Jump to content

philpot123

Members
  • Content Count

    1,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. Because anyone stupid enough to play a drinking game at the expense of their liver is decidedly silly? I don't know I don't see many people actually doing it though.
  2. Alright, I'll look into it! I have a few independent sites that are usually my go-to places when I hear a story, just checking it between several different places. Although I'll admit, I've pretty much lost interest in the American election. Even the libertarian candidate isn't really a true libertarian, he's essentially a liberal who believes in a free market... So the latest political news is sort of inconsequential to me considering I wouldn't vote for either of the major candidates. Although it is fun to check up on the latest silly things Romney has managed to spew On a similar n
  3. It's funny to me how people always go to fox as the representation for bias, when MSNBC is just as heavily biased and screws up their reports JUST as much, but they're just biased the other way any news network that tries to claim it is "fair" is simply lying. If you find a news source that labels themselves according to what slant they will be writing from, THEN they have a bit more respect in my eyes, even if I don't agree with their position. The mainstream media in America is in a pretty sorry state at the moment... I'm glad you have reliable news sources over there
  4. Hahah I love Calvin and Hobbes. Of course you were joking, but you might know that Calvin WAS actually named for the John Calvin of Calvinism, and Hobbes after philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who had VERY different worldviews, just as the characters did both shared very pessimistic views of human nature though...
  5. Are you saying that you believe that all people have a second chance after death to accept the reality of Christ's divinity? True, salvation is between them and God, but the Bible is very specific about where salvation comes from if they don't believe that, I can't Biblically say that they have salvation, or a relationship with God. As I said, I don't believe one can hold to the idea that Jesus was just a sinful person and be saved. The basis of Christianity is the fact that Christ did what we cannot; He lived a sinless life and paid substitutionary atonement for our sins, and we can on
  6. Yeah, I hold to Calvinist doctrines, so I'm pretty pessimistic about human nature in general so we probably disagree there. As I said, helping the poor is a definite necessity. I would just prefer it not be government coerced aid.
  7. So there was this one time in class... OH WAIT I'm homeschooled. ;D
  8. I can appreciate that. I would support such limits as well, as a step towards my unrealistically perfect ideal And I'll gladly concede that a lot of those who are jobless are not jobless because they like it that way. I just have reservations about the idea that a welfare system, especially if we (America or any other nation) increased what already exists, would lend itself to solving poverty issues and reducing unemployment. I think there's practical evidence at this point that it's not doing much to stay the tide. Of course, if we didn't have it, it might be a landslide in the wrong
  9. I know that feel. Doesn't change my views. What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying that the reason we still have poor people is because people aren't willing to pony up and give away their money? I've said this before, I'm all for private donations of funds. I think it's the responsibility of those who possess wealth to give of what they have freely. But I don't think it's the government's responsibility to force them to do so. I can't find support for that anywhere, and I can't see evidence that it helps anything. I agree. I just disagree with the mode of
  10. I'm assuming that, based on human nature, if you give someone a living without requiring them to work for it, they will have no incentive to take up work again and lose that free money. May not be true for everyone, but it's a major problem with the idea of wealth redistribution. Take the money from the rich people, give it to the poor people, the poor people spend it, they're still poor... Where's the solution here? We've been providing welfare for how many years now?
  11. If by redistributing you mean government seizure of funds from the wealthy to give funds to the poor, who have no motivation to earn money for themselves if they're being handed a living, yes, that's bad. Because it doesn't solve the problem of poverty in the slightest.
  12. Dang I missed a good talk. Just want to hop in on a few points... If you're taking the New Testament to be authoritative on doctrines relating to God and Jesus, the answer lies in the fact that Jesus had two distinct natures present in one person. He possessed a fully human nature in union with a fully divine nature. Jesus' divine nature possessed all incommunicable attributes of God: His omniscience, His omnipotence, His perfection, etc. In His human nature, He possessed human characteristics and limited knowledge, thus His capacity to grow in wisdom and understanding. How tho
  13. "...how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution..." redistribution of wealth requires taking it from some and giving it to others... that's the whole premise behind it. As far as the rich paying their "fair share" of taxes, they already bear a large tax burden in the form of a higher income tax, and beyond that, they spend more, so they pay a higher sales tax, they own more, so they pay a higher property tax... I'd say they pay quite a fair share. Those who want to increase the taxes on higher incomes want them to p
  14. I disagree with the Roman Catholic church theologically, and I also disagree with how those situations are handled. Churches in our area that provide outreach programs for those in need don't care what religion you're affiliated with, they just help. That's how it should be. I don't want to help you because of what YOU believe, I want to help you because of what *I* believe. The American dream was property ownership, not government seizure and redistribution of goods, which is a violation of property rights. That's not bringing back any dreams
  15. Well, yes, as an atheist (agnostic? No offense intended, can't quite remember), I'm sure you would feel that way and I feel that it's the parent's responsibility to raise their children in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord." But as he said, that's up to the parents to teach or to not teach the religious part, in a completely secularized system (if such a thing is possible). Well, Dabney's definition of "religion" is a bit antiquated in the modern view of the word. He would include any sort of belief system at all, no matter what the tenants. So Atheism would be included.
  16. I'm going to answer these out of order... Oh, well, I'm sort of against the public school system, so... yeah... "The only other alternative is to secularize the State's teaching absolutely, limiting it to matters merely secular, and leaving parents or the Church to supplement it with such religious teaching as they may please, or none... But is a really secularized education either possible or admissible? First, No people of any age, religion, or civilization, before ours, has ever thought so. Against the present attempt, right or wrong, stands the whole common sense of m
  17. Well now, I never said I didn't support feeding the poor and helping those in need. But claiming that we have an entitlement from the government for those things? That doesn't sit with me. Especially not the government on the national level. I'm of the opinion that private charitable foundations are more efficient and productive than government welfare could be, and it doesn't encourage dependence on a system. A little anecdotal example here, we have a friend of the family who lost his job, and his wife didn't work. In the interim when they were going broke, they checked into getting food stam
  18. So the government should provide for my healthcare and food needs... what incentive is there to work? To learn a marketable skill? To start a business? If the government hands me food and healthcare, why should I try to make any more money than I already do?
  19. Bath salt use will taper out and potential users will return to more "predictable" hard drugs like meth. The only reason people do bath salts is a cheap high, but even the people who look for that are realizing that bath salts screws you up enough to where they should look elsewhere for a rush. Yes, they do. So, rather than punishing someone for harming their own body, why not punish them if they commit a crime while doing it?
  20. New suit. I've developed a strange fascination with men's fashion as of late. Also developed an obsession with watches...
  21. Right, because turning over tables, making a whip of cords, and driving money-changers from the Temple was totally pacifistic
  22. Main excuse for high capacity magazines would be because anyone who tries to kill me will have them, legal or not, and I'm not going to put myself at a disadvantage. And yes, for fun. Most hunting rifles ARE semi-automatic, because if you miss with your first shot it's necessary to pop off a second quickly. Hey, economic collapse could happen My argument is based mostly on self defense. Estimates of firearms used in self defense range from 100,000 to 2.5 million instances every year. That's a good enough reason for me. I never said the world will collapse at any moment,
  23. And so do legal drugs. There's no difference between the two, or the damage they cause, hence the point that the laws aren't doing any good. We're not going to mkae cough syrup illegal now, are we? And if we did, would it do jack crap to help the problem? Does sending Billie Bob Joe to jail for life for growing a PLANT do anything to help the problem? No. Our tax money is being wasted to feed, clothe, and care for people who have committed no crime except against themselves. The USE and POSSESSION of drugs should not be a crime. It's ridiculous. It's clearly done no good. The "War on Drugs" is
  24. It's the same objection you raised very early on in my forum discussions here, when you first corrected some of my assumptions about Judaism (which I'm still quite appreciative of! ) and, same as then, I still don't have a well-crafted answer. I know I've heard it discussed and debated often enough, but I can't present the position well enough to make sense of it. I'll work on that!
  25. I have experienced every single one of the things listed with my father, except for one small detail. The drugs he's buying are completely legal. So, how is it that drug laws are keeping people from doing these things? They're useless, in my opinion, and are filling up our jails with "criminals" whose only crime is growing what used to be a widespread naturally occurring plant, or purchasing said plant material for the recreational purpose of lighting it on fire and inhaling the smoke. Logic? As for other drugs, no, I'd never want anyone to be doing hard drugs like meth. But here in good