Any "Young Earthers" here. as in the earth is 6000 years old?

[Big D]

whatever you believe, just be cool unto others and they'll be cool to you

I agree with you in principal, but....

[Inazone]

My point was that evangelicals who claim the Bible is the literal word of God should not be allowed to pick and choose when the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It either is, or it isn't. And that means the entire Bible, not just the New Testament.

I think it's all a matter of context myself, especially considering the overall state of humanity in ancient times compared to today. For example, the Israelites, being of Sumerian descent (maybe we all are, for that matter) and over the course of just a couple generations roaming to Egypt, were basically nomads. It was on Abraham and his immediate party (wife, servants, relatives) to preserve their customs, especially since he didn't have children until later in life and far from home. Then it wasn't long until they essentially became Egyptian in most regards.

The Ten Commandments set the Israelites apart from the Egyptians, and the more extensive laws that followed further distinguished them from the other cultures they encountered during their exodus and eventual settlement. That *had* to cover a lot of ground when applying to some of the customs of those other cultures, especially when the worship of other gods also (presumably - I'm not an expert) included sexual rituals as well as the fairly well-known human sacrifices. Think of Old Testament laws concerning sexuality, but from the perspective of addressing ritual practices tied into the worship of other gods. My personal *opinion* is that practices considered deviant in Hebrew law had to be covered in detail because they were "gateways" back to the religions of the other cultures. These weren't lessons about the past for the Israelites - these were practices that they were observing in their travels through the region. That's absolutely critical in terms of context, and also why I think that a lot of otherwise well-meaning Christians go too far in trying to apply the laws of the day into modern times. It seems obvious to me, but less so to some people, that the New Testament was intended to teach an attitude of forgiveness - between people, not just by God - and ease off the punishments dictated by Old Testament law. Frankly, I think that by the time the Jews were subjugated by the Romans, they had established their own customs and identity enough that many of the Old Testament laws clearly no longer addressed realistic concerns.

Whew, got a bit long-winded there, but my point is that once context is overlooked, people will inevitably miss the point of huge parts of the Bible. Christianity is so fragmented over trivial disputes of interpretation, of too many people wanting to have the final say. I wish that there was more detail provided about the actual mysteries, such as the Nephilim, Cain's descendants, the Tower of Babel, the later part of Solomon's rule, and many other things, but I can accept that - just like many facets of creation - those weren't critical to the purpose of the Bible beyond the brief mention they were already given.

There is NO WAY I can explain, convey, or articulate my beliefs without offending anyone of white light based faiths. Yes, That should go both ways, but their ways is the norm and socially acceptable..and mine is not.

But even tho our morals may vary our value of good persons are the same.

An unfortunate thing about religion, especially among those people who are more radical in how they approach it, is that there is such a tendency to go to great lengths in shooting holes in others' beliefs, rather than to either 1) look for the merits in those differing beliefs or 2) find enough common ground to get along. I guess it's human nature to try to prove one's self right by first proving someone else wrong. I find the most extreme differences to be those most worth talking about, as long as it's in a civilized manner. There are definitely some people (including some no longer living) who I'd be thrilled to have a discussion with about religion, philosophy and spirituality . . . even if completely contradictory to each other.

[Ben...]

So your argument is that socialized health care won't work in the US because California, a state that doesn't have a socialized health care system, is broke? :think:

A lot of European countries do have immigrants coming in from Bumfuck, Egypt and still manage to get it to work.

+1

We gets heaps of immigrants also. Somehow our healthcare system isn't broken.

[GodOfRhythm]

That's because immigrants, once naturalized, in order to gain the benefit of socialized health care, they have to start WORKING. So they aren't just paying for themselves, they are actually helping to pay for other people under the reign of healthcare (in this instance other insured workers).

But no, AK47 has a fairytale idea of socialized healthcare. It doesn't work when no one is willing to commit to it, you might want to add that to your little equation.

[Jayster]

That's because immigrants, once naturalized, in order to gain the benefit of socialized health care, they have to start WORKING. So they aren't just paying for themselves, they are actually helping to pay for other people under the reign of healthcare (in this instance other insured workers).

But no, AK47 has a fairytale idea of socialized healthcare. It doesn't work when no one is willing to commit to it, you might want to add that to your little equation.

GoR,

With all due respect, everywhere is different. Naturalization is not happening in this country, there are only divisive groups "celebrating" their heritage. As well as the fact that your taxation structures and costs of living balance out in a far different manner. Also included in our socialized healthcare bill is a nifty piece of legislation about convincing older members of society to practice assisted suicide

Perhaps your system is different, because with any luck we'll all get older!

Inazone ~ that was a great post!

Cheers

[Ben...]

Also included in our socialized healthcare bill is a nifty piece of legislation about convincing older members of society to practice assisted suicide

Perhaps your system is different, because with any luck we'll all get older!

Inazone ~ that was a great post!

Cheers

First off, our systems are somewhat different. Secondly, I saw your thread but I can't comment because it's in Platinum. How I read the thing you bolded was that the option of assisted suicide will be available to the terminally ill. I can't see how this is a bad thing. I personally would rather die with dignity and still be somewhat aware of things than in a large amount of pain and am sustained with drugs and tubes of food.

[Jayster]

Doesn't matter, I'll prolly get hit by a car anyway.

[Rsmacker]

Doesn't matter, I'll prolly get hit by a car anyway.

Yay, Suicidal!!

[marcus]

GoR,

With all due respect, everywhere is different. Naturalization is not happening in this country, there are only divisive groups "celebrating" their heritage. As well as the fact that your taxation structures and costs of living balance out in a far different manner. Also included in our socialized healthcare bill is a nifty piece of legislation about convincing older members of society to practice assisted suicide

This is pure BS. Assisted suicide is illegal in almost all states. And naturalization occurs no differently here than elsewhere - although I am not sure why this matters. The biggest impediment to reform in this country is Republicans because they don't want change of any kind. They are serving their masters the HMOs very well. The only reason reform is on the table is because the democrats are in charge. If you want health care reform of any kind, the Republicans will never deliver it to you.

[Jayster]

Yay, Suicidal!!

I included that link for a couple of reasons ;

1) it kicks ass.
2) a brief summary of this young mans plea is:

He is having some confusion and resentment at his inability to make others understand him, especially after he's spent his whole life going to the exact same programs of social information as the next guy.

He tries harder with his elocution to make his intent understood, and finally realizes that in the grand scheme of things that this probably will have little importance on the outcome of his life!

Cheers

[GodOfRhythm]

Euthanasia is better than assisted suicide.


I'm very pro euthanasia rights, of course under adequate legislation and ruling. My paper on euthanasia on non-terminally ill patiënts on Belgium contained, mostly research on euthanasia for (old) people who start suffering the harder effects of (Alzheimer) dementia. My many interviews have opened my eyes considerably. Euthanasia is a good thing. It would seem they are now indeed starting to make preparations to amend the original law somewhat in accordance to what I, among others, have proposed.

Assisted suicide takes away from it, in the end, IMO. It puts the doctor at peril of hypocrisy and of a violation of his hippocratic oath and his pledge to uphold the decency of human worth.

[Jayster]

Gor,

What's the main difference between Euthanasia and assisted suicide?
Answer: Who is making the decision - this is truly a f'd up post on your part, commie.

Fuck it from here on out, no more political insights from me, only the obligatory occasional wise ass remarks!!!

Cheers

[GodOfRhythm]

Gor,

What's the main difference between Euthanasia and assisted suicide?
Answer: Who is making the decision - this is truly a f'd up post on your part, commie.

Fuck it from here on out, no more political insights from me, only the obligatory occasional wise ass remarks!!!

Cheers

That is NOT the answer. Decision making is VERY, VERY strictly regulated under euthanasia. It is always the patiënt who decides. Please inform yourself of matters before belittling them or calling someone a communist.

The ONLY difference is in its application.

Assisted suicide: the doctor prepares everything, puts the needle in the IV and the patiënt presses down on the syringe (which in most cases eligible for euthanasia/assisted suicide is an inhuman effort to begin with) and simply impossible in cases of prolonged comatose state.

Euthanasia is the doctor ultimately pushing down on the syringe.

The decision making process far, far, far preceeds this and has multiple steps, with obligatory reports from other doctors, advice from other doctors, and a minimum time limit between decision and application to allow for changes of thought and will.

Read my last paragraph of my previous post again, for the real effects of the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide.

[GodOfRhythm]

Please note that euthanasia with its legislation as the embodiment of ultimate personal autonomy fits rather well in the profusely libertarian and non-regulated state that so many of you seem to cling to.

Your opposition however, forms a distinction that is hard to explain and seems irrational to me. You must have a strongly variable moral compass.

[etepbbb]

Gor,

What's the main difference between Euthanasia and assisted suicide?
Answer: Who is making the decision - this is truly a f'd up post on your part, commie.

Fuck it from here on out, no more political insights from me, only the obligatory occasional wise ass remarks!!!

Cheers

I think there is a slight miscommunication here. I had the same reaction to GOR's post about euthanasia as you did. But realized that he is talking about assisted suicide with the doctor terminating the patient, not someone deciding who is to live or die.