RexMilotic

Support or no?Arguments for both sides, it's a much better debate that way. I'll post my argument tomorrow, it's much better if I'm able to see other views before posting my own.

Pretty Rave Girl by I Am X-Ray

Well, that's the thing. It can be dangerous to you, but at the same time it's also healthy. It's like saying injecting yourself with chemicals in needles can't be healthy at all, but that's what many vaccines are. We are all dying right now, but for people who know of certain causes (say they have a tumor) they can lengthen their life by using marijuana to slow death. We don't know what causes cancer, yet alone what can cure it at the moment. I find it extremely hard to believe it helps with cancer and if someone wishes to lengthen their life by smoking marijuna, the amount you would have to smoke in all likeliness leaves me in doubt to their state of mind for the extra little time it would give them. Also, on the subject of gay marriage. I have to say that Archimage's posts are brilliant (not sucking up), props to you. No, we don't know what can cure it, but we do know what can slow it down. Curing is not the same as slowing down. You can also read in the articles that it's not like you have to smoke a ton just for a little, because by slowing it down you're able to also have more time to use other treatments. It's not like you're smoking marijuana alone as a cure. Alright, let's hypothetically say it actually DID slow down the rate of cancer. Don't you think the other side effects of being high off your arse would kind of counter any benefit it might have? Personally, I'd rather die of cancer than smoke marijuana. Yes that's a bold statement, but I stand by it. Does marijuana have all of these magic properties if it is not smoked? If you injested it, does it still have these magic anti-cancer traits? Even if it did, it still has negative effects on the brain, including dopamine unbalancing and other not-so-good chemical effects. I'm not saying it'll rot holes in your head like ecstacy can, but smoking is smoking no matter how you look at it. And THC will always be THC. It's not really a hypothetical thing, whether you want to accept it or not. It has more useful properties than just slowing tumor growth, such as: an anesthetic, help regain appetite due to some illnesses, eye problems with glaucoma, relief from nausea, and to reduce muscle spams/epilepsy. Now, your statement seems slightly ridiculous to me. You say you would rather die from cancer instead even attempting to consider the useful benefits from something because you have preconceived notions about it? I would personally use it, because if I'm going to die anyways, I plan on lengthening life long enough to allow for another possible, whether it be long or short. THC is actually one of the useful parts in marijuana medically, and smoking will always be smoking. That doesn't mean the same effects are going to be in place however, because you're smoking different things. It's like saying eating will always be eating, but eating cyanide and a banana are two different things accomplished by the same action.

I personally dress in a fashion similar to goth, but not all the time. I personally don't get offended unless people put me together with emos, which I just have a personal dislike for. Now I really don't care much at all, and I like to think of my tripp pants as a good clothing choice for the dance styles I'm into. Music wise I would be considered a "cyber-goth", which is more of what I tend to base these groups off of.

Well, that's the thing. It can be dangerous to you, but at the same time it's also healthy. It's like saying injecting yourself with chemicals in needles can't be healthy at all, but that's what many vaccines are. We are all dying right now, but for people who know of certain causes (say they have a tumor) they can lengthen their life by using marijuana to slow death. We don't know what causes cancer, yet alone what can cure it at the moment. I find it extremely hard to believe it helps with cancer and if someone wishes to lengthen their life by smoking marijuna, the amount you would have to smoke in all likeliness leaves me in doubt to their state of mind for the extra little time it would give them. Also, on the subject of gay marriage. I have to say that Archimage's posts are brilliant (not sucking up), props to you. No, we don't know what can cure it, but we do know what can slow it down. Curing is not the same as slowing down. You can also read in the articles that it's not like you have to smoke a ton just for a little, because by slowing it down you're able to also have more time to use other treatments. It's not like you're smoking marijuana alone as a cure.

Well, looking at it from my point of view, that seems like an ineffective method compared to the current one for spreading the ideas. I personally have no use for a God murders his creations because of how he creates them, and without having the hell option as a secondary, then I would probably never have believed in his as a child either.

Well, that's the thing. It can be dangerous to you, but at the same time it's also healthy. It's like saying injecting yourself with chemicals in needles can't be healthy at all, but that's what many vaccines are. We are all dying right now, but for people who know of certain causes (say they have a tumor) they can lengthen their life by using marijuana to slow death.

You won't get cancer from marijuana though, and it will actually slow the growth rate of tumors. Sauce that before I smack you http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/ http://www.usnews.com/health/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/01/11/marijuana-compounds-could-beat-back-brain-cancer.html http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january112008/cancer_treatment_11008.php http://www.opposingviews.com/i/study-shows-how-marijuana-inhibits-brain-cancer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html Now, I understand that marijuana contains things that could give you cancer if tried independently of the drug, but nothing as of recently shows that marijuana will give you cancer. Instead, it's being used as something against cancer.

Yet when it comes to the writing on the Constitution, and what we use a law, it could be considered that it's from a deist/ agnostic/ atheist view.

Many things are psychologically addictive, including masturbation. I personally see that kind of addiction as a "meh" type deal due to how common it is. You won't get cancer from marijuana though, and it will actually slow the growth rate of tumors.

The fact that you're trying to pass off Christianity as passive is a joke. The religion is extreme, it's followers are just passive. I'm not calling most of the followers extremist, but I am saying that the religion is extreme. It's like how people say that Islam is extreme, when not all Muslims take it that far.

Seriously? No wonder it got changed. That version of Hell isn't scary or anything (not like i care anyways). I'm sure if it got changed to that version then most people wouldn't use the Bible for anything more than a philosophical guide.

I know exactly how you feel, but not the honor part. I personally don't believe honor has its place in war.. The strategy and sport of it seems wonderful, and the fact that a single person could take many people out due to skill, and not just slightly faster trigger fingers is just awesome.

For a religion to teach hell in the way it is common in Christendom today just shows how shaky the foundation of it really is. The doctrine that hell is a place of torment is not based on the Bible. Rather, it is a pagan belief masquerading as a Christian teaching. Just saying, hell, imo, is the prime example of scripture being taken out of context to promote a "truth." I know it's not directly on topic but seeing that comment made me cringe. That actually confuses me. Without having hell as a consequence for not following God, I see no reason to even bother following it. I mean, you could take all the good parts out and create a philosophy on it, but wouldn't be the same as a religion.

Then The Old Testament still applies to Christians though. Or are you implying that anything from the Old Testament doesn't matter at all to Christians? No. I'm implying that you missed the part where the Old Testament - the source of the passage you quoted - predates Christianity's spread by 600 years or more. The Jewish religion did not spread in the way that you implied (namely, brutal murder) and by the time Christianity spread that passage you quoted was 600 years old. Hopefully you can piece it together from there. But it seems you're willing to ignore history if it means you can discredit Christianity. The Old Testament is part of Christianity, whether or not it predates it doesn't matter. Jesus said all the Old Laws are still to be followed, and Jesus is the basis for Christianity. What you're attempting to use for an argument doesn't even apply to this topic, because we're not discussing it's spread, but the actual religion itself. No, they're still laws even if they're not enforced. They're not laws until God has returned (or so that's how Christianity works).

I don't know about Christianity, but for Judiasm there is a very specific rule that can only be interpreted in one way- "Yehudi, al af shehata, Yehudi hu" which means that any Jew, whether have sinned or not, is a Jew, Or in other words, you're following your religion even if you're a sinner. By "following their own religion" I simply meant the laws of their religion.

The Old Testament still applies to Christians though. Or are you implying that anything from the Old Testament doesn't matter at all to Christians? What are you talking about now..? Laws are still laws even if they're not followed. Does that mean if you're going 55mph in a 10mph zone, it's not a law? It just means you're breaking the law.

What? Your question isn't exactly that clear. In short, it isn't like the Old Testament was a complete flip from the values held in that area, or it wouldn't have caught on very well. It's not hard to catch onto something when the only other choice you have is to be stoned.

This is the exact reason I can't stand the Bible. Even when it's clear it's not open for interpretation, people even try twisting that part around so that the other parts can be twisted also. Multiple verses say the Old Laws are not to be broken at all. If it wasn't for modern secularism, then we would still be stuck dealing with Witch Hunts, the murder of gays, non-virgin unwed females, and slavery. That is the only reason that Christianity is different, because people realized how extreme the religion was, and should they get more people to follow it, it would need toning down. Calling religion extreme because of it's laws makes perfect sense, but the people not following the laws while calling themselves followers is just silly.

What? Your question isn't exactly that clear.

Never. If we ever had a single competent ruler, then we could temporarily end war until that person is weakened and or dead, in which case a race for power would arise. Neither, Right/Wrong don't exist. Same as previous answer.. Yes, because there needs to be someone to rule (I personally would enjoy it).

I'm tired of California, they're becoming so useless with all these things going on. This is taking things way to far, and tbh it shouldn't even need to be censored. It's a dictionary, it's what's used when people need to know the definition of something. The fact that is tells what oral is just means it's doing its job.

That's probably the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Sorry. You'll also note that there were many Christians involved in the abolition movement and later the 1960s civil rights movement which had many of its leaders actively involved in their respective churches. Please read the Bible more often before you attempt to call me out. The Bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery, and it says one of the sons of Noah is destined to be slaves of the other brothers. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm For more information of slavery in the Bible. Never try to call me out on a subject because of your ignorance. The New Testament explains (think it's in Romans, I know the specific passage is by Paul concerning marriage and divorce) that parts of the Old Testament law were compromises with the Israelites who would not have accepted some of the things God would have wanted for them (Paul talks specifically about how Moses allowed divorce for them as a consolation). Either way the Old Testament law does not apply to Christians. This is very clear; it's the reason that Christians can eat pork and don't have to offer sacrifices. Besides, this "selling your daughter to be a sex slave" basically amounts to a temporary arranged marriage. Arranged marriages have been the norm throughout most of human history and is still widespread; if you considered it to be an atrocity you would be in the minority. Old Testament laws (Jesus speaking) - It still applies. Slave Daughter - Tell me how that seems like an arranged marriage? It looks like slavery to me. Now, I understand it can be turned into a marriage, but that's not the same thing as the pre-arranged marriage that you're speaking of.

Point 2 - I believe the verses for that are meant for laws as well, and in any case all of the old testament laws still apply (multiple other verses support this). I agree some parts are symbolism, but none of the verses I brought up were meant as symbolism. Point 3 - You're making slavery seem a bit too easy back then. You were still allowed to beat and/or kill your slave if they wronged you in some way. I personally wouldn't support me being in either form of those slaveries, because both conditions are bad. Debts are one cause, but prisoners of war, or simply selling off daughters also allowed for slavery (which happened in modern times also). The point of me talking about it being the foundation is that the foundation shows it's an extreme religion. Sure people have dulled it out, but that's only because they're not following their own religion, which is likely to get them sent to hell anyways (making following the religion just useless imo). Your analogy is incorrect, which is why I'm not going to go too far into discussing it. You see, the way the analogy works for is this: God wants to have a house built, so he contacts the builders (prophets) to write down his design (laws). Then people (everyone) are hired to build (follow) the design (rules). Your idea is that it's being sold, which is giving up ownership. That's not how religion works.

It's not "bits" of the Bible, it is the entire base and central idea of the religion that is could be considered extreme. The fact that most people aren't following it doesn't mean the religion is not extreme, it just means that most people who preach about following the religion are both hypocrites and sinners. You were obviously taught in a literalistic mindset. One thing that must be understood when reading the Bible is that 1 it shows the evolution of the Judeo-Christian beliefs in what God's will is for His people, people's understandings change. 2 Everything is not literal. You say I was taught only "nice" parts, which I laugh, because I've basically had to read the whole Bible through, and you're right, every part is nice. How can you interpret everything literal if the Bible is comprised of different sources, and for instance in Revelation it speaks of horrible monsters, etc. but really theologians are almost certain it refers to different empires? You also speak outside of a culture mindset. I being Middle Eastern know that a lot of parables and metaphors are used in common speech to help explain a point. For instance a common middle eastern saying, yusraq al kohl min al ayn, he steals the makeup off a girl's eye. Do you really think that is a literal saying? I actually wasn't, but I have read through the Bible enough to know certain parts like the one I quoted before about the Bible not being open to interpretation. That's meaning that you're to take the Bible literally if you're truly a Christian. The Bible says not of it was written by anyone other than those inspired by the Will of God, so the different sources don't matter.