pianofrieak2

Tigra, I'm sending you a pm about your last post. I'm not going to start this debate AGAIN since we've already settled most of what is going to be said. I also don't like it when I ask a fun question designed to get all sorts of answers and it becomes world v. Christians. Therefore, I'm just gonna leave this post alone and others can come say what they think. But if you'd like to know what I wrote to Tigra, then pm me and I'll send it to you. Back to the start, pianofrieak

I'm sorry, but I find it ironic that you don't even mention my points put forth in my proof. I realize that you don't care about the other side, though it be foolish in my opinion. But if you're going to respond by debunking the moral reason (which isn't even addressed in my sources), then you're missing out on the key parts of my sources. Now, let me address the points you DID raise. 1. I'm pro-life. A fetus/baby is living and deserves to live. I don't care if it's in the womb or what time it becomes self-conscious. It is living and deserves to live. Heck, we freak out when seagulls die, but we don't care if a human baby does. 2. A living cell is alive and deserves to live. A woman's menstrual cycle doesnt kill anything because the egg is not living: it just has the POTENTIAL for life. At least a fetus is living and growing. 3. I'm also fearful of stem cell research because of the future of the world regarding this technology, but I can't stop it and that can't be a reason. That is called a logical fallacy; in fact, it's the "appeal to the future" and logical fallacies have no place in a serious talk. 4. Read my points and then talk about the scientific side.

How can there be a heaven without a hell? God is perfect. We are not. God is pure. We are sinful. Thus, there is no way that we can be in the presence of a perfect God unless somehow we are cleansed. No other religion answers this question except for Christianity. I've said this dozens of times, but I'll say it again. Jesus came to wipe out our sins. He separated us from them "as far as the East is from the West." If we believe in Him for salvation and accept His gift of salvation, then we enter into the covenant and God sees His perfect son's blood instead of our sin. That's the only way. If you pm me your email, then I can send you something a friend of mine wrote on the problem of evil. It's an easy read, and I'm sure it'll be interesting for you. Now, granted that the problem of evil is different from hell, it might answer some questions for you.

No, the only reason we're not pulling out now is because Bush is a stubborn Knob who won't admit defeat even though it's jumping around in front of him on stilts and wearing a pink tutu. We're not fooling anyone. Everyone knows we lost billions of dollars, everyone thinks we're idiots. We can pull out and save face. I'm trusting the next administration to do that for us. Oh, believe me, I know that Bush is stubborn. He's done a poor job of being honest with the public and admitting his mistakes. I'm no fool. However, leaving right now would probably not be a great idea. Even Hillary Clinton said that... :-k And Tigra, I think we already had a discussion on stem cell research. So I will just say that I'm glad Bush vetoed EMBRYONIC stem cell research. I'll try to highlight the points I want to make. If you care, though, then read the entire article.

Well, I finally decided to read this post. It seems as though we have tons of Hindus, lots of agnostics, and many, many atheists. Too bad. :? After reading it, there's a large lack of hope. There's no peace, no final justification or repayment of sins, there's no joy or happiness. There's nothing that makes this life worth livable. After all, hope is something that makes us distinctly human. I would make a large post showing my viewpoint, but if you've read this entire post, then you'll understand. But let me quote from C.S. Lewis about heaven. If you will simply indulge me for a little bit. If you want more information, read the 1st chapter of his book "The Weight of Glory." He goes in much more in-depth there. Now, Lewis also addresses different views of heaven from the Bible. 1. It is eternal and beautiful. Because its streets are "made of gold", it could also be a metaphor for being eternal and never rusting. Gold, after all, doesn't rust. 2. Heaven is in the presence of God. At last we can be united with our maker and Savior. We were created to need Him, and our hole that can only be fulfilled by Him will at long last be fulfilled. We can be in pure joy, pure bliss as we have everything we can ever need or even dream. 3. Heaven is the place in which we become complete. There is no sin, there is nothing wrong in the world. No one is out to get you or gain more power. After all, pride is the worst sin and got Satan kicked out. We will have no sin nature and everything will be put back to order. God is a just God, after all. 4. We receive new bodies. No longer is there anything that decays or grows old. We never grow old, actually. 5. We receive a name uniquely our own, so it's not like we are all "saved souls". We are unique and independent. How beautiful that we can receive something that is remained secret between God and us only. 6. We will have jobs. Each will be rewarded according to his life on earth. Each person will have a specific role to play and we will all help each other out. Everything will, at last, become perfect. Is heaven boring? Lol by no means. It will be a state of pure ecstasy (as the Hindus say) but something much more than that. After all, it seems pretty boring to just do nothing for all of eternity, right? And since general revelation dictates that we have a desire for something we don't know or understand, then we know that we will be active. After all, there are lots of people you can catch up with. And then of course you can take strolls with the personal God of the universe. I can't wait for the boysenberry pie! :D

I don't know if you did that to make fun of Bush, but that's actually the word he invented. Lol. I kinda think you just don't know how to spell so let me help you out. It's spelled "Nuclear Missiles" :D

You're right, lol, but I see no reason why that is relevant. He's vetoed once. In over two years. Please... And besides, if you disagree, then petition him. Vote democrat or independent. Those are your options, I guess. Every president would drain Social Security. I don't even like Bush much anymore, but don't be ridiculous in blaming Social Security on Bush. Every president since it started has been taking money from there instead of going into debt more when there is a national deficit. And besides, I'm not even counting on Social Security. You'd better figure out a new way to retire on since the government isn't dependable. Just save up your own money. You're right. It's going to take more than millions of dollars to make those people realize they're wrong. (Send more missionaries! :)). Anyway, I agree with you on that point. Now you're being ridiculous again. You can't count on 4 years to see what is going to be the effects. It's like presidents and economies. You can't tell which system works until 8-10 years AFTER the president. For instance, Clinton inherited a booming economy under Reagan and then Bush inherited when it was declining due to Clinton. (Now I'm not naive enough to say that that is the entire reason, but it played a part.) You're correct. Both you and GreatWyrm have made that point. Therefore, let me explain myself. First off, we didn't know what Iraq had. We just knew they were acting suspicious, kicked out UN nuclear inspectors, and was committing genocide against his enemies. We invaded to protect Israel and got nothing. He bluffed us, but he bluffed us well. But now we're stuck. We're inside and we can't get out without looking like complete idiots and admitting we wasted billions of dollars. That's my whole point. Invading Iraq was a bad idea, but at the time, it was a good idea. You yourself said that we can't leave Iraq. I agree. You said that we shouldn't have ever entered Iraq. I say that is foolish thinking. We had no idea which way to go, but we wanted revenge, he was committing genocide, and he MIGHT have had them. There you go. Protect innocent people from ourselves? Saddam murdered tens of thousands of Kurds simply because they were Kurds. At least we kill those who try to kill us. And it wasn't 30,000 from us. It was 30,000 from us and the suicide bombers who killed their own people. Don't go blaming everything wrong on us since they were the ones who instigated it and currently keep it going. If they'd quit, we'd get the heck out of there. Thank you for at least seeing my point. Most people who disagree feel upset if they can agree with even a little bit of their opponent's view so they get all upset and rant. I'm glad you're more mature. I'm really sorry about your situation. But I know a little bit about it since I used to work at a healthcare company. I was one of their accountants. And the only way to get that is to get the Senate off their butts and use normal-people's healthcare. It'll be fixed quick. BCBS...lol. Again, I'm sorry about your situation but it just makes me laugh at our impractical government. Vote Independent!

1. Im not American, so I dont follow that "forefather pride." 2. Doesn't say anything about being my civic duty... 3. Not everyone believes in the Bible (myself included). 4. Thats your opinion. The only thing I would ever die for is my religion. 1. If you're not American, I don't understand why you joined the conversation. But oh well. 2. The government calls you to do many things: obey laws, pay taxes, fight when asked to. How is it NOT a civic duty? Maybe I'm just confused somewhere. 3. What?? Not everyone believes the Bible? No, uh. You must be kidding me. [/sarcasm]. I only brought up the Bible because I believe the Bible to be true and to be the guidebook for my life. Therefore, if I hold it in such high regard, it had better have remarks about war and peace. I did it for myself and fellow Christians. 4. You care to debate me in pacifism? I'd love to hear your side. :)

:) You've changed your point of view on that matter I see Piano. I remember you saying pretty harsh things about suicide in a few of our PMs. I'm glad you did. I can't say that I remember believing suicide to be unforgivable. I'm certainly not Catholic. :wall: Anyway, if you can find the pm, that'd be appreciated because I'm fairly certain I said nothing of the sort. But I'm glad you're happy with me? :)

Tigra, I can actually agree with you a little bit on this point. Hey, he DID win by a majority of the votes. But how has he made your life miserable? It's not like you're going to go to war or anything. I totally agree. That's why I'm a conservative civil libertarian. Scrap the government down to as little as it takes to work and then no more. I'm running more independent now anyway. That's a terrible idea. Leave after we wasted all of this money and let Iraq enter another civil war? I thought we were supposed to care about the innocent people over there? Many of them will die unless we do something to prevent tyranny. I'm not saying that entering Iraq was a good idea, but at the time, I think Bush made the right decision. Look at the times: America had just endured the first attack from on outside country on their soil since the Revolutionary War. We're mad and the public needs to blame somebody instead of sitting on our rears wanting the UN to do something. Secondly, we knew that Saddam had kicked out UN nuclear checks to see if he was building nuclear bombs that could hit Israel. We had no evidence besides that, which seems pretty incriminating in and of itself. I couldn't agree more! Make the Senate have the same healthcare system as normal people and they'll fix it so fast, we won't know what hit us. Make the government have some accountability. Oh, but wait! You need some good people in government and have a small bureaucratic system! Too bad people in power only want more power... Totally true. Education needs to pay teachers more and make their jobs competitive. Seconly, we need to limit the amount of money that passes through bureaucratic people for healthcare. Then, we need to limit our spending and NOT SPEND IT. Just save it to pay off our debt... And Tigra, we don't need more socialized healthcare. Canada's one great example. The government pays much of it, but the people pay around 70% of their income as taxes. Then, the wait lines take years and the service is far below that of America. Why do so many cross the border to pay up the nose for American service??? Oy, I saw your post but I can't say I understood it all. I am content to say that you know what you're talking about even though I still disagree with it. Taxing the wealthy is great, but one can definately over-do it. Then we get into socialism which rewards the lazy...especially in a sinful world that we have right now.

You should fight in war because: 1. Our forefathers fought for our current freedoms and we should fight to protect them. 2. It's your civic duty, whether or not you agree with it or not. 3. The Bible says we are to follow the government set over us unless it tells us to do something contrary to Scripture. The Bible is certainly not pacifistic. 4. The quickest route to domination by other countries is through pacifism. First off, if everyone were pacifists, they would keep "buying off" other countries until those countries got powerful enough to finally fight. When it reached that point, the pacifistic country is screwed. Then they get taken over because no one is willing to fight for something they believe in.

Not true, Muslims are against Zionism. Just because the majority of the Zionists are Jewish doesn't mean Muslims hate Jews, that would be ignorant - cause not all Jews support Zionism. Also, Zionism hate the Muslims too. Its a hate - hate situation. I believe its bigger than just Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. With the technological weapons Hezbollah has, I think they are getting weapons from another nation unknown to anyone. Hezbollah's first attack on Haifa was so precise that there must be some other nation involved. This fears me, because the current situation may become "Who is on whos side?" just like the previous World Wars. War is an ugly thing, and if I get drafted in the near future for a World War inwhich I am totally against, be it known that Ill break my legs before that thought crosses my mind. World War III is enevitable. What the heck! You'd break your legs before you go fight for your country? That's ridiculous! Very few things make me really upset, but people who are so selfish that they would do anything to get out of fighting for their country just really angers me. I'm sorry if I'm overreacting, but as the son of a military man, I just can't understand the depth of disloyalty. *sigh*

It depends on how much you know about the Communist take-over. You see, when the Communists rebelled against Chiang Kai-Shek, Chiang and his followers fled to the island of Taiwan while the rest of the communists secured the country. However, the Communists were so busy trying to secure their hold on the country that they decided not to cross onto the island and fight. Now, however, Taiwan and South Korea are the only free nations in that area, and China has a two-fold reason for hating Taiwan: it's free, and it has their people. They want their people back.

Lol, thanks Oy. Actually, if we spent less money on welfare, we could lower the bureaucratic system and save lots of money!! I don't think cutting back on the military is going to help much. We spend 5% of our money on the military anyway... But I have a question, Oy: By saying the rich should pay through the nose, you are eliminating or at least hampering your main source of income. If you let them keep earning money, the more you earn even with lower taxes. It's Reaganomics in a nutshell. What do you think?

Actually, Russia and China are both very interested in oil, especially since China is booming right now. They might consider it worth their interests, if you get what I mean. Plus, the Koreas have been exchanging fire with China backing NK and USA backing SK. China also wants to obliterate Taiwan so if they think the US is far too spread, they might just go for it. Especially with the element of surprise. In addition, the entire Middle East is being drawn into this war with sides being picked extremely quickly. Egypt tried to be neutral but it's gained so many enemies because of that, I seriously doubt they'll stay that way. Then there's India and Pakistan. For one thing, they absolutely hate each other due to conflicting religions (Hindu v. Muslim). Secondly, they both have nuclear weapons. Thirdly, Pakistan feels left out because India keeps getting favors (from the US and Europe) towards their weapons and energy technology. IO'm not trying to be a doomsdayer by any means, but I don't want people to think the world's a happy-go-lucky place. Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the absence of VISIBLE war. The peaceful times in the world always occurred where war was just under the surface trying to break free. We'll see what happens in the Senate elections.

It seems as though you get scared a lot (or at least do those smilies...). Why are you so scared about the deficit?

All sins are equal in their actions of separating us from God. Jesus came to give us a new covenant where one's motives are more important than one's actions (under the Old Testament). But please don't say something about Scripture that you don't know about. And Scruffy, I'd have to agree with you. Too many churches have preached on suicide and how terrible it is, etc. when it's not true, they don't quote the Bible for sure, and they just say that to judge people. I even agree with your viewpoint (as far as it goes to say that we should not leave a person in time of their greatest need). Great thinking!

I found this article very interesting when browsing another forum. What should we do to eliminate the deficit? Here is what the person wrote since copy-pasting it would be considered plagiarism. But no one does that anymore... :roll: Should we raise taxes or cut healthcare programs? How do we bring it down? Here is the poster's comments:

But, is there really a truth? Just because something isn't rational, doesn't mean it can't have validity. Take God for an example: Do we have physical proof there is an entity beyond us? No, people just have faith and believe it to be true. Just because laws are put in place to govern over the masses, does that mean they have validity, truth, and justice supporting that? It's in the eye of the beholder. I'm glad you called me on this oh-so wonderous trap of sorts, so I could go into this. There's no way that I honestly believe you're wrong... In fact, you're very much so correct, to yourself, where I'm very much so correct to myself.... or are we both inevitably wrong and telling lies? 1. God is spiritual and cannot be determined by physical instruments. 2. Completely opposite premises cannot both be true at the same time. You're trying to delve into postmodernism, but the problem with much of that philosophy is that it's based on relativism, a statement that doesn't even hold up to its own promises.

Ah, but now you're judging others. You're saying that those people are calloused (which I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you...just pointing it out). So by proclaiming no judgement, you are judging others who do. Hmm...

My Dad was in the Air Force so I may sound biased, but you obviously need a strong military. Especially when you're the number 1 and have so many enemies (entire Arab nation, China, Korea, Iran, etc.). Besides, our military expense is between 5 and 7%, so it's not like it's 30% or anything. And the cold war effect would only happen between China and the US in a decade or so. But, besides, I'm not against the entire welfare system like I said before. I'm just against wasteful uses of it, which are increasing the more amount of money is poured into welfare. Balanced economy? You mean socialism where everyone makes the same amount of money desipte their job's requirements (doctors v. garbage men)? Since you're from Europe, you probably have a much higher view of socialism, but it's really quite unfair unless you're in the lower classes. God tells everyone to work their hardest in whatever they do, whether it be a garbage man or a CEO. How about this economy? The government takes as little money as it needs to do its basic jobs (protection, roads, education, etc.) and then nothing more. Instead of it dipping its hands into everything, regulating it, and then letting people do whatever they want with their 20% of their earnings. Why not let the people do whatever they want with 80% of their earnings and let the government play a minimal role. . That's pretty harsh of you; you could even call it racist towards the poor, if they could be considered a race. Who says most of these people don't try hard to get a job? I know I would. Do you have proof that a big number of these people don't do a thing to get a job? I think only like 20% doesn't care anymore, the other 80 is probably doing nothing but it. And yes, there will always be people who like to do as little as possible, even if they have to take advantage of others. But there are at least as many of those people in businesses, I can guarantee you that. How do you think some people get promoted if they have competition for that spot? By taking credit for stuff they didn't do, or barely were involved. It happened a few times to my father, who did some great work, but then a colleague claimed he had mostly been doing it. He ran away with the promotion, although my father did the work. That's at least as bad as letting the community work for you IMHO. Please, Oy, you know me better than that. I don't think that all poor people are lazy, nor do I think that all rich people are hard-working. Just look at actors. But, anyway, my whole point is that the welfare system should be minimal and the government should let people keep most of their money instead of taking most of it like socialism requires. Unfairness happens all the time. It's just a part of life. Jesus said to work the hardest that you can in whatever you do, (do it for the glory of God) so it doesn't matter what job you have. I forgive you, Oy. It wasn't that big of a deal. The main difference between you and me is the amount of government. You're a capitalist (you claim) but you seem to have very socialistic tendencies. I can see the pros and cons of each side, but I tend to agree more with civil libertarians and conservatives than liberals.

Isn't an eternal soul much more valuable than a temporal body that houses it? Which is more important? The house or the people within the home? With that in mind, it is much more important to "save" the eternal part of one's personhood (the soul, also called the heart sometimes). Now that we've been going a while, I'll put my answer in. 1. Pride is the sin that caused Satan to be cast out. He thought he was as good as God and should be worshipped. For that, God kicked him out. 2. Pride is the foundation of all evil. Pride causes you to think you're better than another person (racism, sexism, hatred, anger). It causes you to disregard others (leading to murder, rapes, selfishness, impatience, etc.) simply because they're not as important as your happiness. Pride even leads one to believe one is the greatest being in the world which can lead to idol worship (of oneself or other things, such as money or sexual pleasure or materialism) Therefore, I believe pride to be the greatest sin. C.S. Lewis would agree and, I'm pleased to say, so would Bubsa. I think that everyone else is very close (and even makes sense if you don't believe in an eternal soul), but as a Christian, I think pride makes the most sense.

Let me clarify about the Old Testament and the New Testament. 1. The Old Testament is, as someone pointed out before, without Jesus. Now many theologians believe Jesus was the King of Peace (Melchizadek) that Abraham tithed to but that's really beside the point. Basically, Jesus had not come yet and, so, one had sins and was separated from God. To fix that, one had to perform sacrifices to COVER (for a time) your sins allowing you to be close to God. (For your information, Jesus came to wipe out our sins by His blood...He came with a new covenant.) 2. They are both a part of God's inspired word (2 Timothy 3:16), but they both describe completely different covenants of salvation. In the Old Testament, you had to undergo rituals to cover your sin whereas the New Testament is about Jesus wiping away your sins and giving you a new heart (a new nature that is not inclined towards evil...it is used to combat your evil nature). Jesus' covenant focuses on one's motive whereas the Old Testament is about one's actions. I really don't know how the Catholic church was founded. I do know that they believe the pope to be St. Peter in the world. St. Peter was, for all that don't know, the one that Jesus was going to "build [his] church." Unfortunately, man's sinful nature must be in check, and so when the church had absolute authority (i.e. Middle Ages), it became corrupted and began using all different tools to increase their income and prestige. Crusades are a part of this. The rules were made to help people understand the Bible since no one could read the Bible. The priest had to show them what it meant and what it said. Now that people can read the Bible for themselves, the church can't lie to the people for extra money. :) Now hold on there. Think about what you said. The apostles (disciples) were the ones who were the closest to Jesus. They wrote down what He siad and did. They were his "rabbis-in-training." Now the Bible had not been written yet. Who could you trust for what Jesus said other than them? Obviously, no one. It was their letters (and Paul's especially) that told the leaders of different churches in different cities to tell them basic theology. Ayone who followed their teachings was labeled a "Christ-follower" or a Christian. The key leadership in the church was the apostles who were scattered. Some in Jerusalem and others elsewhere in that area. But big disputes within the church went to the elders in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the Jewish leaders were so enraged that they were losing followers to this new religion, they hunted and pursued the apostles. Everyone of them died a terrible death but John who died alone on the Island of Patmos. Protestants were those who were not Catholic. It's like Jew and Gentile. And that's not exactly correcdt. The Protestants were founded with the rise of Martin Luther, those who said the Bible talked about salvation by faith instead of by giving money to get sins forgiven. They didn't break off so they wouldn't die. Actually, if they DID break off, they would have been hunted down and killed. 1. Don't quote the Bible and then put words in that you don't know exist. (Goats and hell) 2. See my above portion to answer your question.

Whoa, lol. No need to get real offended there, Oy. For one thing, I took a very neutral stance. I told you what the conservatives believed and what the liberals believed. I took two sentences to talk about welfare and my view and you just come flaming me? Certainly that's not the way to talk if you're trying to be a good person. But enough about that. Let me refer to your "comments." For one thing, I didn't say scrap the whole welfare system. I'm not naive enough to think that nobody goes through hard times and needs some extra help. But I'm asking that you not be naive enough to think that everyone that has welfare needs it. MANY people are on welfare and use it as a crutch. At least be realistic in your viewpoint. Secondly, you claim that I'm rich and get everything I want. Besides the fact that you know nothing about me nor my financial situation, I'm offended that you would think something so terrible. You think I'm this cold-hearted person who thinks everyone is selfish and terrible. My whole point was that the welfare system is terribly overdone. Too many people get it that don't need it, the welfare system continually is taken over by the government and undergoes so much tax from the bureaucracy that billions of dollars are lost in paying for the government to figure out how much goes to which person. I understand your point and even agree in saying that it needs to continue to exist. But please don't be so naive to think that everyone who gets it needs it or that it needs that much regulation by the government. Besides, I actually live in America, so I have a more in-depth knowledge of how my government handles the whole process. Not saying that you are completely ignorant on the subject, but at least I have a personal and first-hand experience with it.

I'm sorry, do you mean liking and caring about yourself is wrong? Well, I guess I'll go straight to hell then. Good thing there's no such thing as hell. Hey, Oy! What's up? Let's see here. For one thing, you would have to be omniscient (God) in order to make the claim that there is no hell. Since you're not God, I see no reason for you to make the claim or even be able to support it. And no I don't think that caring about yourself is wrong. That's silly. Besides, Jesus said to love your neighbor as you love yourself. C.S. Lewis made a TERRIFIC analogy of this but I don't have the time to copy it down for you. Basically, it goes like this. 1. You don't love yourself all the time so it doesn't mean you must love your neighbor all of the time. Sometimes you're just plain disgusted with something you did. 2. You don't love your actions all of the time. Sometimes you just make a really dumb decision, so it's not like Jesus is saying love everything your neighbor does to you. That's foolish. 3. But you do love yourself. You may not like yourself at certain times, be disgusted with your actions, but, of course, you continue to love yourself. In that same way, Jesus says to love your neighbors. Thus, there is no problem with loving yourself. It is with thinking you are better than others and, ultimately, God Himself. You deserve to go into heaven on your own merits, you don't act like so-and-so, so God should do whatever you ask. That's what Satan got kicked out of heaven for, and that is what I'm referring to.