Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,348
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 14, 2013 19:30:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔ on Sept 14, 2013 19:32:28 GMT -5
I trust my wikipedia quotes over those links
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,348
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 14, 2013 19:36:11 GMT -5
There's the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔ on Sept 14, 2013 19:37:50 GMT -5
fox news, youtube, and some blog is hardly legit plus you linked wikipedia
|
|
|
|
Post by Chromeo on Sept 14, 2013 19:44:17 GMT -5
My left asscheek is a more reputable source than Rush or Breitbart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔ on Sept 14, 2013 19:46:01 GMT -5
what about the right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chromeo on Sept 14, 2013 19:47:43 GMT -5
Well I don't trust the right as much as the left  But yeah probably still |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2013 20:29:59 GMT -5
"I was just proven horribly wrong with irrefutable proof. Guess it's time to pretend I'm not the one constantly changing the subject, making random claims with zero evidence, and ignoring the actual points of discussion." You have said religious hospitals are a burden, when they exist to help people. That's what they do. You are challenging the definition of what a hospital is. It's insane. "Our hospital precludes other hospitals in the area, but we refuse to cover every situation in which people will need a hospital. What do you mean we're a burden?" You have said, show me a religious group that doesn't want to expand, as if that's a bad thing. The same diseased idea we should feel bad if someone makes a profit. That's the whole reason they can exist. They cannot operate on a loss. I have said show me a religious charity that doesn't waste donation money on the church. Nice strawman, though. If you put enough up, it might keep the crows from plucking out your carefully grown ignorance. You have failed to explain how a secular group is any different. What is the difference between a religious group expanding and a secular group expanding its own offices? In a general sense, absolutely nothing; a church growing has more room to do church things, a secular group has more room to do secular things. ...but that's not what we're talking about. The difference here remains that a church will fund unrelated non-charity church projects, a strictly charity group will of course only be working for charity. I'm saying that a church-based charity will use donation money for the benefit of the church itself, which benefits only church-goers. On the other hand, when a secular charity expands there are no hidden agendas; they're either working on sending more aid or just being the usual corrupt jerkasses you can find anywhere. In other words, assuming a religious charity and secular charity are pulling the same donations and paying their workers the same, a secular charity will always, dollar for dollar, spend more on actual aid; there is no conflict of interest when anonymous donation funds pile up. You have said people have been denied treatment, when they have not and will not be You claim religious issues that prevent you from providing some services in your religious hospitals. This is your religion causing hospitals to refuse treatment. You are either remarkably misinformed, or seek to insult everyone's intelligence by feeding them nonsense. Says the one that has not read the bill or even his own bible. Do not tell me it won't happen, when the left has already shut down adoption agencies and businesses because they weren't "gay friendly" enough. The lost jobs and the suffering of those who can no longer get help will be on your hands. Because the people running them were intolerant bastards? Yeah, I can see that happening. Also, niiiice examples. It's almost like you really want to be taken seriously. What is wrong with you? You want to bring up my religion, let's look at your beliefs. Genderqueer or whatever other silly thing you want to call yourself. What is that? Can we really listen to someone so screwed up in the head they can't determine their own "identity" I have determined my own identity, as opposed to letting someone else do that for me based on my sex. is fine with the death of children, placing them in the same category as Stalin, Pol Pot or other murderous thugs? Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not that murderous. Of course, God basically forced the Pharaoh's hand on that point anyway, so free will takes a back seat to child murder and shows of power in God's book, not to mention the supposedly omniscient being had to look for blood on their homes to know who to pass on for the murder frenzy. Can we trust people with health care decisions when they think humans are worthless accidents whose value is made up by whoever is in charge, and who can easily take it away? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot my worth was determined by my father, who has permission straight from God to sell me into slavery. You have no respect for life, or any idea of what it truly is. ...said the Christian with a running kill count to the vegan. |
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,348
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 14, 2013 23:44:52 GMT -5
Oh I suppose all those lawsuits were my imagination, same with all the religious leaders opposing the measure as unconstitutional, same with all the business leaders, same with all the lawyers currently defending (or opposing) such a mandate. I made all that up. We made up Hosanna Tabor too. I'm sure Obama the big government praiser would never overstep his bounds, backdoor amnesty without congress and his contempt-of-court moratoriums were just for funsies and don't count of course. Your "irrefutable proof" does not protect against the current contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandates. It does not protect against gutting the Hyde amendment, replacing it with a flimsy executive order. You may remember Obama made one expressly for this purpose, as there were clear concerns. Yet as we know from his other false promises, these reassurances amount to nothing. It was a ploy to get the bill passed. www.lifenews.com/2011/11/15/white-house-knew-obamacare-abortion-funding-ban-a-sham/So now that's why you've been seeing objections to Obamacare mandates, surcharges, etc. which were apparent from the start or problems which surfaced later when people actually started reading the bill. But I suppose all this is made up too? Let's rewind to an earlier Jen statement Seems like you'd be fine with the mandates either way. Usually these arguments go from "this wont happen" to "it will, so what." But you seem to actually be going backwards. Odd. See below, you dodge and bring up things like the Egyptians, this is a common thing from you. Let's count some of the unanswered questions: "Please define full coverage for us." "What's an example of a non-charity church project?" "Do you think this is a zero-sum game?" "What is 'refusing treatment'?" "Are you arguing it's good for Obamacare to shut down hospitals?" Your response on more than one occasion was that I don't understand, so you just get to ignore these questions and shift to something else. I'd say those are on-topic. lol there you go again with the actual points. You say I don't understand the real points, then give the runaround. I suppose the real point you want to make isn't about health care but how you don't like God because something from Leviticus, since that's where your argument often ends up and that's where it's gone now. If you would like evidence, I will provide it as readily as I did for Ally. How did anyone ever make a second hospital? Your theory is the most silly thing I've heard in a long time. I can feel the silly seeping out of it. I almost feel like saying "so if not everyone is getting treated in hypothetical Jenworld, open another religious hospital next door or expand the current one." But I don't think you'd be happy with that, because your issue is not that they're too small but that they're religious and they exist. wtf is this So in Jenworld, there is one Christian hospital, the burden on its community, that exists just so it can say they have a hospital but then turns away every patient? Are you on drugs? Jen is now vs Jen. So do you want to lie and keep saying you didn't say that? Or are you just being a massive troll? Well then, congratulations. What's the difference with a secular option? Thanks, you can stop there Jen vs Jen again If a secular society spends on its own buildings, I'm guessing that would be labeled a non-charity thing under your criteria. So you were right the first time, there is no difference. Why should one type be forced out? You really need to watch the generalizations. All I have to do is -show a Christian hospital does not devote 100% of its budget to its own pockets -show there can be more than one hospital in one area -show that a Christian hospital has admitted at least one patient, and does not turn everyone away -show any secular charity that spends less on aid than any religious one So earlier you complained I had no evidence for these claims. Do you really need to see it? Normally I think everyone would take it as common knowledge, but you seem to be a special case. Yes, like I said the hospital is not going to keep functioning if a man comes in and wants to poison himself or have his arms cut off. And if it does, it is no longer really a hospital. So the government making a mandate of it is making people commit crimes that run counter to their mission, or forcing them to close down. I've read through the bible front-to-back twice and probably hear more of it in one week than you do in a year. Have you read all 2,200 pages of Obamacare, Jen? Did anyone read it before it was passed, for that matter? Pelosi and friends were telling us how it was practically a virtue to vote first, ask questions later. Now that very same party and the bill's architects have called it job-killing and a train wreck. They have called it a struggle to keep it from being third-world service. Now, you might not take those concerns seriously but others do, when their premiums shoot up or they lose their coverage. Do you think implementation is being delayed until after yet another round of elections because things are going so well? Or do you know more than they do, and the Democrats are making all this up too? What's that identity? Do you object if someone says you have two eyes, because only you can determine the true identity of how many eyes you have? None of us are able to say we are equal to God. He determines what happens with his creation. No one's arguing for this. There's another one of those beliefs. What makes you tick? What is the purpose of protecting aminals? There has to be some sort of purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by kode54 on Sept 15, 2013 0:11:18 GMT -5
Well, there's a difference. Nobody asks me what my religious beliefs are, so I don't tell anyone. I also choose to exercise restraint in the face of so many people telling other people that they "need God/Jesus in their lives", opting not to tell them to shove it.
You don't see atheists building churches on every street corner, now do you? Using member donations to add a gigantic polished brass dome to the top of the building that reflects sun onto nearby traffic? Expanding the congregation so much that they needed to build a second chapel right next to the first one?
There's no International Atheist Network on my cable TV lineup, either.
Atheism is a religion without worship, and usually without preaching. And thanks to the Christian majority, Atheists are often trusted less than pedophiles and rapists, so all the more reason not to go around screaming at the top of your lungs that you don't believe in an Almighty God or an afterlife, and that your moral compass comes from being sentient and observing how other people behave. You know, logical thinking.
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,348
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 15, 2013 0:55:46 GMT -5
Do you get upset at every other building in town for getting in your way, or just the churches for existing? Atheist groups don't seem to have a purpose, or any desire to help people, or public support as you've noted. I would have a low trust for people who don't think pedophilia, rape, etc. are sins, sure. Or in your case that this country should decline. None of that really smacks of being in the public interest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 3:30:25 GMT -5
Oh I suppose all those lawsuits were my imagination, same with all the religious leaders opposing the measure as unconstitutional, same with all the business leaders, same with all the lawyers currently defending (or opposing) such a mandate. I made all that up. We made up Hosanna Tabor too. I'm sure Obama the big government praiser would never overstep his bounds, backdoor amnesty without congress and his contempt-of-court moratoriums were just for funsies and don't count of course. Your "irrefutable proof" does not protect against the current contraception/abortifacient/sterilization mandates. It does not protect against gutting the Hyde amendment, replacing it with a flimsy executive order. You may remember Obama made one expressly for this purpose, as there were clear concerns. Yet as we know from his other false promises, these reassurances amount to nothing. It was a ploy to get the bill passed. www.lifenews.com/2011/11/15/white-house-knew-obamacare-abortion-funding-ban-a-sham/So now that's why you've been seeing objections to Obamacare mandates, surcharges, etc. which were apparent from the start or problems which surfaced later when people actually started reading the bill. But I suppose all this is made up too? Oh I see. You're all acting like a bunch of babies because someone else is doing something you don't like even though it doesn't effect you directly. Waaaah, sky-dad, they're getting abortions in their own clinics with insurance funds we aren't required to pay into at any point, waaaah! Let's rewind to an earlier Jen statement Seems like you'd be fine with the mandates either way. Usually these arguments go from "this wont happen" to "it will, so what." But you seem to actually be going backwards. Odd. Again, if you are not providing what is expected from a hospital, you are not going to be taxed like one. See below, you dodge and bring up things like the Egyptians, this is a common thing from you. "Jen murders babies, totally like Pol Pot, and certainly not like my God which I base my anti-abortion stance on" Oh, I'm sorry, when I saw your strawman/ad hominem combo platter I assumed you were giving up on real discussion. Just responding in kind. I assumed it was fairly obvious that I, unlike your God, do not support mass murder. Let's count some of the unanswered questions: 1: "Please define full coverage for us." 2: "What's an example of a non-charity church project?" 3: "Do you think this is a zero-sum game?" 4: "What is 'refusing treatment'?" 5: "Are you arguing it's good for Obamacare to shut down hospitals?" 1: Giving people the medical services they require. It's not a very difficult concept. 2: Building more churches? Lobbying? Buying the Pope a new silly looking hat and more gold baubles? 3: They cannot operate on a loss. 4: Really? This again? You claim religious issues that prevent you from providing some services in your religious hospitals. This is your religion causing hospitals to refuse treatment. 5: Obamacare shuts down hospitals? I must have missed that part. ...oh wait, it doesn't. Your response on more than one occasion was that I don't understand, so you just get to ignore these questions and shift to something else. I'd say those are on-topic. You observably do not. lol there you go again with the actual points. You say I don't understand the real points, then give the runaround. Then would you like to get back to the part where I'm telling you why religious charities are strictly worse than secular ones? Because everything else was on you. I suppose the real point you want to make isn't about health care but how you don't like God because something from Leviticus, since that's where your argument often ends up and that's where it's gone now. "God says abortions are bad, so we can't have those. What, God murdered every first-born Egyptian son as punishment for an offence he personally forced someone to commit? I don't see how that's relevant to the source of my morals at all!" If you claim religion makes your morals somehow more valid, you throw your religion as a source of morals into the ring as an acceptable target for attack. If you would like evidence, I will provide it as readily as I did for Ally. I fail to see how outsourcing jeep production has any relevance to any of the topics at hand. How did anyone ever make a second hospital? Your theory is the most silly thing I've heard in a long time. I can feel the silly seeping out of it. I almost feel like saying "so if not everyone is getting treated in hypothetical Jenworld, open another religious hospital next door or expand the current one." But I don't think you'd be happy with that, because your issue is not that they're too small but that they're religious and they exist. ∵ Hospitals cost money ∵ With an existing hospital nearby, it will be very difficult to fund a new hospital ∵ Your religious hospitals refuse some services ∴ Your presence denies coverage on those services you refuse wtf is this So in Jenworld, there is one Christian hospital, the burden on its community, that exists just so it can say they have a hospital but then turns away every patient? Are you on drugs? You claim religious issues that prevent you from providing some services in your religious hospitals. This is your religion causing hospitals to refuse treatment. Jen is now vs Jen. So do you want to lie and keep saying you didn't say that? Or are you just being a massive troll? Well then, congratulations. So it's time to pretend those comments are somehow contradictory? Most charities that fund personal projects with donation money would come under fire for embezzlement, just saying. What's the difference with a secular option? Thanks, you can stop there Jen vs Jen again If a secular society spends on its own buildings, I'm guessing that would be labeled a non-charity thing under your criteria. So you were right the first time, there is no difference. Why should one type be forced out? So you can't comprehend the difference between an aggressively expanding company and a charity? You really need to watch the generalizations. All I have to do is 1: -show a Christian hospital does not devote 100% of its budget to its own pockets 2: -show there can be more than one hospital in one area 3: -show that a Christian hospital has admitted at least one patient, and does not turn everyone away 4: -show any secular charity that spends less on aid than any religious one You really don't get this? Say there are two charities. One is religious, one is secular. They both pay their employees the same amount, their contractors charge the same, and neither are corrupt. The secular charity is spending more on aid simply by not having a church siphoning parts of their donations. As for your list there, 1: Strawman amalgamation of unrelated points, probably brought on by your remarkably poor reading comprehension. 2: I never said it was impossible, only that it makes it more difficult. 3: That thing I mentioned about your reading comprehension? Yeah, it's that time again. You claim religious issues that prevent you from providing some services in your religious hospitals. This is your religion causing hospitals to refuse treatment. Because cherry picked data points always refute objective facts. So earlier you complained I had no evidence for these claims. Do you really need to see it? Normally I think everyone would take it as common knowledge, but you seem to be a special case. "I have no evidence on earlier claims, so instead I change the context and offer to prove my random tidbits with no basis on any part of the real argument instead" Yes, like I said the hospital is not going to keep functioning if a man comes in and wants to poison himself or have his arms cut off. And if it does, it is no longer really a hospital. So the government making a mandate of it is making people commit crimes that run counter to their mission, or forcing them to close down. I'm pretty sure there's nothing in these that requires a hospital to perform pointless amputations. I've read through the bible front-to-back twice and probably hear more of it in one week than you do in a year. Alright, here's a classic contradiction then, that you no doubt spotted moments before giving up your delusion, that comes partly from good 'ole Leviticus. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2025%3A5-6;Leviticus%2020:21&version=NIVHave you read all 2,200 pages of Obamacare, Jen? 906 pages, counting preamble. The important takeaway being it costs you LITERALLY NOTHING WHATSOEVER if you don't want to use it. Did anyone read it before it was passed, for that matter? Pelosi and friends were telling us how it was practically a virtue to vote first, ask questions later. Welcome to politics, you must be new here; this is pretty much standard procedure on everything, this one example (if it even is an example) is hardly the rare exception where a bunch of overpaid fogies vote with no idea what it's even about. Now that very same party and the bill's architects have called it job-killing and a train wreck. They have called it a struggle to keep it from being third-world service. Tasty tasty citations. Now, you might not take those concerns seriously but others do, when their premiums shoot up or they lose their coverage. I'd assume costs would go up, considering half of the bill is to make sure people aren't discriminated against for existing conditions or randomly denied the coverage they've been putting money into. I am me. I am I. Do you object if someone says you have two eyes, because only you can determine the true identity of how many eyes you have? And if I steal one of your eyes, does your identity suddenly change? No, not really. Your identity might eventually change due to you thinking of yourself differently, but the missing eye itself did nothing. None of us are able to say we are equal to God. He determines what happens with his creation. He also says thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, and he loves us all with infinite compassion. So of course you understand my incredulity that he would threaten murder if the Pharaoh doesn't comply, FORCES him to not comply, and then carries through with his threat anyway. No one's arguing for this. Of course not, it's retarded. Only backwater third world countries still permit slavery. What a shame God says this is okay, you must be a Godless heathen for not supporting selling your own daughter as a slave.
There's another one of those beliefs. What makes you tick? What is the purpose of protecting aminals? There has to be some sort of purpose.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule |
|
|
|
Post by kode54 on Sept 15, 2013 6:37:24 GMT -5
Do you get upset at every other building in town for getting in your way I get mad at the Cult of Scientology for having buildings anywhere, too. or just the churches for existing? I guess just the churches. They serve no purpose other than as a meeting place for worship. As atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists do not worship any deities, they do not need fancy places of worship or other such expensive shrines. Atheist groups don't seem to have a purpose, Other than educating people on the dangers of cult behavior. Unless, you know, you also consider them a cult. or any desire to help people, Any more than any other concerned citizen who would love to donate time and/or money to a worthy cause. Atheists are not precluded from joining non-denominational or even some religious organizations' charities. Most of these organizations do not ask you your religion before you decide to volunteer for them. Of course, they may decide not to trust you if they ever find out you're an atheist. Not like you have any reason to tell them, but they may catch the hint from your reactions to religious comments or outright preachiness. Of course, you don't see any atheist run charities, or at least openly atheist. Nobody would trust them. Or at least, none of the religious majority would trust them. or public support as you've noted. They have public support from a non-religious or tolerant minority. The majority of the public is religious, though, and unfortunately, many of them are intolerant of people with other religious views. Most Christians manage to get along with other denominations simply by disregarding the differences between the flavors of Christianity, or even projecting their own personal beliefs onto everyone else. I would have a low trust for people who don't think pedophilia, rape, etc. are sins, sure. Atheists believe these things are sins against humanity. They do not need to believe in an almighty deity to come to the conclusion that these things are wrong and destructive. At the very least, they see many logical reasons to avoid doing those things, not the least of which is valuing their freedom, valuing their own life, valuing their own safety, valuing their interpersonal relationships. Not necessarily in that order, or all of the above. Naturally, the criminally insane won't value any of those things. I find it both sad and frightening that there are people out there who have openly admitted that if they did not have the fear of eternal damnation hanging over their heads, they would freely go on a murder/rape spree. But I don't really think strong religious convictions will do any good when you're a sociopath. You'd think that people who have no delusions of living past their mortal life would value their time on this planet all that much more than someone who thinks this life is only temporary. Hell, church even had to invent a law that suicide is committing the sin of murder against yourself, likely to prevent fervently religious people from killing themselves to reach paradise that much quicker. And then you have some religions whose most insane followers strictly believe in interpretations of their scripture that condone the subjugation or even destruction of "infidels" of other religions or non-religions. Some of the craziest may even have the notion that they will be rewarded in paradise if they go down in a blaze of glory killing as many infidels as they can. Or in your case that this country should decline. This country supports religious freedom. This also includes freedom from religion, if you so choose. This country should continue to support the right to choose what you wish to believe, so long as it fits within the laws of the land. I don't see why it's such a problem that the Catholic church should be forced to provide full insurance, including for abortions, for their employees. The devout followers won't ever have an abortion performed anyway. And besides, insurance doesn't usually cover elective procedures like aborting a baby because you decided after 3 months of pregnancy that you didn't want the baby. They reserve coverage for life saving procedures, like aborting a life threatening pregnancy before it kills both the mother and the child. None of that really smacks of being in the public interest. If by public, you mean the fervently religious majority. Unfortunately for them, our country has many protections for minority groups, so their interests are protected from being squashed by an overwhelming majority. Majority. It's the same reason you can't say that Christians are being oppressed anywhere in America. |
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,348
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5
Actually it does. It seeks to rope Christians in. That's what we've been talking about. This is willful blindness on your part. Jen vs Jen with the above quote. You need to decide whether there's no mandate, or there is one and you're fine with it. I did not say you murdered babies. I said you were fine with it. What medical services are required? What is being denied? Secular groups: Building any structure besides a church? Lobbying? Giving nonprofit leaders high salaries? It explicitly fines conscientious objectors out of existence, groups which have operated for years without a problem and would continue to operate otherwise. Any time. I have already pointed out your contradictory statements and dodges. Naturally I would say my morals are more valid than someone who holds none. What happened in Egypt centuries ago has no bearing on the current discussion. I suppose you would object to a Bible mandate if I defined that as treatment. Please keep this in mind. But of course that would require actually living up to the golden rule. Part of my argument, discrediting "Lies of the Year" as biased and inaccurate. Personally I fail to see how all my sources are written off (including another link to the same site Ally used) just because someone doesn't like them. It's the Liar Liar defense. "Your honor, I object! Because it's devastating to my case!" Is your solution to close religious hospitals and provide no treatment? A company can be charitable and supports people by expanding. It serves customers and provides jobs, so it has a charitable role as well. The model's just different. A church is important. A church helps the community. People donate to these groups because they want churches. This freedom should be protected in a country that has a first amendment. You asked me to show you ONE example of a religious charitable drive that does more than line its own pockets or take the money for a church. Which I've done, your response was "nuh uh" because you're apparently so bigoted you cannot accept that a religion can do anything good. You used the term "burden." You used the term "crowds out" - which can only happen if the needs are already being met and another hospital is not necessary. So you were either wrong, or "yourlogicalfallacyis: ambiguity" This is not an "objective fact." This is an extreme generalization: Look, this is just getting embarrassing. It's one thing to spar as equals but I feel like I'm beating on a cripple at this point. My objections were against your generalizations that a secular charity will ALWAYS spend more on charity than a religious one, that a religious group will deny EVERY situation where people need a hospital, that a religious group will use ALL the money collected to line its pockets, that a single religion-affiliated hospital in the area will crowd everyone else out. You don't need to keep defending these positions. If you don't want to walk them back publicly, you can pull out of this and give it some thought on your own, I won't judge. Save some face. ----- And now we get back to unrelated stuff from "I'm remaining on topic" Jen. Uhh What did I give up? What are we doing here besides quoting a random passage? It requires you to get insurance or pay a fine...that's the individual mandate...it is telling people they need to pay for something even if they don't want/need it...they defended the penalty in court as a tax...it requires healthy people, who otherwise wouldn't pay for insurance, to sign up and see their rates shoot up to pay for others... that's how the entire freaking bill supposedly breaks even and survives...Do you oppose it? I believe these have all come up ITT Contradicting the false promises that they'd actually fall, which was a big selling point for this mess. You're a girl If someone removes my genitals I don't become female either. If my "identity" is that I say I have two eyes when I clearly don't, that's not boldly defining myself. That's just called being wrong. Yes, we should not kill. By the old laws we would also be in violation for not sacrificing at a temple that no longer exists. It's no coincidence that this change happens around the time of Jesus, when the law was fulfilled. A parallel with the constitution: we also allowed slavery in this country. The end of slavery was not a rejection of the constitution, but a sort of fulfillment as the rights contained within it were finally recognized for others. Just as the disciples were called to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, extend the faith to all peoples and offer redemption. A moral principle ... Which other people want to do, so please keep the opinions to yourself and let them do it, thanks.  Yeah that'd throw a wrench into things Except, based on the data, typically no. Oh? Is there a set atheist doctrine? You may be able to say some atheists based off personal desires, which they would usually say are subjective and individualized, define some things as sins against humanity. They would be pushing these personal, subjective beliefs irrationally and without authority on others, who have other personal, subjective views of their own. They may be recognizing something written in their conscience or in nature, which would be something objective and not dependent on them. Just as the sky is blue there are definite moral principles guiding our existence. So many of us have followed this point to its logical conclusion: believers just recognize one God more. This isn't just about eternal punishment, but belief. Faith that life is worth something, not just because someone says it - in that case someone else can easily say the opposite. It requires some sort of morality and the formation of a definite position, to say something is wrong. "I'm a fireman, I think arson is bad." omg! If he's saying that it means the only thing stopping him from being an arsonist is that he thinks fires are bad and wants to put them out! ...Yeah, kinda. What's wrong with that? I feel like the proper response to allegations of goodness would be "thank you." I'd have to ask Jake about that. No offense, Jake. When someone is working toward eternal life, this involves definite steps to self-improvement. When someone views death as the end of it all, and the earth just a temporary place for whatever enjoyment they can squeeze out of it before the bitter end, they turn to maximize personal pleasure...with the negative consequences that can easily result from that path. Well, God didn't just put people here for funsies. Body and soul are connected and he determines when it ends. Offing oneself is usually done out of an extreme self-hate, to the point where someone does not recognize their own life as having any worth. Sure, that's crazy. Funding abortion encourages more of it. We do not tell atheists to pay for churches, we should not tell Christians to pay for murder. Thanks for being more respectful and interesting, kode. I would like to talk with you more. (Course I would like to talk more with Jen too, sometime, but it's gone downhill with the negativity and it just isn't as enjoyable). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 21:46:11 GMT -5
ELEGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ... (4) whether to grant a certification under section 1311(d)(4)(H) attesting that, for purposes of the individual responsibility requirement under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an individual is entitled to an exemption from either the individual responsibility requirement or the penalty imposed by such section. (2) Religious exemptions (A) Religious conscience exemption Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is— (i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof which is described in section 1402 (g)(1), and (ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section. (g) Members of certain religious faiths (1) Exemption Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by— (A) such evidence of such individual’s membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual’s compliance with the preceding sentence, and (B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person (H) subject to section 1411, grant a certification attesting that, for purposes of the individual responsibility penalty under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an individual is exempt from the individual requirement or from the penalty imposed by such section because— (i) there is no affordable qualified health plan available through the Exchange, or the individual’s employer, covering the individual; or (ii) the individual meets the requirements for any other such exemption from the individual responsibility requirement or penalty; It's okay if you don't actually know the law, Tails, we'll just sit over here and collect taxes on you because you don't realise you can file for exemption thanks to your religion. |
|
Spinning round and round like the deadly hands of a radium clock. 
