I've tried to surmise something on the contrasting verses of the Bible, but I give up, it's too complicated. There are saying which have it that those who don't know God will have a chance to repent, and that those who don't won't because it isn't possible that they don't know God. Theres probably more contrasting points.
The point of all that is to say that we, globally, are culturally subject to teachings which may not include God. In the event that we do it would be intolerable to have God condemning us over what we were taught by others. Do the pagans Siberia circa 400AD go to hell? The tribes of Africa? Its all so clouded, and down to interpretation.
So yeah, I give up.
Consumers should be smart about who they trust with their money
Trust is a funny thing, someone can tell you one thing, and do something entirely different. I think you should realise that whilst lenders may understand the market and the outcome of their dealings, the people who are simply looking to survive in these dog-eat-dog times don't; they just don't want to be eaten.
If banks and consumers bankrupt themselves by making and accepting bad loans it is their fault
Yes, though whilst I'm not too familiar with economics, I'm sure there would be a wider effect of larger banks succumbing.
When people bankrupt themselves, other people who were previously sellling them stuff can't no more, causing them to temporarily lose their job...but this is an in-advertant consequence, which is nothing the Government should micro-manage.
This argument really only stands up when the market for whatever product your selling is small, or only mediocre. Things like loans, which are central to economic debates at the moment are not a small market. It is always, always growing, with home loans, car loans, etc. Worrying that Person A will becoming bankrupt is a non-issue, because theres Persons B through to ZZZ^99 who are also actively involved in loans, or will be in the future.
Secondly a child is fully capible of choosing to work, because its not a intellectual choice, its a choice of preference like a choice between apples or ouranges (as long as they still go to school - and their I have little doubt parents wouldn't protect them from bad contracts).
I don't know a single child who chooses to work. Most people 'choose' to work, where I am, around 15-18. They aren't children anymore. What Ludo was referring to, I believe is things that you see in developing nations, India, China, and dare I say many African nations. Children who 'choose' to work because choosing otherwise would mean a very, very impoverished family.
And dangerous child labor could be prevented by the enfourcement of common laws because that would make it risky to hire a child. Long hours could also be prevented by child abuse laws.
It could be the case, though some would argue that it is a form of government interfering with the workplace.
Yes, because there are varying ideas of good, evil, right and wrong across the world, existing in manners which mean no ill will against Christians, God or any other deity, or their own people. New age customs concerning women aren't the way they are because we want to offend God, they are as they are because we feel women shouldn't be degraded, and that the older perception of good, evil, right and wrong are ill-placed in this progressive culture. Then, there was nothing wrong with the idea, not many, if any people questioned it. I can accept that, and as people became aware of their disenfranchised state, they came to question the way things were, it's a pretty natural progression you might say. Morality changes as we grow and learn.
Implying he exists, and should he exist, he is imposing his definition of right, wrong, good and evil when he thoroughly understands that people are subject to culture, and in so will be raised with varying ideas of right, wrong, good and evil which may not necessarily fit his idea; which is what I take issue with, not that his has his own view.
Ever heard of national pride? How would a $1,000,000.00 bill with Air Force One on it look to our rivals?
To me, that makes no sense. Theres no reason to be proud over a bill of money, unless it were a collectable, a bank statement says the exact same thing. However...
It would look like a poor effort, since Zimbabwe has a $100'000'000'000'000.00 bill. The bill is so badass it has 3 rocks, stacked, on it. Pretty sure Zimbabwe has no reason to be proud; ruthless dictatorship, highest inflation in the world, etc.
Also, doesn't it make you feel a bit more like you are doing something like purchasing something big when you hand over a $2,000,000 bill for a television than just sliding a card? Even in the case of a debit card, the person may still have enough money in their account to spend, but it still could be more than what they should be spending.
No. Really, just no. If I wanted the TV, I'd buy the TV. I don't care how I bought it, cheque, card or cash.
Up until the mid sixties they actually had $100,000.00 bills, which were worth the equivilent of three quarter million today.
Which were not issued to the public when they were being used.
Also it is God's people and God will protect Isreael if Iran tries to attack them.
I'd pay to watch, from afar. I'm sure you'd recant and then tell me that God will take all his Israelis to heaven with him when theyre killed by missiles and gunfire. But I'm not saying they'd lose, no, they would win. They have a very adept army, with plenty of nuclear warheads -- all of which are undeclared.
Yes, I'd know because I'm part of the crowd. Alcohol and drugs do help youth socialise.
Does the fact that they spend 3 years at university not tell you that there is something to learn about Primary education? As a psychology student I happen to know that developmental psychology is an important field, which primary educators have at least some experience in, thanks to university, so that the quality of education provided is the best to be had at the time.
I can't really see any argument beyond the 'higher orders of bills means less money on cards', which I don't understand. People could easily just use a debit card, which is a bill of any size, even dollars and cents (Australian), for almost any situation is this highly digitalised environment.
Does that mean that right and wrong exist in the eyes of the subject?
Yes. There is right, there is wrong, its all subjective. Each person sees right and wrong differently, even practicing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Shintos, Confucians, etc.
Culture defines what is right and wrong, and religion has an impact, but so does secular society. Which is why women are allowed to speak in churches now and gays are condemned to a lesser extent.
Pancake and I went on a magical journey to Atlantis. We're both eyewitnesses of the glory that is Atlantis. Won't you believe us, too? Seriously, because now its two voices against hers.
Also, you should look at the Pastafarian faith. There are a fair amount of followers, so it must be right.
Our world is fine when you look at it from a scientific viewpoint, disregarding any involvement of a 'creator'. We don't rely on magic here, but he process of life and death which applies to all things, even stars.
I don't believe in God, and in such don't believe in Heaven or Hell either.
Truly inspirational, till now I found it difficult to imagine a world without logic.
Kidding, I've known what that would look like for a while now.
This is not right. A simple google search will tell you otherwise. This, http://www.internetchurchofchrist.org/
Also your answers are loaded. You can either vote for God being mean or God being right, which automatically assumes that your premise was correct, which it isn't.
I agree wholeheartedly. Omnipotent beings should not need to change, they should be perfect.
I like that this is about God in particular, because God provides ethics and morality, and should exist within those bounds for time unconditionally, lest he be act hypocritically.
Not everything, but a lot of things can be. Take economics for example; for someone to profit, someone has to lose out.
I resent posting under "USA!!!" instead of "No."
Still, I don't think it's illogical. Its just manifestation of competition on a large scale, where people cheer for their home team and what it to be the best.
I think that it some kind of psychological disease when person wakes up in one day with a thought that he or she is not the one who he or she was before.
Yes, and thats a reason why people make those changes. Trauma, physical or emotional, can cause a massive way in which people perceive, think and act. I am of the opinion that sexual trauma would be a prominent catalyst for gender change.
In such cases people need more professional help from psychologists than the perversion of own body.
People are free to do as they please with their body, as far as I'm concerned. You could give someone hormone treatments to attempt to 'realign' their gender, but their mind may still have other ideas. How would you treat that? Anti-psychotic medication? Completely unnecessary...
There exists an array of reasons for a person to, if they can, change their gender. Social reasons are probably the most clear, but psychological and physical reasons most likely also exist.
As far as I understand, the most common reason for gender reassignment is money. Sex tourism is huge in South East Asia, and there is a market for the transsexual, and so it happens.
The death sentence should be given to the worst kind of criminals.
Should, because it's impractical considering what we're playing with; justice. Not life. Justice should be preserved at all times, and the state should never execute someone without knowing all the facts, and being completely sure that they were responsible for whatever deed committed.
I think that killing the worst criminals is the best, but least realistic, option.
Interesting. I'd like to argue that the spirits of ancestors ward off malevolent spirits, which is why you've never had any experiences with ghosts.
What do you think of that claim?
No. I don't believe in the paranormal at all. No religion, or ghosts, or poltergeists, or shades, or demons, etc.
