right now, Jesus can do whatsoever He pleases with any of us.

Carl Emerson said:

We need to return to the early church model clearly represented in the first Jerusalem Church (Acts 2:42-47), and the writings of Paul.

Click to expand...

Well, I have offered how the early church did not have people who were forty or fifty years mature and growing in Christ. They did have gifts, though, which are good and perfect like God Himself, in them; however, they had not matured in love to make them good and perfect like the Holy Spirit operating those gifts.

However, our Apostle Paul . . . by the time he wrote certain epistles, he might have been more than forty or fifty years mature and growing in Jesus. So, I would not lump the early new church together with Paul when he became mature enough to write what may be his more mature letters.

And look how John became able to write, and Peter . . . I would say, after they grew for decades in the Lord and relating and sharing with God's people.

Praying for your healing.

Zaha Torte said:

I have no reason to believe you and believe this is just cope.

Click to expand...

I mean, other than I don’t lie, have no reason to lie, and your argument makes zero sense…? Ok. Rock on.

Zaha Torte said:

People keeping making a lot of claims about the things I say - but never any attempt to refute them.

Click to expand...

For much the same reason most of us don’t take the time to reason with the person yelling at a mailbox, I suspect. Not being one who lives in a world where my reality involves having a grudge with a mailbox, there’s not much I can say about it… Not because they’re bringing up some really good points and owning the mailbox, but because they’re yelling. At a mailbox.

Either it will work itself out and they’ll rejoin reality with the rest of us, or they won’t. Regardless, there’s nothing I can say in either case to make them realize yelling at a mailbox is craziness.

Larniavc said:

Americans.

Click to expand...

What kind?

iluvatar5150 said:

oooohhhh.... that's what we're working with... ok


Oh? I don't remember that. To what are you referring? I do recall the incident in Charlottesville, and the incident in Austin, some others where I can see the visuals but forget the location, a couple different states trying to make it easier to run over protestors,

Click to expand...

There was a brown guy up here in my home town who went after people....but he wasn't targetting any race or anything.

Praying for your success.

-Luca said:

If successful, I can move to Japan with my partner, who is also Japanese and is planning to return there.

Click to expand...

Just a note on this, is your partner a Christian, do you plan to marry?

rjs330 said:

I don't recall anyone saying that. As we learned from Charlies death "punishing" your opposition doesn't work. We can't punish our way out of the rhetoric the left is spewing. The only way to stop this violence is for those who are on the left to do it themselves. We can punish the perpetrators of violence, but only those on the ideological side of those who would do this can stop it.

Click to expand...

So you missed when Goldenboy posted a dozen calls for civil war from the right hey?

Zaha Torte said:

Americans want guns so we can protect innocent people from criminals and a tyrannical government.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's what Kirk's killer thought they were doing?

Because that's the problem - everyone will define what their version of "a tyrannical government" is.

keras said:

You are a purveyor of untruths.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 never says humans will be taken to heaven, there - or anywhere else in the Bible.
Those faithful Christians who kept strong and trusted the Lord through all that must happen before Jesus Returns, will be transported to where He will be; in the clouds, then in Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Then explain 1. Thess 4:13-17. and did the Holy Spirit not pass typing school. ??

dan p

Zaha Torte said:

I don't know why we should consider Australia to be a good example for anything let alone this.

Click to expand...

A gratuitous insult highlighting an ignorance of Australia! He explained exactly why.

Vambram said:

View attachment 369859

Click to expand...

Well… I hope that the audience that graphic was designed for is able to find a measure of peace from its words.

Tropical Wilds said:

So what I’m hearing is it’s no biggie to kill elected officials as long they aren’t one of the big ones.

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Hey man....WHATEVER it takes to make the right look good and the left look bad.

Tropical Wilds said:

Actually, I was being dismissive. I’m not a “leftist” so I didn’t think that anything you said applied to me so I wasn’t bothered one way or the other, so a “I know what you are but what am I” wouldn’t have made sense.

Click to expand...

I have no reason to believe you and believe this is just cope.

Tropical Wilds said:

With stances like you’ve just shared with the class, I’d say that’s a fair assessment. Yelling “2 + leprechaun = yellow” doesn’t really require anybody jump in to say “hey, you’re confused” followed by a stimulating debate.

Click to expand...

People keeping making a lot of claims about the things I say - but never any attempt to refute them.

Chesterton said:

Could you point me to which posts you replied in?

Click to expand...

62, 73, 79, 88, 94, 97, 101…

The absolute closest translation to the original text is KJV. Some translations like ESV, give you the idea of the text but it's not good if you're studying scripture. I normally read NKJV because its closest to KJV without the hard english, so its easier to understand but when I'm studying, I always use an interlinear bible or a concordance so I can see what the original wording is to have a better idea of what was being said. It gives me a more well-rounded understanding.

zippy2006 said:

Of course you can. Gullibility is a blameworthy trait.

Click to expand...

If you want to blame someone for that then it's up to you.

zippy2006 said:

The problem with your approach is that it involves both a double standard and a distancing of yourself from "the deplorables."

Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that somewhere upstream I said something along the lines of 'we are all susceptible to...'. I'm certainly not excluding me from any of the faults that have been discussed. Please don't consider this to be an 'us v them' position.

zippy2006 said:

We could fold over your own approach against you: "You can blame them if they are a dishonest person," where "dishonest person" just means "someone who does not agree with me." Given that you cannot flesh out your notion of "honesty" beyond a question-begging redundancy...

Click to expand...

Dishonesty is a pretty easy term to define. So much so that I shan't even bother linking to a dictionary definition. But let's use an example. Say someone is arguing for less immigration. There are reasonable arguments to be made for that position. But let's say that someone blames a lot of crime on immigrants, therefore there should be less. You'd be quite entitled to post links and facts and figures to show that the crime rate among immigrants is lower than the general population, so they can't use that as a reason. And you'll generally not get a response to that because a) it's true, and b) accepting it removes one of the main arguments that the person wants to use.

So that's now off the table. You can move on to taxes, job rates etc. But what you will often find is the same argument used by the same person further downstream, or in a different thread. They might say that they actually believe what they are saying. But they have no evidence for it and have been presented with evidence to the contrary. They are then being....what was the term..? Ah yes. Dishonest.

zippy2006 said:

Your account is also wrong. There are no contextless culpabilities. There is no material proposition that cannot be honestly held. Folks who think such a thing usually can't see beyond their own bias. For example, there are honest flat-earthers. There is no proposition such that to hold it and to hold it dishonestly are the same thing.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that flat earthers are honest, law abiding people. But you can actually prove to them that some of their arguments are wrong. So they'll ignore that argument and head off somewhere else. That's being dishonest.

RDKirk said:

If attacking foreign civilians is an act of war, then doing it is not a war crime.

Click to expand...

Why not? Why can't it be both? This is asked in sincere ignorance.

RDKirk said:

It would be interesting if war involved only soldiers on the designated battlefield, but that's never been the case.

Click to expand...

A rule more honored in the breach?