The reason for God to allow suffering is simple really.
Just as parents have to eventualy let their children make mistakes knowing that the child may suffer as a result in order to prove that the child does not have all the answers...God MUST allow us to suffer our mistakes to prove to US that WE do not have the answers.
Great response! I like the way you think as well as articulate.
I think many people get wrapped up in these types of debates...me included...and argue based on their idea of a "perfect" situation or Utopian societies.
With out saying it we all know that it will never exist.
Great response!
What do you mean "just about"? :)~
Just kidding.
When you say "only anarchy falls on the right" how far would you say that Constitutional Republic is right of center? Also how for left of center would you place socialism/communism?
I don't think of myself as rep or dem. G. Washington warned the country about party politics. He stated that soon you would owe you allegiances to the party instead of the citizens who elected you.
I think of myself as a conservative independent.
BTW I checked your links out anyways. I did not want to be unwilling to at least look at your research.
I need your opinion on something.
To me the data seemed vague and could be used to prove either point.
Your input on this please.
Thanks for your patients
1. Actually I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were born in the Colonies. They did not come here from Europe. Also they considered themselves loyal British citizens and were driven to revolution based on a lack of representation in that government and not by religious reasons. But I do understand what you are trying to say about the original colonists.
2. I did not say "believe in a god". I said "follow PRINCIPLES". So on this one you and I agree on some level?
3. I disagree that they screwed up on these issues. They were shrewd politicians and I think that they understood that there were some things that would be deal breakers such as slavery. That there would be NO Constitution if they tried to push that agenda. However they were the most amazing group of leaders the world has ever seen and they had the wisdom to craft a document that would sew the seeds of freedom that eventually accomplish the goals that you mentioned here.
I am curious what you mean by screwing up on non-property owners. Are you referring to the idea that if you did not own property you could not vote?
Could you elaborate for me please?
Thanks for you time and effort man.
You and I will just have to disagree brother.
I respect your research. Problem is I don't respect your sources. I do not accept the UN as a reliable source of independent research as they as many others have their own agenda. That data will be skewed to their individual points. I know that most resources are that way so I recognize that there will be bias in almost all sources right-left, yours-mine-theirs and so on.
That being said...
I would not take the UN's word on what time of the day it is.
I could argue on almost any point the UN supports but any organization that would try to interfere with a parent/child relationship, believing that they know whats best for the worlds children better than the parent, is way to left for me to have any other opinion about them other than they are attempting to control peoples lives. They have their own agenda for one world government.
The UN thinks that if a parent makes their child go to church, or if the try to teach their children religion, regardless of the religion, it is child abuse. Seriously?
Nor do I trust Wiki for accurate info as they are built as much on opinion as they are facts.
I respect your opinion and your passion I just don't agree with you.
Thank you for your time and effort on this debate.
Voting you up for you efforts and passion!
I would dispute the order in which you describe the political spectrum.
I believe that if you create a line that explains the political spectrum, tyranny would fall on the left end of the line followed by Socialism/Communism and Anarchy at the right end followed quickly by Constitutional Republic with all variants lying in between. Or have I completely missed your point!
How would you place them?
Thanks for your response
"...Do you want a politician legislating your Liberty? Or, do you want a politician guaranteeing your Liberty by his authority?"
I think I see your point about Legislators...do you mean a body of elected officials protecting my liberty? If so then neither! I prefer them to be understood as inalienable but as a last resort I would wish the protected by the Constitution.
Am I close?
Thanks for response!
No argument on the first part of your message. I was just trying to point out the differences.
I also believe it was NOT the Founding Fathers intentions for us to have this so called "separation" as is interpreted today. That is just my opinion.
But on the second part it is easy to argue that the Founding Fathers definitely supported the idea that men who aspire to Positions of Honor should definitely have a deep understating of the Judeo-Christian principles in order to lead FREE men.
I have some letters in a book at home...I would be glad to provide some examples from it if you like.
Looking forward to your response.
PERIOD : _ )~
Actually I would argue that my "opinion" has nothing to do with my statement . I would say that there is plenty evidence to back that up.
Would you argue that citizens in Europe have the same level of freedom from intrusive government that we have here in the US?
I would argue thats it not even close even in the UK which is the closest thing Europe has to freedom.
Thanks for your response.
Daniel Hanan is a member of the European Union.
You should care because he is from UK so he has a dog in the hunt, he is very intelligent, and because I think your smart enough to look it up if your really interested.
You are right that my last message was a bit on the lame side.....it was meant as a bit of a light hearted comment with a tiny bit of humor.
One more thing..I was the one that voted up your response! No reason we cant have some fun here man.
Thanks for your response!
Some would argue that the New Deal did not hold but rather extend the effects of the depression.
Nixon took us off the Gold Standard for good but he certainly was not the first to do it. I think Lincoln was the first but, like subsequent presidents, it was temporary until Nixon.
I believe all of the did it to pay off war debts/expenses war expenses but Nixon's case he had to deal Social programs implemented by Johnson and congress.
Thanks for your response.
Respectfully ...
Even FDR recognized that it was the massive expansion of the supply of money in the system, caused the Treasury printing money to pay the debt from WW2, that eventually brought us back from the depression. Not the ""New Deal" programs. And that only worked because of the incredible rate of production. There are some very influential economists and authors that say that we actually NEVER completely recovered for the depression.
I do agree that we have gotten out of trouble before and we can do it again but only by releasing Americans to be accountable, innovative, and free from overbearing taxes and intervention in their lives by government.
We have to do away with the Fed which means we have to go back to a money backed by something like gold or silver and away from any fiat monetary system. These things have always maintained value. This will hurt but then again the cure almost always does!
As always...looking forward to your response!
You have peaked my interest!
"...If Liberty can be guaranteed then I would argue that what is guaranteed is not Liberty, but is a guarantee of tyranny."
OK you have me confused here. If Liberty is "guaranteed" (and I may be splitting hairs here)
–noun 1. a promise or assurance, esp. one in writing, ...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
how then is it actually Tyranny?
Looking forward to your response
