Christianity

[Belinda]

I'll vote for laws that obligate those many times wealthier than I am to do it.

Of course you will. And I'll continue to scoff those laws. When I help: I'll be the one to decide who & how, not you or your proxies.

But Henry, modern charitable giving is both inequitable and uneven.

In the olden days when charitable giving was controlled by a powerful wealthy church that everybody had to go to the charitable giving system worked well. For instance centuries ago when the Roman Catholic church was the one and only and really powerful church in the UK , the church ran hospitals and pharmacology, poor relief, hospices for travellers, education, the arts, and it was efficiently self supporting.

Those days have gone.

[henry quirk]

But Henry, modern charitable giving is both inequitable and uneven.

So we institutionalized theft.

Great work.

Yay us.

[Walker]

But Henry, modern charitable giving is both inequitable and uneven.

So we institutionalized theft.

Great work.

Yay us.

Robin Hood reclaimed what the government stole, and returned it to the rightful owners, who were poor because of government theft.

The Left took that story, messed around with the language, and said that Robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

Notice how that absolves the government. The result is that now this is what the children say, that Robin stole from the rich to benefit the poor, despite the obvious truth that Robin was just reclaiming what had been confiscated by the government. Propaganda at its finest ... just a small thing it is, told to children, but it sticks in the little noggins until stealing from the rich, rather than the gubberment, becomes a virtuous morality play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh17LbB8pU8

[henry quirk]

But Henry, modern charitable giving is both inequitable and uneven.

So we institutionalized theft.

Great work.

Yay us.

Robin Hood reclaimed what the government stole, and returned it to the rightful owners, who were poor because of government theft.

The Left took that story, messed around with the language, and said that Robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

Notice how that absolves the government. The result is that now this is what the children say, that Robin stole from the rich to benefit the poor, despite the obvious truth that Robin was just reclaiming what had been confiscated by the government. Propaganda at its finest ... just a small thing it is, told to children, but it sticks in the little noggins until stealing from the rich, rather than the gubberment, becomes a virtuous morality play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh17LbB8pU8

Yep. Just look at Gary: to him, becuz Joe has more, and Stan has less, Joe is obligated to give to Stan who is entitled to what is Joe's. Gary's compassion, to him, is the measure all must align with. And: he's quite willin' to endorse force to move other people's resources around, to see his compassion institutionalized.

This, in his mind, means he's the good, generous guy.

And, me, becuz I point out that theft is theft no matter how well-intentioned, I'm greedy.

[Lacewing]

And as a simple demonstration of what I mean, I recently, in an alternate thread, presented to the forum member, iambiguous, the following thought experiment...

• If science discovered direct (and irrefutable) proof that your life (your mind and consciousness) will continue on after death in a new and wondrous form, and in a higher and a more desirable context of reality,...
  
  ...and that all you had to do to enter this higher context of reality was to "open a door" and step across the threshold...
  
  ...what would you do?
  
  Would you stay here and needlessly endure the pains and sufferings of this lower context of reality until death eventually finds you anyway...
  
  ...or...
  
  ...would you simply walk through the doorway right now and enter into the, again, "scientifically verified" (as in absolutely guaranteed) higher context of reality where you (and everyone you know and love) will live forever in a new and wondrous form (indeed, the same form as God)?

Well, I have questions about this.

Are you assuming that our life here on Earth is not for a good/necessary reason, perhaps even a reason that we 'ourselves' agreed to and orchestrated? Why are we here if we're not supposed to be?

Are you assuming that everyone who is here could be aware enough to see or understand your claim even if it were true and if proof of it were right in front of them? There are so many distractions that people are fully committed to here despite contrary evidence right in front of them all the time.

Now I know and respect the fact that you're a fan of focusing on making the best of our present situation and see no point in formulating our lives here on earth based on speculative (mostly whacky) visions of the afterlife.

Yes.

I've had experiences of seeing 'behind the physical/material curtain' so-to-speak, and although I thought it would be wonderful to experience and live that with other beings, that's not where we are 'right now' in this Earth life. When I had these 'glimpses', my choice was to stay here with those I love and care about, and finish it out, rather than leave yet. I respect that there's a purpose.
I continually meet people who 'see more' than what's apparent on the surface of this life... and we're all willingly staying here. I don't think it's a mistake. And I don't want to spend my life here focused only on transcending it. That will come soon enough, and I will surrender with love just as I am embracing with love.

it was you who complained about there being no "proof" of our claims, of which I am simply trying to offer a plausible reason for why humanity cannot be allowed to have any proof.

Okay. Well, I wasn't complaining... I was stating what seems true.

[promethean75]

"This, in his mind, means he's the good, generous guy. And, me, becuz I point out that theft is theft no matter how well-intentioned, I'm greedy."

be that as it may, you are both egoists. Gary's might be what we call involuntary egoism because in a commitment to being generous and standing for such causes (as generosity, altruism, charity, etc.), Gary involuntarily satisfies his own ego.

only when Gary recognizes that nothing is owed to anyone and there are no innate rights, might he be charitable and generous with a good conscience... as a voluntary egoist... acting freely, without obligation and with good will, toward others, simply because it pleases him.

[Belinda]

But Henry, modern charitable giving is both inequitable and uneven.

So we institutionalized theft.

Great work.

Yay us.

We institutionalised charitable giving. You live your life under a regime. I understand the US is a free country where you can change the regime if plenty others agree with you. There are not many modern regimes under which there is no provision at all for those who fail.

[iambiguous]

Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

Eight Reasons in Support of God’s Existence

I believe that God’s existence best explains a wide range of the data of human experience. Let me briefly mention eight such cases.

(I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.

Okay, but if you are going to credit God with the existence of everything, that necessarily includes the existence of these:


...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

Suppose you were hiking through the forest and came upon a ball lying on the ground. You would naturally wonder how it came to be there. If your hiking buddy said to you, “Forget about it! It just exists!” you would think he was either joking or just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the idea that the ball just exists without any explanation. Now notice than merely increasing the size of the ball until it becomes coextensive with the universe does nothing to either provide, or remove the need for, an explanation of its existence.

Or, suppose John is hiking through the forest with his kids, and a grizzly bear attacks them. The bear devours them. Or an avalanche buries them under feet of snow and ice.

The families ask, "why?!" The buddy says, "God knows."

And, depending on what kind of ball it is, its existence can be explained in great detail. For example, suppose it was a baseball. The buddy can link you to this: https://youtu.be/usnZ_rdRo_M

As for this...

So what is the explanation of the existence of the universe (by ‘the universe’ I mean all of spacetime reality)? The explanation of the universe can lie only in a transcendent reality beyond it – beyond space and time – the existence of which transcendent reality is metaphysically necessary (otherwise its existence would also need explaining). Now there is only one way I can think of to get a contingent entity like the universe from a necessarily existing cause, and that is if the cause is an agent who can freely choose to create the contingent reality. It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of the contingent universe is a transcendent personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’.

Please. To note the existence of the universe and then to just assume there must be a "transcendent reality" behind it?

And then the purely speculative question in turn that revolves around any contingencies that must exist in order to explain the existence of God Himself. Did God create Himself? Did God create the universe as He did because it can only be in sync with the laws of matter or did God create the laws of matter too.

Anyone here able to demonstrate to us which one it actually was?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Anyone here able to demonstrate to us which one it actually was?

I’ll be thinking it over. Meantime, and this was really difficult, I got you an interview with the rabbi. Surely he can clear things up!

[ThinkOfOne]

To whoever posted questions as to why I believe the Cross expresses the essential meaning and purpose of Christianity, I had some personal problems necessitated being away from the Internet for a week. Your questions were good and deserve answers. Feel free to try again since your post may have been deleted since I can't find it..

In my previous post, I posted the URL for the post that I had made. That wasn't the post you had in mind?

[henry quirk]

We institutionalised charitable giving.

If A asks for a donation, and Z offers one freely: this is charity.

If A sez gimme or else, and Z ponies over, not freely, but out of fear: this is theft (and it matters not one jot if A uses that stolen resource to feed the hungry).

You live your life under a regime.

No, Miss B. I live in the midst of slavers & sociopaths. I'm under nuthin' or no one.

I understand the US is a free country where you can change the regime if plenty others agree with you

The United States is a construct designed to further slavers & sociopaths. America is currently makin' the hard decision on what to do with The United States (no, I'm not talkin' about Election Tuesday).

As for democracy: I never signed any contract obligation' me to bow to the majority, or to attend to directives issued by their proxies/masters.

[promethean75]

"suppose John is hiking through the forest with his kids, and a grizzly bear attacks them. The bear devours them. Or an avalanche buries them under feet of snow and ice."

Okay but what if an avalanche starts the moment the bear attacks but the kids jump out of the way and the avalanche buries the bear instead? See u didn't even think about that.

[Walker]

"suppose John is hiking through the forest with his kids, and a grizzly bear attacks them. The bear devours them. Or an avalanche buries them under feet of snow and ice."

Okay but what if an avalanche starts the moment the bear attacks but the kids jump out of the way and the avalanche buries the bear instead? See u didn't even think about that.

Bears are quicker than the little children, better at dodging avalanches. Barring divine intervention, bet on the bear.

[Age]

We institutionalised charitable giving.

If A asks for a donation, and Z offers one freely: this is charity.

If A sez gimme or else, and Z ponies over, not freely, but out of fear: this is theft (and it matters not one jot if A uses that stolen resource to feed the hungry).

You live your life under a regime.

No, Miss B. I live in the midst of slavers & sociopaths. I'm under nuthin' or no one.

Here is another great example of one deceiving and fooling "themself".

I understand the US is a free country where you can change the regime if plenty others agree with you

The United States is a construct designed to further slavers & sociopaths. America is currently makin' the hard decision on what to do with The United States (no, I'm not talkin' about Election Tuesday).

As for democracy: I never signed any contract obligation' me to bow to the majority, or to attend to directives issued by their proxies/masters.

[FlashDangerpants]

In our last conversation you fell apart so badly you had to pretend you'd never used the word "rent" because it was somebody else's word,

What actually happened is you accused ME of saying something that appeared in a quotation from somebody else. So it's no surprise I said that I didn't use the word; it was not a quotation from me.

But you can remember that any way you want. Either way, I already pointed it out.

I said you didn't have a quote for these people saying that we would all be forced into golabl socialism where we must rent everything from the government.
Then you said that you had never even used the word "rent"
Then I gave you a quote of you saying that these people would make us all rent everything from the government.
Then you said, ha ha not my word it's theirs.
But you never did have that quote about us all having to rent everything from the government.
You just lied about not having it, then about whether you had even claimed iy, and now you are lying again.