# Dr. Assisted Suicide



## ambush80 (May 14, 2018)

What do you all think about it?


----------



## ryanh487 (May 14, 2018)

I have mixed feelings.

I think if you have a medical condition that guarantees a long, slow painful demise and there's no way out of it, that you should have a right to go with your dignity when you're ready to call it quits.  

I know for a fact that in hospice care/retirement homes/hospitals that when some elderly are in their last hours of life and in extreme agony and screaming about the pain while their organs shut down, it is not uncommon to put them on a morphine drip that's a little stronger than it should be, or at least start the drip and give them control of the dosage button.

I do not think that a healthy person should end their life whenever they feel like it, at least not with professional assistance.  Most folks that attempt suicide and fail regret it later on.  Having a doctor assist you would guarantee success and remove that chance for someone to have the epiphany it takes to turn their life around.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2018)

ryanh487 said:


> I have mixed feelings.
> 
> I think if you have a medical condition that guarantees a long, slow painful demise and there's no way out of it, that you should have a right to go with your dignity when you're ready to call it quits.
> 
> ...



How about someone that's tried more than once and says they'll keep trying?


----------



## ryanh487 (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How about someone that's tried more than once and says they'll keep trying?



If they've failed that many times, chances are it's about attention and not about actually killing themselves.

But regardless, Dr's should have no part in ending the life of a physically health individual.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2018)

ryanh487 said:


> If they've failed that many times, chances are it's about attention and not about actually killing themselves.
> 
> But regardless, Dr's should have no part in ending the life of a physically health individual.



So "No" to this?

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-euthanise-29-year-old-woman-with-depression/


----------



## ryanh487 (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So "No" to this?
> 
> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-euthanise-29-year-old-woman-with-depression/



100% no


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2018)

ryanh487 said:


> 100% no



Do you think allowing people to purchase drugs to end their life is any different than allowing someone to buy a gun to end their life?  50% of suicides are by firearm.  They were absolutely certain about what they wanted. There must be some number of those people who would have chosen to take a lethal drug if they could.


----------



## ryanh487 (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think allowing people to purchase drugs to end their life is any different than allowing someone to buy a gun to end their life?  50% of suicides are by firearm.  They were absolutely certain about what they wanted. There must be some number of those people who would have chosen to take a lethal drug if they could.



If you want to try and end your own life by your own hand instead of finding ways to overcome your emotions, I don't like it but go for it.

Having someone else do it is murder.  Anyone who would be willing to stick a needle in your arm just because you can't cope is sick in the head and does not belong in society.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2018)

ryanh487 said:


> If you want to try and end your own life by your own hand instead of finding ways to overcome your emotions, I don't like it but go for it.
> 
> Having someone else do it is murder.  Anyone who would be willing to stick a needle in your arm just because you can't cope is sick in the head and does not belong in society.



What if they're paralyzed and they cant do it themselves?


----------



## ryanh487 (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if they're paralyzed and they cant do it themselves?



1) that's not a physically healthy person

2) that's also not a terminal condition.  lots of folks live full lives despite paralysis.  allowing them to succumb to the emotional/mental side effects of a physical injury is NOT "do not harm".


----------



## Israel (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What if they're paralyzed and they cant do it themselves?



You could tell them to have patience. And if you have any...give it to them.


----------



## j_seph (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So "No" to this?
> 
> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-euthanise-29-year-old-woman-with-depression/




How can someone who is not in their right mind make a decision to have their life ended? Was it one of the voices in her head telling her to say that or was it her? Was it one of those personalities that crossed the borderline and said to do it?


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2018)

j_seph said:


> How can someone who is not in their right mind make a decision to have their life ended? Was it one of the voices in her head telling her to say that or was it her? Was it one of those personalities that crossed the borderline and said to do it?



So if they throw them self in front of a train would that prove to you that they wanted to die?


----------



## red neck richie (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What do you all think about it?



Why do you need assistance? There are plenty of ways to accomplish this without assistance if this is what you desire.


----------



## j_seph (May 14, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So if they throw them self in front of a train would that prove to you that they wanted to die?



LOL I'd say probably so or the voice in their head said do it.


----------



## Israel (May 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So if they throw them self in front of a train would that prove to you that they wanted to die?



So what? 

There's a superabundance of things people _want_ in occupation of a space from which there is _absolutely_ no place to make legitimate demands upon any other.

Loyalty oaths are one.

Signing or _ceremony_ of agreeing to "Statements of Faith" in order to belong to a "church" (or some other institution) is another.

The only thing men can swear to...is to act like the devil.

Doctor assisted suicide is simply the _normal result_ of what once swore to "Primum non nocere".


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2018)

I'm all for the concept.
Seems like the "doctor assisted" part could be eliminated if a "get it done quick and clean like" pill could be made available.
The screening process would certainly be a complicated, snarling mass of red tape probably to the point of being like sitting on death row waiting decades for the go ahead.


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm all for the concept.
> Seems like the "doctor assisted" part could be eliminated if a "get it done quick and clean like" pill could be made available.
> The screening process would certainly be a complicated, snarling mass of red tape probably to the point of being like sitting on death row waiting decades for the go ahead.



So, I asked in the political forum if there should be a waiting period for a pill to kill yourself but not one to get a gun to kill yourself.  Is there a difference?


----------



## NCHillbilly (May 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So, I asked in the political forum if there should be a waiting period for a pill to kill yourself but not one to get a gun to kill yourself.  Is there a difference?



Yes. The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to keep and eat pills.


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Yes. The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to keep and eat pills.




I kind of meant philosophically. Not in the sense of some dogmatic adherence to the Constitution like it's the Bible.


----------



## georgia_home (May 15, 2018)

this is kinda interesting.

states like california are all concerned with "gun violence" of which the resulting death toll is 2/3 suicide.

in the same breath, they recently voted to allow physician assisted suicide (PAS).

i think that what they really don't like is the DIY'ers and the inability to tax them.

seems all they'd need to do is put a death tax in place for the DIY crowd, and things will be all right.

cali does have a waiting period for guns, 10 days i think?.?. not sure about PAS.



ambush80 said:


> So, I asked in the political forum if there should be a waiting period for a pill to kill yourself but not one to get a gun to kill yourself.  Is there a difference?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So, I asked in the political forum if there should be a waiting period for a pill to kill yourself but not one to get a gun to kill yourself.  Is there a difference?


There are differences that would come into play for example if you "order" the pill your intended usage of it would be accepted.
If you go the gun counter and say "I need a gun so I can kill myself" you will probably be shown a squirt gun.
And I would imagine we would have to apply the same philosophy to everything anybody ever committed suicide with.
So I reject the question


----------



## ryanh487 (May 15, 2018)

If you've ever attempted suicide and were saved by medical personnel, you have been 1013'd/involuntarily committed in the process.  You are not allowed to own a gun.


----------



## j_seph (May 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> There are differences that would come into play for example if you "order" the pill your intended usage of it would be accepted.
> If you go the gun counter and say "I need a gun so I can kill myself" you will probably be shown a squirt gun.
> And I would imagine we would have to apply the same philosophy to everything anybody ever committed suicide with.
> So I reject the question


1 shot disposable guns


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2018)

georgia_home said:


> this is kinda interesting.
> 
> states like california are all concerned with "gun violence" of which the resulting death toll is 2/3 suicide.
> 
> ...



Death tax.  Interesting idea. 

Your post made me wonder how much people are opposed to a pill because they think it makes it too easy.


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> There are differences that would come into play for example if you "order" the pill your intended usage of it would be accepted.
> If you go the gun counter and say "I need a gun so I can kill myself" you will probably be shown a squirt gun.
> And I would imagine we would have to apply the same philosophy to everything anybody ever committed suicide with.
> So I reject the question



Why would you have to order the pill?  Shouldn't you be able to just go get one like a gun?

Think of it this way.  In the PF I argued against the notion of people being allowed to have deadly substances like anthrax or C4 without some sort of permit.  If we should be able to have those things without restriction then why not death pills?


----------



## ryanh487 (May 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Your post made me wonder how much people are opposed to a pill because they think it makes it too easy.



Nobody depressed enough to commit suicide is of sound mind to make any important decisions.


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2018)

ryanh487 said:


> Nobody depressed enough to commit suicide is of sound mind to make any important decisions.



OK.  So what does that have to do with their right to take their own life?  Are we still talking about rights or something else?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2018)

ryanh487 said:


> Nobody depressed enough to commit suicide is of sound mind to make any important decisions.


Why does suicide HAVE to be associated with depression?
Why cant one make a rational, competent decision that its time to go?


----------



## georgia_home (May 15, 2018)

UPDATE

I intended some sarcasm with my post comparing guns and PAS

That said, a link off drudge said the PAS law in cali may be tossed out for procedural  reasons. 

The AG has time to appeal.


----------



## red neck richie (May 15, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why does suicide HAVE to be associated with depression?
> Why cant one make a rational, competent decision that its time to go?



Why do you need assistance?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Why do you need assistance?


You mean Doctor's assistance?
Currently its the most humane/painless/cleanest/least traumatizing for people who would prefer you didn't do it, process we have. 
People that are making a rational, conscience decision would find that much more appealing than splattering their brains on the wall for someone else to find. 
I would think.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Why would you have to order the pill?  Shouldn't you be able to just go get one like a gun?
> 
> Think of it this way.  In the PF I argued against the notion of people being allowed to have deadly substances like anthrax or C4 without some sort of permit.  If we should be able to have those things without restriction then why not death pills?


I'm still having trouble with your premise. I get the path you are trying to go down but I find its premise faulty by giving the gun a specified purpose ie suicide and trying to make the comparison to something that has only one purpose ie suicide pill.


> people being allowed to have deadly substances like anthrax or C4 without some sort of permit.


The Walmart was fresh out when I was there 


> If we should be able to have those things without restriction then why not death pills?


I don't think we should have anthrax or C4 or death pills without restriction.


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2018)

Switzerland has it right.


----------



## Israel (May 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm still having trouble with your premise. I get the path you are trying to go down but I find its premise faulty by giving the gun a specified purpose ie suicide and trying to make the comparison to something that has only one purpose ie suicide pill.
> 
> The Walmart was fresh out when I was there
> 
> I don't think we should have anthrax or C4 or death pills without restriction.



Disclaimer: I am not arguing for suicide pills. 

A man buys a 12 gauge like this.
Yes, it could be used for rabbit hunting.
It could be used on sporting clays.
But...(and regardless of all the other assumptions I'd prefer to address already in the mix of this argument/discussion...specifically as to "what is a _right_?") generally, we_ may_ (?) agree what this is for.
Do we agree its use is best suited for and to a man seeking to deliver himself from a situation he may think _could occur_(and from which he probably imagines he has a legitimate right). 
Use though, despite seeming intent (and what could be surmised of it by observers) is really the only thing that ultimately bears the _truer_ testimony. Intents, will, desires...all must submit to use. But even then..._is use _the final word? (I find that a _big_ question, knowing absolutely, I can "make no other" even consider it).

One side says "suicide pill" is absolutely (_solely_ because we ordain it) only for...one thing.
But even in the assumptions we may have about that shotgun and intentions regarding it as perhaps varied. we may still find even more variation. 

The man who once may have even envisioned himself (if the situation arose) grabbing the gun and "blowing away" illegitimate and unwanted intruders...may find them scurrying out of harms way (and in fright for their lives) from his house...when they saw him _merely _rack it. 
(A cop once said "get a pump action"...for even if they are not yet through the door, and they hear that on the other side..._they_ know what that implies.)

So...could a man, does a man...have the right to then (even in the case of s suicide pill) _say_..."I don't think your assumptions about me purchasing it are quite correct"

"I know you assume it is for one thing only..."

"But, I want it...just in case..." (Watch a good spy movie! for starters)

The question is (for me)..."Is a man "free" by right...to _have_ what _does not enter_ into needing justification...by the assumptions...of others?"

BTW, I believe all men already have a built in self destruct button...it's called "their own lives", and they took it before they knew will to...in their very first breath. To what use they will put it to is yet for the adjudicating. Someone has got a foot already "in my door" and convincing me daily of its best use. Hate it...be separated from it...be free of its suicidal impetus and impulse to end itself...by taking matters "into its own hands".

But, I am just a beginner at this. I _know_...I am _not good_ at it.

But who knows if the best use of a shotgun...may simply be as a door stop? To keep one open...of course. Or a leveler for a troublesome table, or a makeshift handle...for a water pump.

Vendors _assume_ the _obligation of assumptions_ about whatever product _they seek to sell._ What a man may give freely...has no such restriction of obligation. He is absolutely free to not care at all...what he gives...may be used for.

Beating swords into plowshares seems a work, but not when one has seen a harvest...waiting. Just "out of sight"_ seemingly._

Look...I met a man so full of powder and shot that had he chosen to "go off" the universe itself could not survive it. But...he was free...not to. He wasn't selling...a thing. But repurchasing...what is already...His own. _Almost_ too crazy, especially when seeing what He paid.
But in that "almost" hangs all.
And I...am not...almost...your brother.
Who...doesn't _need a right_...to speak?
Just...does?


Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Sometimes the learning of what a man _could say and do_...but does not...is no less important in "sizing him up" than what is at very first...only seen and heard...of him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What do you all think about it?



It’s a broad spectrum that stretches from hospice care to arguably, abortion.  May want to be a bit more specific with your parameters.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> So "No" to this?
> 
> http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-euthanise-29-year-old-woman-with-depression/



In my opinion, in this instance, it's murder and premeditated.

As bogus as 90% of psychiatric diagnoses are, that's ONE slippery slope.

On the flip side I worked Critical Care for years and it was, and still is very common to place someone who is suffering, no hope of recovery, and literally dying a slow death on a morphine drip to both ease and speed the course along.  

There is a TIME to die.  We have just come so far with our technology that in many instances we can revive and sustain shells of persons who should by all rights HAVE died.  In many instances the surviving family is not prepared for the often suddenness of whatever catastrophic event befalls the loved one,  and it often takes a while for them to come to the conclusion that granny, for all practical purposes, died at home and it's just the drugs and ventilator that's substaining her.  Some never do, and sadly some will keep them alive to keep the check coming in one more month.  I've seen hundreds of people die; some with dignity, but most not.
Only one really stands out in my mind:  an elderly man with failing lungs.  He simply asked me to pull the curtain and let him spend his last minutes with his family at his bedside.  I did.  In my mind, he died with dignity.

Sorry for the rambling.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2018)

Israel said:


> Disclaimer: I am not arguing for suicide pills.
> 
> A man buys a 12 gauge like this.
> Yes, it could be used for rabbit hunting.
> ...



Huh?  Never mind.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why cant one make a rational, competent decision that its time to go?



I'm split on this.  One part of me says "They can." and the other part says that a "rational, competent" person by definition, wouldn't make that decision, but maybe they would.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 16, 2018)

ryanh487 said:


> But regardless, Dr's should have no part in ending the life of a physically health individual.



This I totally agree with for a myriad of reasons.


----------



## Israel (May 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Huh?  Never mind.



The suffering of a thing is only rightly understood when measured against what a man has in ability to deliver himself from it. And this...with no consequence against himself.

What man holds _the right_ to forbid death itself? 
Only the man who could have...but didn't, to Himself.

You appear in a struggle to know how _that man_ is, and shall be _rightly_ shared.
Me, too.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In my opinion, in this instance, it's murder and premeditated.
> 
> As bogus as 90% of psychiatric diagnoses are, that's ONE slippery slope.
> 
> ...



Heartfelt post SFD. If that was rambling, it was darn good rambling.


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm split on this.  One part of me says "They can." and the other part says that a "rational, competent" person by definition, wouldn't make that decision, but maybe they would.



It's not an easy thing to navigate, is it?
It may be impossible.
Oh, it can be seemingly resolved among men, even easily...opinion is an easy thing to have. But when it is mined...what is there?

Can the whole of the matter be reduced to:
How far is a man "allowed" to operate outside of what another man considers rational? Or even, competent.

We hold certain matters to ourselves, but if and/or when we ask about them, or are asked...then it is manifestly a seeking of "what society am I among?" And, if/when we answer...we give indication of it. 

Both the society _we see ourselves_ among, and identify with _in our answer_ and, to the asker, what society he now finds himself, among.

I see the difficulty in your response. But the deeper question is...where is the line of non-interference? Is there a line? Is it _all_ non-interference...? _Some_ interference?  And if so...where, and when? 

Or is it, and must be by necessity, of ..._all_ interference?

This question is no less important to the "believer" (and I would say...far more so) and far deeper than _perhaps_, some realize. 

For if it is _all_ non-interference...(the question _seems so easily_ resolved there...but with a definite "hook"...I'm assured many do not see) then one may find themselves in an isolation of such depths that it will be made clear to them they have not known _at all_ the significance of that taken stance.

Yet...if it is "some" interference, the man has no less entered an also weighty place. When, and how much? What is legitimate "interference? What...is not? Is there an unhealthy blowback...if this is not navigated rightly?

I see your issue in your above. It is common, and common to us in trying to discern "competency" that this definition is applied for light to it:

"Is _the man_ a danger to himself...or others?"

"Danger" there is the word that needs analyzed.
 Might he "harm" himself...or others?
(Again...harm needs analyzed)

I am inclined to believe there is the implication (though not always clearly stated) and assumption...suicide might be accepted as the greatest _harm_...and killing no less, of another, as the greatest _harm_...in the word "harm", used there. 

"Is he in danger (by possibility) of harming himself, or others?" 

If that is the assumption (regardless of _right_ or _wrong_), and competency is based upon that, then the assumption of it follows surely "_the man_ is not competent". 

If suicide be considered  the ultimate of "harm (ing) of himself", (and killing be likewise the _ultimate_ of harming another) then_ that man_ could not be found competent...who wills to kill himself...or kill another. But men, we must admit, have a hard time seeing their own will, let alone, that of another.

(I am _willing_ to discuss this "can of worms", knowing few, if any will) For what man...resides "outside" that (ever) possibility?

The third, but less accepted (for the most painfully of obvious reason) is that _it is_ of "all-interference".

So yes...no wonder it is "hard" to discern.
And I no less see the struggle of another who has already stated in another thread, another place, "everything we do has effects stretching outward from us"...not verbatim.

A man may say "I have the right to suicide" and (so many other "things") and others may even indeed applaud it. But no man has any power in himself to negate consequence of action. And action starts in conception, and conception leads to "birthing" words, and words...lead inexorably to actions.

And again, no man is immune to bearing the consequence of action. (take away "forgive me"...and/or "I am sorry" and watch all marriage, friendship, any comfort of relationship...likewise vanish) Is that the society..._one asks_ for? 

Is it _best_ if all be resolved to only _"non-interference"_? 

Like Don Corleone told Michael: "The one who comes to you with this Barzini meeting, he's the traitor" So is the one who believes he can answer surely and definitively "yes". Man wants no interference with _his will_ to _any frustration_...only because he does not _know_. He has no idea to what slaughter his own will would lead.

Nevertheless, Jesus has mercy...for the "not knowing".

But...man may ask for help..._ask for_ interference. He may just find it is endless, "this help" he needs in being interfered with...when he sees how very very incompetent he is. And how thoughtless he truly is, even in his own brilliance.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 17, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm split on this.  One part of me says "They can." and the other part says that a "rational, competent" person by definition, wouldn't make that decision, but maybe they would.





> the other part says that a "rational, competent" person by definition, wouldn't make that decision,


That's probably true 90% of the time I'm guessing.
But I definitely think there is that small number who's mind is working great but physically they are shot, may have some debilitating disease, know what the future holds and what their quality of life is going to be and would just rather just go out on a high note instead of languishing in a hospital bed for who knows how long waiting on inevitable death.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 17, 2018)

NCHillbilly said:


> Yes. The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to keep and eat pills.



The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

It does not guarantee you the right to Death, Depression and the Pursuit of Sadness.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.
> 
> It does not guarantee you the right to Death, Depression and the Pursuit of Sadness.



Can you quote for me the exact passage in the constitution that makes those guarantees and denies the others? I've read my copy and don't find either in there.

I do find these lines that might hold some relevance on the matter.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


----------



## WaltL1 (May 17, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.
> 
> It does not guarantee you the right to Death, Depression and the Pursuit of Sadness.


So just out of curiosity, how would you apply (if it all) this -


> The Constitution also guarantees you the Right to Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.


To this - 


> that small number who's mind is working great but physically they are shot, may have some debilitating disease, know what the future holds and what their quality of life is going to be and would just rather just go out on a high note instead of languishing in a hospital bed for who knows how long waiting on inevitable death.


----------



## Israel (May 18, 2018)

The whole of the question of suicide is crazily difficult.
I don't think we've yet defined terms well enough...but then I seem to always be arguing that in some measure. We (to me) talk about G&H, or Y&Z without really addressing A&B.

The fellow who jumps on a grenade? The U-2 pilot (who may or may not use the pill)...the guy who "draws fire" and discovers he drew a little more than he'd hoped, the guy who radios in an airstrike on his own position once "they're inside the wire"?

How bout this guy? The one who got the face transplant, now quite obviously "wanting to live" (at least a little more) whose failed shotgun blast left him needing one.

And we have not yet even begun to touch upon the most essential to any argument and particularly this discussion...what is a "right"? 

Do "rights" exist? Is even the _concept of rights_...right?

How bout this guy?

Captain: "I want you guys to take that machine gun nest"

Private: "That's a suicide mission sir, count me out"

Captain: "That's insubordination and I will shoot you on the spot"   

Private: "On what grounds sir?"

Captain "You swore...an oath"

Private: "Indeed I did sir.  That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed"

Captain: "See? I'm duly appointed and I am giving you an order!"  

Private: "Sir, the Constitution I swore to protect and defend guarantees me the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' none of which I see if I run up that hill." And sir...I do see a prioritization even in the oath. 

Captain: "well it also says you swore to obey"

Private: "well sir, that's _only_ what _the oath _says, but the Constitution has no provision in it for me_ to swear to anything at all._ Does the President's and his "officers appointed" authority come _from the _Constitution, or supersede it?
So, if you "got me" to _swear that oath_...(and that by _trickeration_ and duress) that you now say is superior over me than the Constitution is...what am I defending? The oath...or the Constitution? Your right to give me an order? Are you saying that is superior to the Constitution? If so, you are saying _your rights_ exceed the Constitution...and maybe I should _shoot you _on the spot for being a domestic enemy of it.
Where did you get this power, Captain, to exceed the Constitution?"

Captain: "You ignoramus...it's in the Constitution...the right to raise an army"

Private: (Running away)..."Sorry sir, I recant! I recant! I won't shoot you, but I will pity you...for believing a document that can establish by its claimed supremacy of law certain guarantees...yet in your mind now propounds to exceed those lawful guarantees, and reserves to itself...the right to, by finding exemption and creating space where promised rights...may be suspended. By which recognition of those rights it claims as its authority.
Sir, that ain't freedom...that's tyranny." 

"Sir, you been played!"

Captain: (shooting wildly, lousily, ineptly, clumsily, foolishly, somehow manages to blow the brains out of a man far wiser than he)




This is not embedded due to _some language_.


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


----------



## Redoak4570 (May 19, 2018)

Having had family members suffer for years, with no hope of recovery, I feel very strongly that while we as individuals are of good health and sound mind, should be able to decide to end our life if faced with disease from which we will never recover. We humanely end the suffering of our pets when it’s time so why should human lives linger on until the body finally dies? If I have terminal cancer (as a friend currently has) I’d like the opportunity to spend time with my family and then have the doctor come in and end my suffering. I don’t think that just because I’m have trouble coping with life I should be able to have a doctor end it all. I do think if I’m suffering from a terminal disease I should be able to decide when I’m tired of hurting and ask for relief.


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Why does suicide HAVE to be associated with depression?
> Why cant one make a rational, competent decision that its time to go?



Depression is the leading cause. Must be a connection.


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2018)

It’s saying a lot about some members of society that will defend a persons “right to die” but will not defend a babies right to live.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> It’s saying a lot about some members of society that will defend a persons “right to die” but will not defend a babies right to live.



That is the level to which our society has degraded. Life has no value unless it is a white teenager in a high school.


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Why would you have to order the pill?  Shouldn't you be able to just go get one like a gun?
> 
> Think of it this way.  In the PF I argued against the notion of people being allowed to have deadly substances like anthrax or C4 without some sort of permit.  If we should be able to have those things without restriction then why not death pills?


 If a person wants to kill them self by pills, O.D. happens daily. Don’t need the govt or a “right” to water it down to make it look like it’s ok.


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2018)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> That is the level to which our society has degraded. Life has no value unless it is a white teenager in a high school.



Yup.........and just think about this for a second, how does one accuse Christianity as “immoral” and justify murder????? Suicide by assistance is nothing but murder.


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If a person wants to kill them self by pills, O.D. happens daily. Don’t need the govt or a “right” to water it down to make it look like it’s ok.



Yes!

That's it, isn't it? Once a thing is endorsed as a right does it not bear the imprimatur "this is more than OK?" It is so good...it MUST be secured by law.


----------



## welderguy (May 19, 2018)

I think suffering gets a bad rap most of the time, unnecessarily.
Much of our suffering is very good for us. Paradoxical

Corinthians 4:17 

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes!
> 
> That's it, isn't it? Once a thing is endorsed as a right does it not bear the imprimatur "this is more than OK?" It is so good...it MUST be secured by law.



Other than a Christian belief that suicide is wrong, exactly what is wrong with it as far as the govt or anyone else endorsing it?? I mean once you’re dead it’s not like they’re going to sentence you to anything for killing yourself.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2018)

welderguy said:


> I think suffering gets a bad rap most of the time, unnecessarily.
> Much of our suffering is very good for us. Paradoxical
> 
> Corinthians 4:17
> ...


I think that is a "feel good" statement with about 0 thought behind it.
Tell that to the kid in a hospital bed with cancer who's affliction is not light, is not but for a moment and who's suffering will not be very good for them.
Sometimes you guys let your catch phrases over ride your ability to recognize what you are saying.


----------



## welderguy (May 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I think that is a "feel good" statement with about 0 thought behind it.
> Tell that to the kid in a hospital bed with cancer who's affliction is not light, is not but for a moment and who's suffering will not be very good for them.
> Sometimes you guys let your catch phrases over ride your ability to recognize what you are saying.



If that kid is in Christ, I wouldn't have to tell them, he/she already knows.
It's those who are not in Christ who have trouble understanding it. They can't see "afar off".


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2018)

welderguy said:


> If that kid is in Christ, I wouldn't have to tell them, he/she already knows.
> It's those who are not in Christ who have trouble understanding it. They can't see "afar off".


Easy to say when you are in good health.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2018)

welderguy said:


> If that kid is in Christ, I wouldn't have to tell them, he/she already knows.
> It's those who are not in Christ who have trouble understanding it. They can't see "afar off".


This is what I find disgusting about religion.
Turn a kid's suffering into a sales pitch.
Just disgusting.


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> This is what I find disgusting about religion.
> Turn a kid's suffering into a sales pitch.
> Just disgusting.



If someone is using someone’s health situation as a sales pitch either for or against religion, I’d agree with you. 

How many have turned away from religion due to their “unanswered prayers” and the sales pitch of “told you, God isn’t real”?

“Indoctrination” works both ways. You can influence and raise an atheist or Christian child.

Perhaps we all share in the “disgust”

But what do you as a non believer say to a kid on his cancer bed that ask you to pray for him?? What do you say if he ask you about God?


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2018)

A thing, even if not being declared a right, does not by necessity make it illegal.

A thing, by being declared a right, not only makes it legal, but protected with force of law. And the protection of such is _always_ limited by such power as may be _granted _in exertion, to the authority declaring.

And a commandment has always and only the power of its issuing authority to its enforcement. Likewise, if there be a forbidding.


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Easy to say when you are in good health.



Sunny days are meant for building.
And storms test what each has built.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> If someone is using someone’s health situation as a sales pitch either for or against religion, I’d agree with you.
> 
> How many have turned away from religion due to their “unanswered prayers” and the sales pitch of “told you, God isn’t real”?
> 
> ...





> If someone is using someone’s health situation as a sales pitch either for or against religion, I’d agree with you.


And I would agree with you.


> How many have turned away from religion due to their “unanswered prayers” and the sales pitch of “told you, God isn’t real”?


I honestly don't know a single person who turned away from religion for either of those 2 reasons. I would assume there are I just don't know or have talked to one.


> “Indoctrination” works both ways. You can influence and raise an atheist or Christian child.


There is a 3rd option.


> But what do you as a non believer say to a kid on his cancer bed that ask you to pray for him??


Couple of options -
1. Ask him to lead the prayer while I bow my head and be respectful.
2. Tell him I will "pray" for him. The Christian assumption is one can only "pray" to God. You can pray for a positive outcome without asking a deity to grant your wish.


> What do you say if he ask you about God?


Couple of options -
1. I know enough about the Christian beliefs in God to be able to tell him.
2. Tell him a pastor/priest/whatever can explain better than I can and then go get the appropriate pastor/priest/whatever.

Its pretty simple to turn the conservation around to what they believe without having to reveal what you believe.
I get the feeling you think it would go like this -
Suffering kid: "Walt tell me about God".
Walt: "Don't be stupid there is no God".


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2018)

Who of us...do not find ourselves...at very particular times..."that kid"?


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2018)

Israel said:


> Sunny days are meant for building.
> And storms test what each has built.



Children are too young and inexperienced to understand that. Most adults are too absorbed in other things to care.


----------



## Spotlite (May 19, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> And I would agree with you.
> 
> I honestly don't know a single person who turned away from religion for either of those 2 reasons. I would assume there are I just don't know or have talked to one.
> 
> ...



I like it! 

But no I don’t think that you’d do that to anyone, let alone a kid, my intent was to expand on what welderguy said about “if the child is in Christ, he will understand”.......meaning that it’s not a sales pitch since the conversation will be based on what the kid already believes.


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Children are too young and inexperienced to understand that. Most adults are too absorbed in other things to care.




I don't disagree.

Is that not a suffering right there?
I read, heard, saw...somewhere and somehow in some way came across this statement...I can't remember the quote exactly or from whom, a long while back in regards to what suffering is:

"Suffering is not a single thing, it is composed of both pain and the perception (i.e. interpretation) of it"

(And aha! When I sought to google that statement just now, a whole host of things came up)

I have thought much about that statement over the years...and I believe it approaches an understanding of certain things that, on their face, might be consigned a more facile interpretation.


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

This "useful" child being discussed as though he were all measure of true suffering in the perfect degree of innocence, of all unwarranted and terrible circumstance of affliction (and _infliction_, if any can bear it)...where does he "stack up" against the woman on Rodeo Drive in 500$ mules who suddenly finds a nail breaking in seeking to lift an overladen shopping bag and screams in utter desperation to the heavens "why me?"
Is she not..."as useful"? And if so...to what?

If we are "only" judges between, observers outside (as though we inhabit an outside...O! the vanity!) the lending of sympathies to one, and the likewise (perhaps) rebuke of the other...doesn't really do anything for either, ultimately.
If all, at best, we believe is in only seeing and shaking our "knowing heads" to "what a pity...what a shame" to either...or both...(as though we truly do act only as observer "of mankind"...exempting ourselves) and _do not_...and_ cannot _(how blind is man?) know ourselves _as both_ to _no difference at all_...we are indeed, most deceived.

I tell you, there is One who has come to sit in the dust of both, and with them, not so they may know shame of their condition...but hope in Him, through His willingness to be found in their (our) common dust. And to sit with us...in it. (And _even stay_...if one can receive it!)

For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you again.

Do any of us think innocence is not judged to a right end?
And who among us...is? Innocent enough to declare "I will bear all judgment for my judging"

For whether we say it or not...we shall.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> This "useful" child being discussed as though he were all measure of true suffering in the perfect degree of innocence, of all unwarranted and terrible circumstance of affliction (and _infliction_, if any can bear it)...where does he "stack up" against the woman on Rodeo Drive in 500$ mules who suddenly finds a nail breaking in seeking to lift an overladen shopping bag and screams in utter desperation to the heavens "why me?"
> Is she not..."as useful"? And if so...to what?
> 
> If we are "only" judges between, observers outside (as though we inhabit an outside...O! the vanity!) the lending of sympathies to one, and the likewise (perhaps) rebuke of the other...doesn't really do anything for either, ultimately.
> ...



There are many among us who feel that we are judged now by others and act accordingly instead of believing that there is a magic belief based etch-O-sketch who will shake it all away later simply for being brand loyal.
Indivuduals act as their own One.

“If thou shouldst live three thousand years, or as many myriads, yet remember this, that no man loses any other life than that he now lives; and that he now lives no other life than what he is parting with, every instant. The longest life, and the shortest, come to one effect: since the present time is equal to all, what is lost or parted with is equal to all. And for the same reason, what is parted with, is only a moment. No man at death parts with, or, is deprived of, what is either past or future. For how can one take from a man what he hath not? We should also remember these things, first, That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence, whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration. Again that the longest and the shortest lives have an equal loss at Death. The present moment is all which either is deprived of, since that is all he has. A man cannot part with what he has not. “ – Meditations, Marcus Aurelius


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> There are many among us who feel that we are judged now by others and act accordingly instead of believing that there is a magic belief based etch-O-sketch who will shake it all away later simply for being brand loyal.
> Indivuduals act as their own One.



I think you think I propose "brand loyalty" is an exemption to this?
Hardly. 

And no, not at all.

The one calling himself "of Christ" has either learned (to some extent) or shortly will in great extent...that he is no more exempt from this, indulged in this, or in any way regarded superior to another by simply "knowing this".

Jesus tells all who hear "this". And making claim of being a disciple is in no way to special exception. (it actually works quite contrary, in truth). A disciple should in every way...expect the harsher judgement in his claims.
The whole of "He who knew His Master's will but did it not..."

Yes...some, if not many of you (even_ of us_) know there's a particular enticement toward jumping up and down and saying "I know God, I know God!" (After all...how far is that from saying "I know EVERYTHING!"?)

But Jesus cautions about saying one knows a thing...but not then...being in accord with it. The dealings with that one...are harsher.

But such is not meant to a destruction...but to an enlightenment, a reception of light...that shows "knowing" a thing...is not always the same as "knowing a thing".

Yes, it's a strict discipline...but the alternative...is no light...and a bewildering and bewailing of why's...when all the hows are made plainly in sight to anyone...when what is suddenly made unbearably plain...Jesus has come for the blind.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> I think you think I propose "brand loyalty" is an exemption to this?
> Hardly.
> 
> And no, not at all.
> ...



I don't know what this Jesus thinks, I cant speak for this Jesus, I do not even pretend to know this Jesus. I cannot believe or even take seriously anyone who constantly talks and acts as if they do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2018)

After reading the comments it seems like with a lot of them, folks are starting to fish with bare hooks.  

It seems to me that regardless of whatever context one is attempting to define it in, constitutional vs unconstitutional,  state vs federal oversight, religious vs athiestic implications, one needs to keep in mind the purpose of it; to alleviate a terminally ill persons suffering.  Don’t lose sight of that......that there’s someone, a real, live, person, with loved ones gathered around them, going through very often excruciating agony with every breath left in them.  Don’t lose that.

I’ve placed people on morphine drips, many people, and since cancer runs in my family I’ve sat at the bedside of my father and aunts and hit that button on the morphie pump every time it would let me to speed their passing.  

As a Christian I have no conviction about it at all.  If you need to know why I will be glad to discuss it.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> After reading the comments it seems like with a lot of them, folks are starting to fish with bare hooks.
> 
> It seems to me that regardless of whatever context one is attempting to define it in, constitutional vs unconstitutional,  state vs federal oversight, religious vs athiestic implications, one needs to keep in mind the purpose of it; to alleviate a terminally ill persons suffering.  Don’t lose sight of that......that there’s someone, a real, live, person, with loved ones gathered around them, going through very often excruciating agony with every breath left in them.  Don’t lose that.
> 
> ...



Suppose the morphine pump had no limiter on it. Could you still in your good conscience, keep pushing the button?


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

To "how much" of Jesus does a man then accept? Is it the seeming "constantly" only that is the rub? If someone keeps it (whatever of what may be said of "this Jesus)...to some form of "under wraps", do they now become...believable?

I cannot help but wonder, in that calculus, who is found liar? Is it the one (surely not me) that speaks only and always "of Christ" having that form of faith that leads him to accept Jesus is the all He says of Himself (and not without testimony)...or is it the one who..."saying" they believe Jesus is Lord...and Savior (the all...in all) finds ample place in whatever form communication takes...to find so much "other" of equal, or greater worth, in pursuit?

I have a suspicion that were you to meet a man who said "Hey, I love hand loading too" and you pursued the conversation (I have no reason to doubt your friendliness) and he said "yeah, back in 1982 I once sat at a friend's table while he loaded a box of .308's"

Would you judge him...somehow? Not necessarily as liar, not even necessarily as fraud...but that maybe his expression of an affection for a thing, and your own..._experience of it_ may be quite different.


I don't doubt you a bit, find you quite believable in fact, with the things you say. And I do not presume that _your_ "not knowing Jesus" is in any way an anti-affection. Nor do I even presume you love (to any extent) Marcus Aurelius. He may just be a handy thing to you...for rebuttal. A tool. And his quote, or even a continual quoting of him...even if presumed to be an affection...might not be at all. Pages and reams of Marcus Aurelius need not convince me...you have any affection for him, at all.

And you are right. If tomorrow my first post started with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." and every word thereafter followed in transcription...I know this could not begin to prove a thing...of affection....except someone was taking the time to transcribe.

I also know men cannot enter into a quid pro quo for the truth. My believing you, and your saying...has absolutely no (and any implication to the opposite as in "I believe you, you should then and therefore...believe me") bearing, and not only shows an ignorance...but a manifest denial of what truth...is.


So yes, I believe you wholeheartedly as I may:



> I don't know what this Jesus thinks, I cant speak for this Jesus, I do not even pretend to know this Jesus.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yup.........and just think about this for a second, how does one accuse Christianity as “immoral” and justify murder????? Suicide by assistance is nothing but murder.



Is it? If I give you a gun knowing that you’re going to pull the trigger on yourself am I guilty of murder? Is that the same as doing it myself and taking your life against your will? Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a human life. And the law is what we make it.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> To "how much" of Jesus does a man then accept? Is it the seeming "constantly" only that is the rub? If someone keeps it (whatever of what may be said of "this Jesus)...to some form of "under wraps", do they now become...believable?
> 
> I cannot help but wonder, in that calculus, who is found liar? Is it the one (surely not me) that speaks only and always "of Christ" having that form of faith that leads him to accept Jesus is the all He says of Himself (and not without testimony)...or is it the one who..."saying" they believe Jesus is Lord...and Savior (the all...in all) finds ample place in whatever form communication takes...to find so much "other" of equal, or greater worth, in pursuit?
> 
> ...



Do you think I would believe, or more importantly would you expect me to believe a fellow reloader that told me he gets his recipes from a handloader who lived almost 2000 years ago and from a log book which that ancient handloader never actually wrote a recipe in?

I wouldn't fill my cases with a recipe from my experienced best friend just because he said so. I would start lower, work my way up, check for velocity and pressure along the way and stop when verified results tell me that the recipe I was given is safe IE: truthful. And even then, if it is not accurate in my gun, it is useless to me.

Knowing all that, can you tell me Why I should take the word of someone who doesn't even "reload" but pretends to while mixing unproven components from an ancient load book full of unverifiable loads along the way solely because that is the only way they think it can be done?


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

welderguy said:


> I think suffering gets a bad rap most of the time, unnecessarily.
> Much of our suffering is very good for us. Paradoxical
> 
> Corinthians 4:17
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> There are many among us who feel that we are judged now by others and act accordingly instead of believing that there is a magic belief based etch-O-sketch who will shake it all away later simply for being brand loyal.
> Indivuduals act as their own One.
> 
> “If thou shouldst live three thousand years, or as many myriads, yet remember this, that no man loses any other life than that he now lives; and that he now lives no other life than what he is parting with, every instant. The longest life, and the shortest, come to one effect: since the present time is equal to all, what is lost or parted with is equal to all. And for the same reason, what is parted with, is only a moment. No man at death parts with, or, is deprived of, what is either past or future. For how can one take from a man what he hath not? We should also remember these things, first, That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence, whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration. Again that the longest and the shortest lives have an equal loss at Death. The present moment is all which either is deprived of, since that is all he has. A man cannot part with what he has not. “ – Meditations, Marcus Aurelius



I find much more wisdom in the stoics than in Christianity. Constantine was a real step backwards for western civilization.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I find much more wisdom in the stoics than in Christianity. Constantine was a real step backwards for western civilization.



I feel the same way.


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Do you think I would believe, or more importantly would you expect me to believe a fellow reloader that told me he gets his recipes from a handloader who lived almost 2000 years ago and from a log book which that ancient handloader never actually wrote a recipe in?
> 
> I wouldn't fill my cases with a recipe from my experienced best friend just because he said so. I would start lower, work my way up, check for velocity and pressure along the way and stop when verified results tell me that the recipe I was given is safe IE: truthful. And even then, if it is not accurate in my gun, it is useless to me.
> 
> Knowing all that, can you tell me Why I should take the word of someone who doesn't even "reload" but pretends to while mixing unproven components from an ancient load book full of unverifiable loads along the way solely because that is the only way they think it can be done?




That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence, whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration. Again that the longest and the shortest lives have an equal loss at Death. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> After reading the comments it seems like with a lot of them, folks are starting to fish with bare hooks.
> 
> It seems to me that regardless of whatever context one is attempting to define it in, constitutional vs unconstitutional,  state vs federal oversight, religious vs athiestic implications, one needs to keep in mind the purpose of it; to alleviate a terminally ill persons suffering.  Don’t lose sight of that......that there’s someone, a real, live, person, with loved ones gathered around them, going through very often excruciating agony with every breath left in them.  Don’t lose that.
> 
> ...



I believe that also. That "As a Christian you have no conviction about it at all."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Suppose the morphine pump had no limiter on it. Could you still in your good conscience, keep pushing the button?



Absolutely.  When someone reaches that point they are usually within 72 hours of dying.  What difference does a few hours make at this time.  If God wants to perform a miracle me pushing that button every 3-5 minutes certainly won’t hinder that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> I believe that also. That "As a Christian you have no conviction about it at all."



gulp.   I think I’ve just been insulted.  Good on you for keeping it concise.


----------



## Israel (May 20, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> gulp.   I think I’ve just been insulted.  Good on you for keeping it concise.



What insult to believing you? You state where you are.

That no less than anything else...is a right reserved to a man. To be where he is _coming from_.


----------



## bullethead (May 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence, whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration. Again that the longest and the shortest lives have an equal loss at Death. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations



That's how I know when I make too much sense to you.


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Is it? If I give you a gun knowing that you’re going to pull the trigger on yourself am I guilty of murder? Is that the same as doing it myself and taking your life against your will? Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a human life. And the law is what we make it.



It’s just my opinion that it’s comical for a group to claim that Christianity is immoral, and then try justify certain acts because “WE make it law”

Let me remind you that the Christian world (you know, the immoral folks) are the people taking a stand against assisted suicide, abortion, men in women’s restrooms, etc. while these other groups are convinced that as long as “we make it law” it changes the act from immoral to moral. 


Not very hard to see where immorality comes from and who pushes it.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> It’s just my opinion that it’s comical for a group to claim that Christianity is immoral, and then try justify certain acts because “WE make it law”
> 
> Let me remind you that the Christian world (you know, the immoral folks) are the people taking a stand against assisted suicide, abortion, men in women’s restrooms, etc. while these other groups are convinced that as long as “we make it law” it changes the act from immoral to moral.
> 
> ...



I said nothing about morality. I said murder by definition is unlawful killing and the law is what we make it. Morality is another matter. Some lawful killings are immoral. Some unlawful killings are moral. Instead of just slapping a label like murder on assisted suicide, explain why you think it is immoral to facilitate what should be (and in some places is) a legal activity.

What I find ironic is that Christians of all people would require convincing on this issue. They tell us death need not be feared and that god gives us all free will. Yet they see fit to use the State to interfere with the exercise of that free will to end ones own life.


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I said nothing about morality. I said murder by definition is unlawful killing and the law is what we make it. Morality is another matter. Some lawful killings are immoral. Some unlawful killings are moral. Instead of just slapping a label like murder on assisted suicide, explain why you think it is immoral to facilitate what should be (and in some places is) a legal activity.
> 
> What I find ironic is that Christians of all people would require convincing on this issue. They tell us death need not be feared and that god gives us all free will. Yet they see fit to use the State to interfere with the exercise of that free will to end ones own life.


My explanation is that the Christian believes that God is the giver and taker of life, not anyone else. And murder is sin, and sin is a synonym for immorality.

 Death does not need fearing if in Gods timing. That’s why you are faced with what you’re calling “convincing the Christian”. And a person has the free will to end their life if they chose to do so, that’s their decision, no law will justify their decision. 

Why do you want the State to intervene to provide them even more tools after we spend so much money and time on education for suicide prevention?? 

You have accused Christianity of being built on an immoral foundation and used murder as one of your examples. 

But it looks like you are ok with “murder” as long as it is mans law because that’s the only thing that changes, it then becomes “lawful”??? But it’s an immoral act if it was Gods law???

I’m sympathetic to people that feel that they have nowhere to turn. Like many others, my family was affected by suicide (my Grandpa) After spending 10 years without my Grandmother he was depressed and didn’t want to continue without her. His desire was to rest next to her grave, about as close as he could get back to her. 

So don’t think I’m just being stubborn about this. I actually have mixed emotions with it. But I can’t see how making it mans law will make it ok in Gods eyes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> What insult to believing you? You state where you are.
> 
> That no less than anything else...is a right reserved to a man. To be where he is _coming from_.



No biggie.  Not the first time I’ve misunderstood you.  No offense taken.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> My explanation is that the Christian believes that God is the giver and taker of life, not anyone else. And murder is sin, and sin is a synonym for immorality.
> 
> Death does not need fearing if in Gods timing. That’s why you are faced with what you’re calling “convincing the Christian”. And a person has the free will to end their life if they chose to do so, that’s their decision, no law will justify their decision.
> 
> ...



You’re calling it murder and immoral. I just made the distinction between the two. I don’t agree that it is immoral. I think you’re in no position to claim a moral high ground when you start interfering with a persons end of life decisions, especially when your interference creates creates additional suffering. You say god is the giver and taker of life. Simple observation of the fact humans give and take life all the time without the need for divine agency prove that false. But even if we take it as true it is also self evident that this god does not intervene when people commit suicide. If he chooses not to then who are you to do for him what he chooses not to do for himself? And if it’s true that there is a god sitting around watching people, children even, in misery and it’s his will that it be so then screw him. No moral person would side with that god and insist people suffer until he is satisfied.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

And let’s not forget while we are talking about “his will” that there isn’t a shred of evidence that this god even exists in the first place. If you’re going to insist people suffer to satisfy the will of a deity you better have more than just an empty assertion that deity exists.


----------



## General Sherman (May 20, 2018)

The belief in Christianity should remove everyone from possibly taking a public office.


----------



## red neck richie (May 20, 2018)

General Sherman said:


> The belief in Christianity should remove everyone from possibly taking a public office.



Troll. You will see how it plays out. Your the problem not the solution.


----------



## General Sherman (May 20, 2018)

red neck richie said:


> Troll. You will see how it plays out. Your the problem not the solution.



The word you were looking for is "you're".  And if I were a grown man using the word "troll" on a dopey internet forum, I might reevaluate my life.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> And let’s not forget while we are talking about “his will” that there isn’t a shred of evidence that this god even exists in the first place.



Oh Brother!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2018)

General Sherman said:


> The belief in Christianity should remove everyone from possibly taking a public office.



Worked well for the populace under Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse-Tong.  What could possibly go wrong?

This thread is in need of assisted suicide.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 20, 2018)

General Sherman said:


> The word you were looking for is "you're".  And if I were a grown man


 
Whelp that would explain it.


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You’re calling it murder and immoral. I just made the distinction between the two. I don’t agree that it is immoral. Simple observation of the fact humans give and take life all the time without the need for divine agency prove that false.


From a Christian standpoint, murder is immoral. I wouldn’t expect you to understand that. I know that humans life all the time without the divine intervention of a deity. What’s news about that??? Their law only makes it legal, has nothing to do with the way God sees it.


atlashunter said:


> And let’s not forget while we are talking about “his will” that there isn’t a shred of evidence that this god even exists in the first place. If you’re going to insist people suffer to satisfy the will of a deity you better have more than just an empty assertion that deity exists.


If this statement were close to being true, you would be able to say that you’re  100% confident that God doesn’t exist, but you know that you’re not able to state that. I’m not insisting anything. 


General Sherman said:


> The belief in Christianity should remove everyone from possibly taking a public office.


Part of the problem for the term “Christian“ is that the only time the term is used it is from the world looking at the followers of Christ. Christ referred to his people as Saints. I don’t put much value on the term Christian. Everyone is Christian when they get in trouble. 


SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh Brother!



We knew it would get there. Sort of the last ditch effort to get onto something else.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> From a Christian standpoint, murder is immoral.



The Christian idea of atonement is based upon the murder of an innocent man and you just got through defending mass murder carried out at the behest of your deity. Who are you trying to fool?


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> The Christian idea of atonement is based upon the murder of an innocent man and you just got through defending mass murder carried out at the behest of your deity. Who are you trying to fool?



You can stop pretending that you fully understand the “Christian idea”.  You’re only fooling yourself.


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> The Christian idea of atonement is based upon the murder of an innocent man and you just got through defending mass murder carried out at the behest of your deity. Who are you trying to fool?


Before you get carried away in what you think you know, read this again. 


atlashunter said:


> And let’s not forget while we are talking about “his will” that there isn’t a shred of evidence that this god even exists in the first place.





Spotlite said:


> If this statement were close to being true, you would be able to say that you’re  100% confident that God doesn’t exist, but you know that you’re not able to state that.


You strive on demoralizing “Christianity” when it’s convenient for your agenda of trashing Christianity, yet  defend the taking of a life when Christianity tells you that it’s wrong. 

Who are you trying to fool??


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> You can stop pretending that you fully understand the “Christian idea”.  You’re only fooling yourself.



Was Jesus not murdered? Was that not an act that Christians claim is the basis of their redemption? These are not my claims. They come straight from your religious text.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Before you get carried away in what you think you know, read this again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It’s a very high mark to say anything with 100% certainty. I didn’t claim such certainty. I said there isn’t a shred of evidence this deity exists. There is no more evidence of Yahweh than there is of any other god. That’s a fact. And if the Bible were actually true we would have the evidence. But we don’t. So whatever level of certainty you want to place on Zeus, fairies, goblins, leprechauns, pink unicorns, and the FSM not existing, that same level of certainty applies to the god of the Bible based on the evidence. Is it 100%? You tell me.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

I still have yet to see a coherent argument made that gives someone the right to deny others a death at the time and in the manner of their choosing. Your religion says their decision is wrong. Fine. Live your life accordingly. What gives you the right to interfere with their freedom to choose?


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I still have yet to see a coherent argument made that gives someone the right to deny others a death at the time and in the manner of their choosing. Your religion says their decision is wrong. Fine. Live your life accordingly. What gives you the right to interfere with their freedom to choose?



When you asked me to explain my position, did you not expect a response?

“Rights” wasn’t the topic. It was about what is morally right. 

Obviously you and I are not on the same page when it comes to morals. You’re viewing it as long as it’s legal, then it’s moral. 

My view is that it goes deeper than that, a law doesn’t make something moral, it just makes it un-punishable by man. 

Moral values exist without a legal system. 

But for this topic, I don’t plan to interfere. I didn’t march against gay marriage, and I won’t march against assisted suicide. 

When justifying it, just don’t act as if I must support it because man made it a law, and I’m just some radical Christian because I don’t.


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> There is no more evidence of Yahweh than there is of any other god. That’s a fact. And if the Bible were actually true we would have the evidence. But we don’t. So whatever level of certainty you want to place on Zeus, fairies, goblins, leprechauns, pink unicorns, and the FSM not existing, that same level of certainty applies to the god of the Bible based on the evidence. Is it 100%? You tell me.



I’ve found the evidence that I needed to be certain that God exist. 

As for all of those others that you’ve named, to be honest, I’ve never even asked anyone that does believe in any of them to prove it with evidence and I’ve not even spent 30 seconds consuming any of my time researching and looking for any evidence of their existence. Sort of doesn’t bother or affect me if they do or don’t exist. 

I’ve just simply said that I don’t believe that they're real, never really needed assurance of that and I feel pretty secure with it. 

But then again, people of all walks of life, including believers and non believers seem to agree that they don’t and sort of just pass it off as “folk tales”.

But when it comes to God, seems there’s a certain group that consume their time digging and trying to prove and convince that God doesn’t exist, almost makes it look like they’re insecure with their disbelief and they just need someone to tell them the answer.


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> When you asked me to explain my position, did you not expect a response?
> 
> “Rights” wasn’t the topic. It was about what is morally right.
> 
> ...



If you think I’m equating legality with morality then you’re arguing against a straw man. I never equated the two. In fact I made the distinction that they were separate. I specifically said there are instances where a murder is moral and where a lawful killing is immoral. Do you not remember me saying that? Why then are you saying I consider whatever is legal to be moral? Am I not in fact arguing against a law that I consider to be immoral?

It’s actually you who are guilty of what you accuse me. You equate murder which is a legal term with an immoral act. I pointed out that whether or not a killing is murder is based on the law, not on the morality of the act. Instead of actually discussing the morality of the issue you chose to just slap a legalistic label on it and try to pass that off as a moral argument. That doesn’t work.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve found the evidence that I needed to be certain that God exist.
> 
> As for all of those others that you’ve named, to be honest, I’ve never even asked anyone that does believe in any of them to prove it with evidence and I’ve not even spent 30 seconds consuming any of my time researching and looking for any evidence of their existence. Sort of doesn’t bother or affect me if they do or don’t exist.
> 
> ...



Very good post.
(I only wish I had written it)


----------



## atlashunter (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve found the evidence that I needed to be certain that God exist.
> 
> As for all of those others that you’ve named, to be honest, I’ve never even asked anyone that does believe in any of them to prove it with evidence and I’ve not even spent 30 seconds consuming any of my time researching and looking for any evidence of their existence. Sort of doesn’t bother or affect me if they do or don’t exist.
> 
> ...



Those other groups are minuscule in comparison and aren’t influencing government in ways that impact the rest of us. Your particular group is much larger and more influential so it gets more attention. When Christianity is replaced by the pink unicorn believers and they are making laws we all must deal with based on their silly beliefs then the focus will shift to them. In short, you put yourselves in the hot seat. Which shouldn’t be a problem if you actually have the evidence you claim to have.


----------



## welderguy (May 20, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Those other groups are minuscule in comparison and aren’t influencing government in ways that impact the rest of us. Your particular group is much larger and more influential so it gets more attention. When Christianity is replaced by the pink unicorn believers and they are making laws we all must deal with based on their silly beliefs then the focus will shift to them. In short, you put yourselves in the hot seat. Which shouldn’t be a problem if you actually have the evidence you claim to have.



Isn't democracy great?


----------



## Spotlite (May 20, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> just think about this for a second, how does one accuse Christianity as “immoral” and justify murder????? Suicide by assistance is nothing but murder.





atlashunter said:


> Is it? Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a human life. And the law is what we make it.





atlashunter said:


> murder by definition is unlawful killing and the law is what we make it.





atlashunter said:


> If you think I’m equating legality with morality........Instead of actually discussing the morality of the issue you chose to just slap a legalistic label on it and try to pass that off as a moral.



As I said before, from a Christian standpoint murder is immoral because it is a sin. Look up immoral, sin is a synonym for part of the definition. Making it legal only changes what you consider an unlawful act to become a lawful act. But the act itself is still immoral.


----------



## Spotlite (May 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Those other groups are minuscule in comparison and aren’t influencing government in ways that impact the rest of us. Your particular group is much larger and more influential so it gets more attention .



You should take note to that. Maybe the group is much larger for a reason. That “going with the most likely” concept may need revisiting.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> As I said before, from a Christian standpoint murder is immoral because it is a sin. Look up immoral, sin is a synonym for part of the definition. Making it legal only changes what you is consider an unlawful act to become a lawful act. But the act itself is still immoral.



Right so in a jurisdiction that considers shooting a home intruder to be murder in your book that’s an immoral
act? And in a country that is lawfully exterminating part of its population that also is moral because by definition it is not murder?


----------



## Spotlite (May 21, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Very good post.
> (I only wish I had written it)



Copy it


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> You should take note to that. Maybe the group is much larger for a reason. That “going with the most likely” concept may need revisiting.



What reason would that be?


----------



## Spotlite (May 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Right so in a jurisdiction that considers shooting a home intruder to be murder in your book that’s an immoral
> act? And in a country that is lawfully exterminating part of its population that also is moral because by definition it is not murder?



You don’t decide self defense, you’re forced into that. 

But I guess I get where you’re coming from, just labeling taking a life as murder is painting with a broad brush. Intent will be a factor. Wrong intent will have legal ramifications.

I get what you’re saying in a legal sense. What I don’t get is how that applies to someone “deciding” that they need legal assistance with something that they have every right to do already without any legal ramifications.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> As for all of those others that you’ve named, to be honest, I’ve never even asked anyone that does believe in any of them to prove it with evidence and I’ve not even spent 30 seconds consuming any of my time researching and looking for any evidence of their existence. Sort of doesn’t bother or affect me if they do or don’t exist.



Given the fact that all religions make exclusive truth claims, including Athiesm, this is not the most sound rational statement one could make.  (I realize Athiest don’t consider their belief a ‘religion’ per se, but it IS a belief system with its own set of implications, and that is the defining context into which the term is used above.  Could just as easily used the broader term ‘world views’ )

Spotlight, do yourself a favor and spend 4 minutes watching the first video on this page.  I promise you, you will be glad you did.

https://rzim.org/ask-intro/


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2018)

Like self defense which takes as many myriad forms as words, no man has the power to refuse it or grant it to any other. It is no less than the nature of the thing discussed (man) in constitution. And it matters not whether it be the opinion of one or many (even by agreement to force of law) that can change nature.

It is not whether suicide or self defense can be made "legal" or even a right that has any influence to it. The man he1l bent on defending himself, is in nature the very same man he1l bent on killing himself. You will find no law to any avail to him. Or against him.


He will not be told what is better to him. Ever. Or able to receive it, of man.

Every man is deluded into believing what he loves, he loves well, and what he hates, he hates perfectly.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’ve found the evidence that I needed to be certain that God exist.
> 
> As for all of those others that you’ve named, to be honest, I’ve never even asked anyone that does believe in any of them to prove it with evidence and I’ve not even spent 30 seconds consuming any of my time researching and looking for any evidence of their existence. Sort of doesn’t bother or affect me if they do or don’t exist.
> 
> ...





> As for all of those others that you’ve named, to be honest, I’ve never even asked anyone that does believe in any of them to prove it with evidence and I’ve not even spent 30 seconds consuming any of my time researching and looking for any evidence of their existence. Sort of doesn’t bother or affect me if they do or don’t exist.
> 
> I’ve just simply said that I don’t believe that they're real, never really needed assurance of that and I feel pretty secure with it.


In this day and age we describe that as "ignorance is bliss" 
ignorance is bliss
[ignorance is bliss]
DEFINITION
if you do not know about something, you do not worry about it.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Given the fact that all religions make exclusive truth claims, including Athiesm, this is not the most sound rational statement one could make.  (I realize Athiest don’t consider their belief a ‘religion’ per se, but it IS a belief system with its own set of implications, and that is the defining context into which the term is used above.  Could just as easily used the broader term ‘world views’ )
> 
> Spotlight, do yourself a favor and spend 4 minutes watching the first video on this page.  I promise you, you will be glad you did.
> 
> https://rzim.org/ask-intro/





> I realize Athiest don’t consider their belief a ‘religion’ per se, but it IS a belief system with its own set of implications, and that is the defining context into which the term is used above.


So name the "implications".
I'm betting what you name is what Christianity says the implications are  not what is actually a fact.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So name the "implications".
> I'm betting what you name is what Christianity says the implications are  not what is actually a fact.



Aaaaaaaand the bristles go up.  No need Walt.  All I meant by that is that when one posits "No God" it simply means there are logical outworkings from that position.  Questions, if you will, that you must provide answers for.  Such as What is the meaning of life (if there is one)?  Where do we get the notion of justice and morality?, Where do we go after we die (if anywhere)?  Where does the appetite for worship come from?  Does human life have value, and from where does it come from?  etc.  

Is that not fact?  You tell me.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> You don’t decide self defense, you’re forced into that.
> 
> But I guess I get where you’re coming from, just labeling taking a life as murder is painting with a broad brush. Intent will be a factor. Wrong intent will have legal ramifications.
> 
> I get what you’re saying in a legal sense. What I don’t get is how that applies to someone “deciding” that they need legal assistance with something that they have every right to do already without any legal ramifications.



There shouldn’t be any legal ramifications for assisting someone in carrying out a legal action, especially when the intent is not malicious and reduces suffering. A doctor provides the means but the act itself is still carried out by the patient. The key here is who is making the decision and is it what they really want?


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> In this day and age we describe that as "ignorance is bliss"
> ignorance is bliss
> [ignorance is bliss]
> DEFINITION
> if you do not know about something, you do not worry about it.





> if you do not know about something, you do not worry about it



Is that true? It appears worthy to examine.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Aaaaaaaand the bristles go up.  No need Walt.  All I meant by that is that when one posits "No God" it simply means there are logical outworkings from that position.  Questions, if you will, that you must provide answers for.  Such as What is the meaning of life (if there is one)?  Where do we get the notion of justice and morality?, Where do we go after we die (if anywhere)?  Where does the appetite for worship come from?  Does human life have value, and from where does it come from?  etc.
> 
> Is that not fact?  You tell me.



It’s because atheism is not a belief system that those questions are opened up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> It’s because atheism is not a belief system that those questions are opened up.



Whatever.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whatever.



You already have the answers to those questions don’t you? All contained in a book that tells you all you need to know about life. That’s a belief system. We don’t have that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You already have the answers to those questions don’t you? All contained in a book that tells you all you need to know about life. That’s a belief system. We don’t have that.



Yet you still have answers to those questions WHICH YOU BELIEVE ARE CORRECT.  That was my point.  If you believe it it’s a belief system, and it too has implications.  I can’t believe something so basic you don’t grasp.

Beliefs form values.  Values guide actions.  That’s basic truth that transcends whatever one’s beliefs are.  Yet you are adamant it doesn’t hold true for Athiest, because “Atheism isn’t a ‘belief system’.”  Like I said, whatever.  Too silly
to attempt a discussion with.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Aaaaaaaand the bristles go up.  No need Walt.  All I meant by that is that when one posits "No God" it simply means there are logical outworkings from that position.  Questions, if you will, that you must provide answers for.  Such as What is the meaning of life (if there is one)?  Where do we get the notion of justice and morality?, Where do we go after we die (if anywhere)?  Where does the appetite for worship come from?  Does human life have value, and from where does it come from?  etc.
> 
> Is that not fact?  You tell me.


First - no bristles. Was a simple question.


> that you must provide answers for.


I don't feel the need to provide myself with answers to every question just so I can avoid saying "I don't know".
There are many questions that we don't have the answer to. Unless you make one up that you feel comfortable with.


> Such as What is the meaning of life (if there is one)


Whatever meaning we give it.


> Where do we get the notion of justice and morality?


From us.


> Where do we go after we die (if anywhere)?


I don't know.
All I know is I will be going in a big toaster, then into a little container and then my ashes will get scattered at a place I have chosen that is special to me.
If anything happens after that, I/we/man doesn't know.


> Where does the appetite for worship come from?


Good question. I could give answers but they admittedly lead to more questions.
So again I/we/man doesn't know for sure.


> Does human life have value,


Depends on who you ask and who's life you are asking about. I would guess that no matter what a rotten person you may be, you probably have done something at some time that someone would find value in.


> from where does it come from?


It comes from us. We decide what is valuable and what is not.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yet you still have answers to those questions WHICH YOU BELIEVE ARE CORRECT.  That was my point.  If you believe it it’s a belief system, and it too has implications.  I can’t believe something so basic you don’t grasp.
> 
> Beliefs form values.  Values guide actions.  That’s basic truth that transcends whatever one’s beliefs are.  Yet you are adamant it doesn’t hold true for Athiest, because “Atheism isn’t a ‘belief system’.”  Like I said, whatever.  Too silly
> to attempt a discussion with.



You said atheism is a belief system. It’s not. It doesn’t provide answers to any of those questions. It’s a blank slate and leaves the floor open for atheists to pursue answers. A belief system provides answers. Here’s a book and here are all the answers. Just read it and believe it. We don’t have that. We have to think for ourselves.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know.
> All I know is I will be going in a big toaster, then into a little container and then my ashes will get scattered at a place I have chosen that is special to me.
> If anything happens after that, I/we/man doesn't know.



I think it takes some of the mystery away if we ask the same question from a slightly different perspective.

Where do we go after we live?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You said atheism is a belief system. It’s not. It doesn’t provide answers to any of those questions. It’s a blank slate and leaves the floor open for atheists to pursue answers. A belief system provides answers. Here’s a book and here are all the answers. Just read it and believe it. We don’t have that. We have to think for ourselves.


Just an observation over the years -
Christians HAVE to make Atheism a belief system. Its the only way they can compare the two. The only way they can work it out is "Atheism tells you this and Christianity tells us this".
If Atheism doesn't "tell you" anything then the whole thing falls apart..... so they have to insist that it does.


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You said atheism is a belief system. It’s not. It doesn’t provide answers to any of those questions. It’s a blank slate and leaves the floor open for atheists to pursue answers. A belief system provides answers. Here’s a book and here are all the answers. Just read it and believe it. We don’t have that. We have to think for ourselves.





> It’s a blank slate and leaves the floor open for atheists to pursue answers.



To what?


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2018)

Israel said:


> To what?


To the claims of others and the questions we ask ourselves regarding past beliefs and current thoughts.
Things many people refuse to ask themselves as believers.


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> To the claims of others and the questions we ask ourselves regarding past beliefs and current thoughts.
> Things many people refuse to ask themselves as believers.



That's interesting.

Is there purpose to the asking? If you find answer, is there any consistency?

(And I am going to assume you have only ability to answer for yourself...but...is that wrong?)


----------



## bullethead (May 21, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's interesting.
> 
> Is there purpose to the asking? If you find answer, is there any consistency?
> 
> (And I am going to assume you have only ability to answer for yourself...but...is that wrong?)



"And ’tis of little consequence,"

Ignorantly frustrating when all you ask is for an honest and to the point answer, isn't it?


----------



## Israel (May 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Just an observation over the years -
> Christians HAVE to make Atheism a belief system. Its the only way they can compare the two. The only way they can work it out is "Atheism tells you this and Christianity tells us this".
> If Atheism doesn't "tell you" anything then the whole thing falls apart..... so they have to insist that it does.


 

That's also interesting.

Because I do not find myself a subscriber to a "belief system" (really, I don't begin to know what that would mean) I feel no compulsion to approach any according to "it". Mine, or theirs. "Ours" or his, hers, its...etc...



Being aware that this presents certain matters of which I am not unaware, (I have known being escorted from certain meetings, I suppose you'd call them "religious" ones, for simply not sitting when told "it's not OK to stand...when it's time to sit") does not immunize me to also certain accusations. But if a man cannot bear accusation personally (even most personally) I cannot help but wonder which of the many Jesus' preached, it is to which he finds affinity.

The matter of systems is far more than just intricate for they are all equally co-dependent. Position x opposition yields nothing, for in systems each declares a supremacy of origin but denies the most manifest and obvious tenet in all...that position and opposition are regularly changed and exchanged in that co-dependency. Thus Android needs Apple, and vice versa, even (and specifically to) establish supremacy.

I look for (better said, "I have been won to") the supreme needing no such support by "opposition". And I find it always, and only, in the manifestation of the perfect dependency. The One moved by that supremacy unsupported by else, not merely moving "past" opposition, but in that supported moving declares there is nothing of opposition in which "else" might even testify _it is needed for support _of the supreme.

The supreme is not, cannot be what requires...support. And all that exists in the being of itself that is only possessed through knowledge of opposition or even through its own _supposed_ agreement to the supreme must yield...to the perfect of dependency, or be not...even to itself. 

It's a far too terrible thing for a being to find its being...unsecured. Completely unsafe...to itself. But this is what must happen to being that only knows itself by opposition.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> First - no bristles. Was a simple question.
> 
> I don't feel the need to provide myself with answers to every question just so I can avoid saying "I don't know".
> There are many questions that we don't have the answer to. Unless you make one up that you feel comfortable with.
> ...



Agreed.  100%.  Again, my point.  Everyone has answers or “I don’t knows” to all of the big questions in life. Just don’t tell me it’s not a belief system, if you use it to guide your values because you believe it’s the best answer just because “Athiesm is not a belief system.”  It is.  It’s just not as rigid as some “ accepted” religions as far as orthodoxy and rigid doctrines.  I swear, some times you Athiest are as nuts about being as Anti Religious as some believers are about being dogmatic, legalistic religious.  They both throw out the baby with the bath water, because they can’t think past orthodoxy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2018)

bullethead said:


> "And ’tis of little consequence,"
> 
> Ignorantly frustrating when all you ask is for an honest and to the point answer, isn't it?



Why do you even bother?  If his posts are more than 2 sentences I just ignore them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 21, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> You said atheism is a belief system. It’s not. It doesn’t provide answers to any of those questions. It’s a blank slate and leaves the floor open for atheists to pursue answers. A belief system provides answers. Here’s a book and here are all the answers. Just read it and believe it. We don’t have that. We have to think for ourselves.



It’s a belief that there is no God.  That doesn’t absolve it from having to answer the BIG questions of life.  The answers to that system of questions form an individuals belief system.  If the answer is “I don’t know.” or “We don’t know.”  that’s not a STRENGTH, when others can provide rational, intelligible answers.  

Atheism weds itself to science with its experiential data and mocks those who can’t provide “concrete proof” of God. YET, YET, when it comes to answering the very biggest questions of life, the ones of infinite importance they retreat into the shell of “I don’t knowism” and feign offence if pushed for a rational defense of their stance on the subjects.  Yawn.  So predictable, so elementally thoughtless.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agreed.  100%.  Again, my point.  Everyone has answers or “I don’t knows” to all of the big questions in life. Just don’t tell me it’s not a belief system, if you use it to guide your values because you believe it’s the best answer just because “Athiesm is not a belief system.”  It is.  It’s just not as rigid as some “ accepted” religions as far as orthodoxy and rigid doctrines.  I swear, some times you Athiest are as nuts about being as Anti Religious as some believers are about being dogmatic, legalistic religious.  They both throw out the baby with the bath water, because they can’t think past orthodoxy.


You are doing exactly what I said to Atlas -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1
> Just an observation over the years -
> Christians HAVE to make Atheism a belief system. Its the only way they can compare the two. The only way they can work it out is "Atheism tells you this and Christianity tells us this".
> If Atheism doesn't "tell you" anything then the whole thing falls apart..... so they have to insist that it does.


You are insisting Atheism is something its not so that you can compare them.


> Just don’t tell me it’s not a belief system, if you use it to guide your values because you believe it’s the best answer


Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The end.
There is nothing to use to guide your values. There are no established values of Atheism. Atheism is not meant to provide with you a guide to anything. That's not what Atheism is. That's now what Atheism does. That's not what Atheism is intended to do.
Atheism is not what you are trying to make it be so that you can compare it to Christianity.
You really gotta accept that fact.


> It’s just not as rigid as some “ accepted” religions as far as orthodoxy and rigid doctrines.


WHAT is not rigid? What doctrines?
There isn't any. Again, Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The end. 
Anything else an Atheist may think beyond that is his own personal thoughts. Not "Atheism".


> I swear, some times you Athiest are as nuts about being as Anti Religious as some believers are about being dogmatic, legalistic religious.


You think that because you wont accept that Atheism is not what you are insisting it is.
And I'm not being combative, angry at God, getting advice from the Atheist Handbook, or even bristling.
I'm just sayin'.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It’s a belief that there is no God.  That doesn’t absolve it from having to answer the BIG questions of life.  The answers to that system of questions form an individuals belief system.  If the answer is “I don’t know.” or “We don’t know.”  that’s not a STRENGTH, when others can provide rational, intelligible answers.
> 
> Atheism weds itself to science with its experiential data and mocks those who can’t provide “concrete proof” of God. YET, YET, when it comes to answering the very biggest questions of life, the ones of infinite importance they retreat into the shell of “I don’t knowism” and feign offence if pushed for a rational defense of their stance on the subjects.  Yawn.  So predictable, so elementally thoughtless.


You forgot -
And so honest.
Why do you think "I don't know" is retreating into a shell?
Seems like it takes more gonads to admit that than it does just to pick something that tickles your fancy and insist that its fact, its true..........
Out of curiosity, which do you find to be more "moral" (your favorite subject)? -
I don't know
or 
I'm gonna pick what I like, insist its real, expect other people to abide by what I pick, shake my head when they ask me to prove it.....


----------



## ky55 (May 21, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If the answer is “I don’t know.” or “We don’t know.”  that’s not a STRENGTH, when others can provide rational, intelligible answers.



Who are the “others”, and what are the rational and intelligible answers they provide?

*


----------



## Israel (May 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> "And ’tis of little consequence,"
> 
> Ignorantly frustrating when all you ask is for an honest and to the point answer, isn't it?



Why would you think that?  I agree, wholeheartedly. I see nothing of ignorance in it, nor of frustration to me. In fact it would have been too much to hope that you might answer in that way. 
" 'Tis of little consequence". 

If I said "of absolutely none", would you think I was trying to outstrip you in some way...? Or would you allow me..."my" honesty? Would you, do you, find a truth in standing there? Is that forbidden to you, to any? Even though you quote another who lived millennia ago? 

Does that remain, despite the intervening millenia...as true to you today as we would suppose it might have to Marcus who had a submission, manifested a submission...to writing it?

Another man wrote this. But...would you now find him and his testimony inadmissible...merely because it can be found...in the Bible? If you found it "outside" of that compilation...would you find it more acceptable?

You yourself may know that before it appeared between leather covers and in gold leaf, _seemingly_ assigned by some a worthiness to appear "in there"...it was included in scrolls...but before that...it was...written.

"Vanity of vanities, _all is_ vanity"

No, I am not frustrated in your answer at all.


My question to you about frustration is this:

How much truly...is of little consequence to you? How much will you bear (as rightly you would ask me the same) in the testing of that? What, if anything, are either of us, both of us "able to bear" of the testimony, by submission...we make? Here...and quite publicly. What of our words will we be shown...able to eat ourselves?

We set tables to each other...we present to each other what "comes out of us"...and by this say "eat what I have eaten"...and show what is "of us". Our words are _nothing ever more_ than this. Nothing ever more than testimony of "what has been made into "the me."...and now comes out from "the me." Knowledge has worked into "the me"...and such knowledge comes out in words...presented.

One other question is this...do we set the same table to all, and seek to, everywhere? Or, are we hypocrites...afraid of troubling our own house? Upsetting our own _ precious little_ apple carts? Is that...of _little consequence_?


----------



## Israel (May 22, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why do you even bother?  If his posts are more than 2 sentences I just ignore them.



Why does it appear you seek to present yourself as a man...yet act at times like such a woman? Is that seemly? Is this...concise?


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2018)

Israel said:


> Why would you think that?  I agree, wholeheartedly. I see nothing of ignorance in it, nor of frustration to me. In fact it would have been too much to hope that you might answer in that way.
> " 'Tis of little consequence".
> 
> If I said "of absolutely none", would you think I was trying to outstrip you in some way...? Or would you allow me..."my" honesty? Would you, do you, find a truth in standing there? Is that forbidden to you, to any? Even though you quote another who lived millennia ago?
> ...



I asked you direct questions that warranted direct answers. You reply with a quote from something I posted earlier. If you cannot indulge in conversation then, don't try to save face now.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You forgot -
> And so honest.
> Why do you think "I don't know" is retreating into a shell?
> Seems like it takes more gonads to admit that than it does just to pick something that tickles your fancy and insist that its fact, its true..........
> ...



I will take “I don’t know” over pretending to know by using god of the gaps any day.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You are doing exactly what I said to Atlas -
> 
> You are insisting Atheism is something its not so that you can compare them.
> 
> ...



Exactly. He insists atheism has to answer his questions. Yet it doesn’t.


----------



## atlashunter (May 22, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Who are the “others”, and what are the rational and intelligible answers they provide?
> 
> *



God did it. Has such a great track record of answering the simple questions like where thunder and earthquakes come from so why not use it to answer the big questions of life?


----------



## 660griz (May 22, 2018)

What about "Dr. assisted" life?


----------



## ky55 (May 22, 2018)

660griz said:


> What about "Dr. assisted" life?



Some of the faithful oppose that too. 

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=195

The churches and movements listed below have religious beliefs against some or most forms of medical care. For articles on specific cases and issues involving many of these, see the By denomination page.

Followers of Christ
Faith Assembly
Church of the Firstborn
Christian Science
Faith Tabernacle
End Time Ministries
The Believers’ Fellowship
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Church of God of the Union Assembly
Church of God (certain congregations)
First Century Gospel Church
Full Gospel Deliverance Church
Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God
Jesus through Jon and Judy
Christ Miracle Healing Center
Northeast Kingdom Community Church
Christ Assembly
The Source
“No Name” Fellowship
The Body
1 Mind Ministries
Twelve Tribes
Born in Zion Ministry

Since 1980 children have died in these sects without medical attention for:

pneumonia
meningitis
diabetes
diphtheria
appendicitis
measles
gangrene
dehydration
blood poisoning
Wilm’s tumor and other cancers
perinatal suffocation or strangulation
diarrhea
respiratory infections
kidney infections
Rocky Mountain spotted fever
epilepsy
pericarditis
strangulated hernia
bowel obstruction
sepsis
thalassemia

*


----------



## welderguy (May 22, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Some of the faithful oppose that too.
> 
> http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=195
> 
> ...



Ok now someone catch me back up...are we against dying...or for it? 
Some folks can't be pleased.


----------



## ambush80 (May 22, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Ok now someone catch me back up...are we against dying...or for it?
> Some folks can't be pleased.



That's funny Welder.  Good one. 

I would argue that we should use a different method to determine what a humane, compassionate course of action is in regards to all forms of medicine as opposed to religious texts.  Can you explain why you think a religious text is a good source to answer these kinds of questions?


----------



## welderguy (May 22, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That's funny Welder.  Good one.
> 
> I would argue that we should use a different method to determine what a humane, compassionate course of action is in regards to all forms of medicine as opposed to religious texts.  Can you explain why you think a religious text is a good source to answer these kinds of questions?



First I need you to point me to the particular religious text that is giving you problems regarding these medical courses of action. Then we can look at the context of them and see where the break down is exactly. I'm open minded to your criticism of it as long as you are.


----------



## Israel (May 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I asked you direct questions that warranted direct answers. You reply with a quote from something I posted earlier. If you cannot indulge in conversation then, don't try to save face now.



You really don't see it, do you? At all?

You quoted a philosopher to some end, of which I assumed you had understanding. I assumed that's why you quoted him...to show something you endorsed, believed, found worthy of mention. 

Of course _you can_. And for whatever reason you care to. You can quote something  with which you agree (as was my assumption, and if wrong, forgive me) or you can, for whatever purpose, quote whomever you care to, not agreeing, and you owe me absolutely no explanation in it. I read the words and make inferences, and my inferences are just as likely to be amiss as anyone's. 

I can place no requirement upon you to limit what you say...or quote. But when a body of words speaks, and seems to speak a thing that I believe I understand...is that property solely yours now to claim whatever you care to about it? You quoted Marcus Aurelius...who had at one time...something to say. I inferred you meant it to "mean something".

Note: You may be among the many that deride "the faith" as being archaic, primitive, superstitious and benighted to such a degree as you may enjoy a singleness in excelling at it. Nevertheless your quoting a philosopher of ages past was not to me, inappropriate. I didn't at that point even care to note that sauce and goose, sauce and gander, was something worth mentioning. If you see a "truth" in something written a thousand, two thousand or five thousand years ago...really...what's that to me?


But then you replied with this:



> Do you think I would believe, or more importantly would you expect me to believe a fellow reloader that told me he gets his recipes from a handloader who lived almost 2000 years ago and from a log book which that ancient handloader never actually wrote a recipe in?
> 
> I wouldn't fill my cases with a recipe from my experienced best friend just because he said so. I would start lower, work my way up, check for velocity and pressure along the way and stop when verified results tell me that the recipe I was given is safe IE: truthful. And even then, if it is not accurate in my gun, it is useless to me.
> 
> Knowing all that, can you tell me Why I should take the word of someone who doesn't even "reload" but pretends to while mixing unproven components from an ancient load book full of unverifiable loads along the way solely because that is the only way they think it can be done?




To which I responded with a partial inclusion of _your _ quote:



> That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence, whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration. Again that the longest and the shortest lives have an equal loss at Death. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations



But, you really do not see...do you? It must have seemed more important for you to say this to me:




> That's how I know when I make too much sense to you.




Ahhh, you got me...didn't you?


It didn't at all enter your mind (how could it?) that your first propositions in quoting Marcus Aurelius...were now your fitting answer.

That this man _you quoted_ from antiquity could in any way be response to:



> Do you think I would believe, or more importantly would you expect me to believe a fellow reloader that told me he gets his recipes from a handloader who lived almost 2000 years ago and from a log book which that ancient handloader never actually wrote a recipe in?



Oh...you quote Marcus Aurelius...why? Was it a truth you saw and found he expressed well? Was it because you have complete certainty about the words having survived and being transcribed inerrantly? So you therefore have complete source confidence? (Seems silly...you might just as well have quoted George Bush...then...who at least we may be able to recall by video tape. If all you are after is a verifiable source)

Seeing the truth of it (by me) need not mean you see any truth in it, at all. (And the more I consider it, I sincerely doubt you do)

The truth I see him trying to express is simply this. And as  "a" truth...has a timelessness to it.

It matters not, in regard to man, whether he observes for a year, or ...





> whether a man beholds the same things for an hundred years, or an infinite duration.



for



> That all things which have happened in the continued revolutions from eternity, are of the same kind with what we behold: And ’tis of little consequence,



That in the beholding _of things_ the only exchange possible will forever be only _of things_, between things, to things.

And man then would continue in "thinghood" irremediably.

It appears to me you like doing that "gotcha thing". But you must know, but perhaps you do not...that this too, has been going on for quite a long time (even well before Marcus Aurelius)

The nature of man is a fixed...thing...unless entry of what is not "of thing" is given.

As for saving face...what's to save? I am a fool already, for answering you. If I may be a fool for Christ, so much the better, but that appears to me a presumption I dare not indulge. He already knows. And that's far more than enough.

And like I said, I ain't got nothing against Marcus Aurelius, he saw what he saw and said what he said, and I trust he's well past needing any judgment of mine upon him.

But another did write...quite a few years before him:

"Vanity of vanities...all is vanity."

Your not liking his conclusions to the matter, do not distress his words at all. But who knows...maybe you do like his conclusions...more than I know.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2018)

Israel said:


> You really don't see it, do you? At all?
> 
> You quoted a philosopher to some end, of which I assumed you had understanding. I assumed that's why you quoted him...to show something you endorsed, believed, found worthy of mention.
> 
> ...


Strike Three


----------



## welderguy (May 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Strike Three



no worries...there's still more innings.


----------



## bullethead (May 22, 2018)

welderguy said:


> no worries...there's still more innings.



You may ask, what IS baseball? (If asking about a thing is really a question at all) Or maybe you don't ask¿ and the questions are all mine which may be an answer to a question not asked.

Either way I've really said nothing (even though loaded with letters that form words) still amounts to nothing. But there must be a thing to do away with to get no-thing.

Oh yeah, One


----------



## gemcgrew (May 22, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You may ask, what IS baseball? (If asking about a thing is really a question at all) Or maybe you don't ask¿ and the questions are all mine which may be an answer to a question not asked.
> 
> Either way I've really said nothing (even though loaded with letters that form words) still amounts to nothing. But there must be a thing to do away with to get no-thing.
> 
> Oh yeah, One


In your haste to belittle, I have found more hope for you.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> In your haste to belittle, I have found more hope for you.



Of course you can? And for whatever reason(s) you care to. I can place no requirement on you to limit what you find.


----------



## Israel (May 23, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Strike Three


This is an interesting thing.

Do you understand?

The man who plays...and makes _of himself _both _player_...and _umpire_...


Look, it's far more than what was referred to recently..."If you don't play by the rules, no one will play with you..."
Someone must have thought themselves quite wise in that (not even thinly veiled) threat.

In fact...the whole of the Rule_ is_: "It matters not if _anyone else_ will play with you...at all"...negating affirmatively the foolishness of that first statement. It is of _no consequence_.

I affirm Jesus is right. Is all there is of rightness...righteousness.

Another man says "Jordan Peterson is _right._!"


But in that shows he has not even heard Jordan Peterson...at all. (And if he can't hear what speaks to him of earthly things, while in an earthly thing {body}...how will hear Him who speaks from Heaven?)

Jordan Peterson is quite plainly stating "I will not be bound by force of law to answer you according to how _you  demand_ my response to you come".

Oh, yes, he says many things additionally...the things that grease the wheels to what he sees as a betterment in communication and understanding.

What is compelled by resort to "force of law"...even if that come as some sort of forum agreement...(and do not think God is ignorant of those using his Son's name...but show they are more than willing to not only enter this agreement...but endorse and promulgate it) how that they revile...grace. Men have a vain hope that God might be as ignorant and unseeing as themselves in the particular. But...only to themselves. Indulgent.

Yes, what must rely upon, and resort to force of law to extract a something from something, is weak...useless, a vanity. Thinking its power is increased in general agreement. To this premise is owed all forms of concupiscience...bargains made, exchanges, "deals cut"...

Do you say...but _your_ God gave law? Oh yes, indeed. But not to an extracting a something from something, nor even by agreement of the ruled; all His law came from agreement within Himself...not to man's adjudicating the acceptableness of it. And His law is not given in desire of extracting...but in all _un-vain hope _of giving and _providing _a seeing. Of giving to man a sight. "I am not...God". 

(Stop playing "player and umpire") for one can never see God in this estate. But...he will feel law. Oh...that's undeniable. In fact...that is all he will feel, the onerous burden of what keeps him to perfect frustration. Yet, in a hope.

If I were to bear false witness against you, or any other (and I would ask you...and any other if I have) "You are OUT!"...Sit down, shut up, say nothing more, your condition is irremediable, you've had your turn at bat...I would be liar. And full force of law _is for liars_, intended.

I make no claim to be all of truth, or to have always and only spoken it...God knows. I don't defend myself in this to a betterment inherent to myself...God knows. No, I am merely a quite selfish man who has tasted grace...beyond law, superior to law...and seek not for myself to be found again in that position of "having to taste law". Yes, I am quite...selfish, making no claim of an overwhelming beneficence to see you, or give you something "of myself" that is of any benefit to you, at all. For there is nothing "of myself" that is benefit to anyone...and chiefly me, learned in this little lab given where all my experimentation is accomplished.

Some think _they will_ decide to "enter" this experiment. But, it is not at all up to them. They entered with first breath, and continue...with every subsequent one. And (appropriate to this thread) if they think the ending of breaths is "in their hands" to both will, and do...how blatantly they display their ignorance.

But...man has been given what _is right_ toward ...patience. Ecce homo.


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2018)

Stop responding to him and let him have dialogue with himself if that gives him satisfaction. He’s shown that is what he wants so leave him to it.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 23, 2018)

Israel said:


> This is an interesting thing.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> ...



Yep; that's it.


----------



## welderguy (May 23, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Stop responding to him and let him have dialogue with himself if that gives him satisfaction. He’s shown that is what he wants so leave him to it.



Hey milk breath, if you don't like steak just say so. There's no shame in it.

...unless you're a lactose intolerant vegan that is.


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Hey milk breath, if you don't like steak just say so. There's no shame in it.
> 
> ...unless you're a lactose intolerant vegan that is.



I’m lactose intolerant but I just deal with it. Just don’t be around me after a big bowl of blue bell. And nothing beats a juicy ribeye. I’m hungry now. What were we talking about again?


----------



## welderguy (May 23, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I’m lactose intolerant but I just deal with it. Just don’t be around me after a big bowl of blue bell. And nothing beats a juicy ribeye. I’m hungry now. What were we talking about again?



all our intolerances


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2018)

welderguy said:


> all our intolerances



Ah yes. I think you were trying to insult me. So is that steak that Israel is serving up? I’m not the only one here that doesn’t seem to think so. He can continue serving it up to his hearts content and people can continue to not waste their time with him. That’s more tolerance than we can expect to receive a few floors up.


----------



## welderguy (May 23, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Ah yes. I think you were trying to insult me. So is that steak that Israel is serving up? I’m not the only one here that doesn’t seem to think so. He can continue serving it up to his hearts content and people can continue to not waste their time with him. That’s more tolerance than we can expect to receive a few floors up.



Ok I retract the part about your milk breath. That was mean. Sorry.
Maybe all of us are serving watermelon. So eat the good part and spit out the seeds. Howboutdat?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 23, 2018)




----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2018)

Israel said:


> This is an interesting thing.
> 
> Do you understand?
> 
> ...



Mmmm, cOnsEqUEncE...of little it is.


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Ok I retract the part about your milk breath. That was mean. Sorry.
> Maybe all of us are serving watermelon. So eat the good part and spit out the seeds. Howboutdat?



Sounds good to me. I think that’s what we are doing.


----------



## 660griz (May 23, 2018)

welderguy said:


> Ok Sorry.
> Maybe all of us are serving watermelon. So eat the good part and spit out the seeds. Howboutdat?



Seedless watermelon for me.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 23, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> I’m lactose intolerant but I just deal with it. Just don’t be around me after a big bowl of blue bell. And nothing beats a juicy ribeye. I’m hungry now. What were we talking about again?



steak flavored ice cream!


----------



## Spotlite (May 23, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> In this day and age we describe that as "ignorance is bliss"
> ignorance is bliss
> [ignorance is bliss]
> DEFINITION
> if you do not know about something, you do not worry about it.


Sometimes.......... a bliss can be a rewarding attribute 




atlashunter said:


> There shouldn’t be any legal ramifications for assisting someone in carrying out a legal action, especially when the intent is not malicious and reduces suffering. A doctor provides the means but the act itself is still carried out by the patient. The key here is who is making the decision and is it what they really want?


From a legal standpoint I agree. In giving this a fair assessment, I see some potential issues though. Most patients in this condition are on medications and most likely mind altering. Now how do you determine if this is really what they wanted?


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Given the fact that all religions make exclusive truth claims, including Athiesm, this is not the most sound rational statement one could make.  (I realize Athiest don’t consider their belief a ‘religion’ per se, but it IS a belief system with its own set of implications, and that is the defining context into which the term is used above.  Could just as easily used the broader term ‘world views’ )
> 
> Spotlight, do yourself a favor and spend 4 minutes watching the first video on this page.  I promise you, you will be glad you did.
> 
> https://rzim.org/ask-intro/



I don’t view atheism as a religion or a belief system. They’ve discovered no higher power to look to in order to establish their conclusion.  

For the couple of atheist that I personally know, their conclusion is really simple. They haven’t discovered any evidence for a higher power, but they’re not 100% positive that a higher power doesn’t exist. 

Sort of like fishing and not catching anything, I hadn’t caught one so I don’t have any evidence, but I’m not 100% positive that there’s no fish in that pond. There’s still room for discovery. 

I think my comment was fairly sound, the point was I don’t feel the need to disprove every other claim to confirm my claim. I found my evidence for my belief.


----------



## Israel (May 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Mmmm, cOnsEqUEncE...of little it is.



Let's stay there...if we can.
What _was_ Marcus Aurelius saying is of little consequence?

I believe we both know what Jesus says and I am asking if in any way this can be, might be, in any form to you and I, as of apples to apples.

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

We are, you and I, on very equal ground here. We both speak from souls informed in something, by something.
Psyches, if you prefer.

Though I would contend a man's soul _may_ be informed of what is _called_ Spirit, that needn't be a hindrance, I cannot show or prove that to you to any superiority, it is enough that we stay within the confines of words spoken...by Aurelius, Jesus, myself, and you.

We needn't even, at this point, be much concerned with the why of _their speaking_, nor even, our own.

But, do we, if only you and I, agree...communication in some form...is taking place? Even if (and I cannot disagree) I am found "bad communicator", all of "self centered" communicator, poorest of communicators? Even to the most ridiculous description of simply "masturbatory" communicator? (I have learned the soul likes to "mouth off", shoot its seed when pressed, and ego stroked...and I cannot exempt myself from "ever" being found in that practice...just because _I know_ of it, and that it takes place)

Yes...every one of us is getting seed on ourselves from one another.

Did you quote Marcus Aurelius believing he had some good seed? Some seed worthy of sharing? But, more importantly...did you quote it "to me"...in some hope?

But if, as _he does_ say (and we will not even touch why a man who would say, if the sum of it is only "tis of little consequence" to observe the world, the universe, all that might be observed [to what a man might gain...of it] to whatever greater and lesser degree it might be in a hundred years or some far greater number, why he must have felt _enough need_ to express "tis of little consequence") 
"tis of little consequence" for if indeed it is...then even expression of that undercuts, in some way...the need to speak at all. But, he did.

And here's a curious thing, also. I have read that these words were found in his own journals...not (seemingly) ever meant for publication. That's interesting to me. Is it to you? A man whose thoughts are his own...still finds a need to write them down...even if only for himself. Speaking...to himself. Did Marcus even know...a man's thoughts, man's own mind, either needs, or benefits by...reminder? Can bear...reminding? Might not...even to itself...be the best and most hermetically sealed container to itself, for itself? We do not know.

Or was he simply...masturbating? Supplying his own pleasure...to himself?

Or...was he very clever? Trusting his journals would be found...seen, read...by at the very least..one other? That's either a risk...or a hope, no? That we can't know. "I _risk_ being found if I record this...I _hope_ being found, by recording this." We may never know.

All we may know now is that regardless of his motives, the "cat is out of the bag".
And enough so that two people (at the very least) are using them between themselves. Two millennia later.
Does their antiquity...diminish them?
Is there such rust and corruption of time upon them to be so very useless in 2018 than when first penned?

Then...why do they appear? For derision? I think not. I really don't think (and correct me if I am wrong) you thought them vain and useless in your first introduction of them. But, am I wrong? Or...did you see a timeless thing in them? A _useful thing_...in them? 

Regardless of whether Marcus Aurelius approved of germ theory, the physics of matter and anti matter, Boyles law or microwave energy. 

He was speaking of the nature of man...and what he might (and more specifically...not) gain by either much observing (and perhaps) might even _accrue to_ (read again, gain) in the comprehending. A man can only lose his _now_. 

"The _present moment_ is all which either is deprived of, since that is all he has, _a man cannot part with what he has not_" Italics mine

That's very interesting. Very interesting...in truth. I cannot help but see (and all and any are free to correct my seeing) his saying of this is in refutation of a thing.

The need to say this: "a man cannot part with what he has not" refutes all mis-comprehending a man might have in thinking he can lose something he does not have. He does not have tomorrow, he does not even have a "past" in the sense of ability of _possessing_ it in this very moment...all he has is the present moment...which alone...may be lost. He has nothing at all...except the present moment, and his presence in it.

What then? Is there a liar amongst us? Marcus Aurelius may appear...in this present moment? Through his words assumed of truth? Christopher Hitchens? Stephen Hawking? Will we drag over Neil de Grasse Tyson? Jordan Peterson or even Paul the apostle? Have a care as to whom you would allow...whom you think you have power to forbid. For in any _allowance_ you undercut your _right_ of forbidding equal voice.

Aurelius has been brought into our now to say a thing about a man not being able to lose what he does not have. And in such saying to refute the notion that a man might think...he _has_ what he does not.

I do not bring Jesus "in". He's already here. Or...could a man, would a man be able to _rightly say_ "all are given permission to appear now..._except_ Jesus Christ?" I would say, as one appearing now..._beware_ what you forbid. Or think...you can.

To him who has, more will be given, but to him who_ has not_ even that _which he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him.

How much now do each have? All the same? All differing? God knows. But each man will know to a surety...what he has "now".

If I warn, I warn as your brother. 

If I may comfort or encourage any, (dare I _even_ hope it? To _hope to be_ as some of you have already been so clearly made to me?) you are found the nobler for bearing with me in my foolishness. And may I then be ennobled...to be found as _your_ brother.

I risk being found out...in very hope...of being found.

NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...


That's all there is in now, may each be found in it.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2018)

Israel said:


> Let's stay there...if we can.
> What _was_ Marcus Aurelius saying is of little consequence?
> 
> I believe we both know what Jesus says and I am asking if in any way this can be, might be, in any form to you and I, as of apples to apples.
> ...



Sorry but I am through engaging in conversation when it is only at your convenience.
There is no "we" in this conversation. I tried that and you refuse to give any answer that is honest, to the point or outside of your comfort zone. Instead of answering direct questions you deflect and go on these rants to churn your own butter. It is long past tiring.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t view atheism as a religion or a belief system. They’ve discovered no higher power to look to in order to establish their conclusion.
> 
> For the couple of atheist that I personally know, their conclusion is really simple. They haven’t discovered any evidence for a higher power, but they’re not 100% positive that a higher power doesn’t exist.
> 
> ...



Those people you know are agnostics.


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Those people you know are agnostics.



You’re correct as far as terminology is concerned. It’s just my view that they’re basically the same. I admit that I don’t know everything about either so it’s opinionated.

That being said, it’s still my view (opinion) that Athiesm is not a religion, but from a terminology perspective, I guess they can still be a belief system???


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> You’re correct as far as terminology is concerned. It’s just my view that they’re basically the same. I admit that I don’t know everything about either so it’s opinionated.
> 
> That being said, it’s still my view (opinion) that Athiesm is not a religion, but from a terminology perspective, I guess they can still be a belief system???


An atheist just does not believe that a god or any gods exist. There is no system. There is no set of rules to follow in order to not believe in something.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> An atheist just does not believe that a god or any gods exist. There is no system. There is no set of rules to follow in order to not believe in something.


sys·tem
[ËˆsistÉ™m]
NOUN
a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.
"the state railroad system" · [more]
synonyms: structure · organization · order · arrangement · complex · apparatus · [more]
a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.

Nothing working together.
Not a part of anything.
Not interconnected to anything else.
No procedures.
No organization.
No....
No....


----------



## hummerpoo (May 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Sorry but I am through engaging in conversation when it is only at your convenience.
> There is no "we" in this conversation. I tried that and you refuse to give any answer that is honest, to the point or outside of your comfort zone. Instead of answering direct questions you deflect and go on these rants to churn your own butter. It is long past tiring.



Yesterday morning I followed the conversation backwards in search of the question which was the point of your accusation without success.  This morning I repeated the process, again without success.  Thinking that another might have the same problem, can you point it out for us?  Thanks, in advance, for your effort.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Yesterday morning I followed the conversation backwards in search of the question which was the point of your accusation without success.  This morning I repeated the process, again without success.  Thinking that another might have the same problem, can you point it out for us?  Thanks, in advance, for your effort.



Post #78 which includes his quote and my direct questions that were specifically asked of him in reply to his quote.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 24, 2018)

> Originally Posted by ky55
> Who are the “others”, and what are the rational and intelligible answers they provide?





atlashunter said:


> God did it. Has such a great track record of answering the simple questions like where thunder and earthquakes come from so why not use it to answer the big questions of life?


Whats interesting to me is, these "others" who provide rational and intelligible answers are ALL rejected by Christianity as being wrong/false/not true.
So obviously "others" can only mean "other Christians".
Not a great argument - "Well Atheism is bad because it doesn't consider all the "others" rational and intelligible answers that Christianity doesn't consider"


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> An atheist just does not believe that a god or any gods exist. There is no system. There is no set of rules to follow in order to not believe in something.



Ok I’m on the same page then as far as no belief system.


----------



## ambush80 (May 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ok I’m on the same page then as far as no belief system.




Maybe you as a believer can articulate your understanding in such a way that another believer like SemperFi can understand.  Do you think that there's something about being a believer that makes the concept of atheism not being a belief system hard to grasp?  I'm just wondering in an armchair psychology kind of way.


----------



## ambush80 (May 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t view atheism as a religion or a belief system. They’ve discovered no higher power to look to in order to establish their conclusion.
> 
> For the couple of atheist that I personally know, their conclusion is really simple. They haven’t discovered any evidence for a higher power, but they’re not 100% positive that a higher power doesn’t exist.
> 
> ...



What is it?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Sometimes.......... a bliss can be a rewarding attribute


I actually agree with you on this.
IF Christianity had left it at "Hey we believe, that's all that matters, the heck with them, we are going to do our own thing"..... it wouldn't bother me in the least if all Christians wallowed in blissful glory and sunshine together.
Unfortunately Christianity couldn't/wouldnt leave it at that....


----------



## hummerpoo (May 24, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Post #78 which includes his quote and my direct questions that were specifically asked of him in reply to his quote.



Thanks.

Good analogy.

#78 seems totally rhetorical to me.  You answer your own question with the included opinion.


But thanks again, I can now quit wondering what you are talking about.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Good analogy.
> 
> ...



My hope was to get an honest reply. I did answer my own question(s) to just cut to the chase, but specifically asked him for answers also.

It took you less time to reply to me with a response that addressed me/my questions specifically than it took Izzy to tippy-toe around it. So what I asked of him certainly was not outlandish.


----------



## 660griz (May 24, 2018)

Israel said:


> "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"


The world minus one soul. Not a bad deal.


----------



## Israel (May 24, 2018)

660griz said:


> The world minus one soul. Not a bad deal.



The chaos you think you know (and believe you can _handle_)...because you believe you survey it from an impregnable and unassailable position and estate is not _in experience_ as it appears by survey.

In observation you contain it, set limits and borders to it, think it is in someway then _known to you _by the limits of it...you have _only now_, by _allowance_. You can "think" about it, think deeply even about it..and at a will allowed to you, then turn away...and return to an order. You are granted a will, by allowance (grace) that allows such. Yes, men are to think.

You can watch another man die...observe it, think in the watching you have had now...some experience of it...some understanding...because you have observed.

But when your soul is abandoned to it, it is all you never knew in experience. Power to set limits, to establish border beyond which you will not suffer its incursion...are not yours any longer to exercise. In the grip of it...is the knowing, and _only there._ One tells you all you need know to avoid its grip.
I don't encourage you to laugh at it, think it is merely metaphor as it may seem now...a silly construct to wring something from you. He who in grace now anchors your soul to you, allows you to know yourself...to you, _as you_, truly deserves your attentions.

When in being, and while in being the you...that is you, has received commandment to follow that thread that anchors you (of grace) to source. For if and when (May God forbid it to you) that thread of spirit and soul, may, through its denial of being...be cut...and your spirit returns to God who gave it, (again, may God forbid) your soul be set adrift into what you once only imagined...one will not even have that once extended right...to know themselves...as themself.

Will you live to yourself and die to yourself...in vanity? Or pay proper heed to Him who paid the price to the keeping of your soul, in right marriage to the spirit?

I trust you are a man no less than I am. That you have known at least something of "rift" in yourself. Seek Him alone who can provide resolution, and reconciliation. That thread may seem most fragile of all to an absurdity...but...it is more than enough to hold you...if you follow.

For the love of Christ, and the safety assured to your soul in Him, follow!


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I actually agree with you on this.
> IF Christianity had left it at "Hey we believe, that's all that matters, the heck with them, we are going to do our own thing"..... it wouldn't bother me in the least if all Christians wallowed in blissful glory and sunshine together.
> Unfortunately Christianity couldn't/wouldnt leave it at that....



Within the group labeled “Christianity” there’s a great deal that have the “hey we believe and that’s all that matters” blissful attitude. 

They don’t get involved with all of the political correctness, debating, defending, protesting or even pushing for laws. 

They do feel firmly that a lot of our laws were written based on biblical principles and that’s the benchmark for moral standards for society. That’s why you hear “morals” thrown in when a Christian replies. 

But looking at it from a legal perspective as atlashunter was pointing out, it’s an acceptable act for society. 

I don’t believe that this topic will get much Christian support but again, there’s a bunch of us that it won’t affect if it remains legal or illegal. 

My only question is where do we stop making things legal so that it becomes “ok” to do.


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe you as a believer can articulate your understanding in such a way that another believer like SemperFi can understand.  Do you think that there's something about being a believer that makes the concept of atheism not being a belief system hard to grasp?  I'm just wondering in an armchair psychology kind of way.



I don’t think there is. I feel that it’s just a knee jerk reaction.  Human nature is to identify people with something and it’s usually what they’re “practicing”. “There’s a group of Christians because they’re all praying together”. “There’s a group of football players because they’re all in uniform”. “There’s a group of doctors because they’re all operating on someone “ and “There’s of a group of atheist because “?????

Walt and bullet pretty much sums the rest of it up. 


WaltL1 said:


> sys·tem
> [ËˆsistÉ™m]
> NOUN
> a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.
> ...





bullethead said:


> An atheist just does not believe that a god or any gods exist. There is no system. There is no set of rules to follow in order to not believe in something.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2018)

There is a group of atheists because.... they all do not believe in any god.
Simply labeling them as atheists puts them in a group or class together.


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Within the group labeled “Christianity” there’s a great deal that have the “hey we believe and that’s all that matters” blissful attitude.
> 
> They don’t get involved with all of the political correctness, debating, defending, protesting or even pushing for laws.
> 
> ...



That wasn’t at all what I was saying. How many different ways can someone say what is legal and what is moral are not necessarily one and the same? Making something legal doesn’t make it moral. It also doesn’t make it immoral. Nor does making something illegal. They are separate independent questions. All moral acts should be legal. Some immoral acts should be illegal but not all because morality should not be the basis of law.


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What is it?



Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard cult members give that same response when challenged to justify their beliefs. “I’ve found the evidence I need.”


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> That wasn’t at all what I was saying. How many different ways can someone say what is legal and what is moral are not necessarily one and the same? Making something legal doesn’t make it moral. It also doesn’t make it immoral. Nor does making something illegal. They are separate independent questions. All moral acts should be legal. Some immoral acts should be illegal but not all because morality should not be the basis of law.



Yea I get that, was only making the reference of looking at it from a legal perspective, society accepts.


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I actually agree with you on this.
> IF Christianity had left it at "Hey we believe, that's all that matters, the heck with them, we are going to do our own thing"..... it wouldn't bother me in the least if all Christians wallowed in blissful glory and sunshine together.
> Unfortunately Christianity couldn't/wouldnt leave it at that....



This resonates with me. I don’t view evangelicals in the same light as the Amish.


----------



## ky55 (May 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I actually agree with you on this.
> IF Christianity had left it at "Hey we believe, that's all that matters, the heck with them, we are going to do our own thing"..... it wouldn't bother me in the least if all Christians wallowed in blissful glory and sunshine together.
> Unfortunately Christianity couldn't/wouldnt leave it at that....







atlashunter said:


> This resonates with me. I don’t view evangelicals in the same light as the Amish.




Yep. 
I don’t remember any Atheist missionaries traveling the world with salvation at the end of a sword. 

*


----------



## WaltL1 (May 24, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Within the group labeled “Christianity” there’s a great deal that have the “hey we believe and that’s all that matters” blissful attitude.
> 
> They don’t get involved with all of the political correctness, debating, defending, protesting or even pushing for laws.
> 
> ...





Spotlite said:


> Within the group labeled “Christianity” there’s a great deal that have the “hey we believe and that’s all that matters” blissful attitude.
> They don’t get involved with all of the political correctness, debating, defending, protesting or even pushing for laws


. 
I agree with you there too.
I'm just not sure that lets them off the hook.
Joining a club/organization is at the very least saying "I might not personally do it but I'm willing to accept my club/organization does it".
I know that it can be a tough spot to be in.


----------



## Spotlite (May 24, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> I agree with you there too.
> I'm just not sure that lets them off the hook.
> Joining a club/organization is at the very least saying "I might not personally do it but I'm willing to accept my club/organization does it".
> I know that it can be a tough spot to be in.



True!!


----------



## Spotlite (May 27, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Those other groups are minuscule in comparison and aren’t influencing government in ways that impact the rest of us. Your particular group is much larger and more influential so it gets more attention. When Christianity is replaced by the pink unicorn believers and they are making laws we all must deal with based on their silly beliefs





Spotlite said:


> You should take note to that. Maybe the group is much larger for a reason





atlashunter said:


> What reason would that be?



American History. 

One of the reasons that settlers came was for freedom of religion.    

After the Declaration of Independence, they established the U.S. Constitution and ensured that freedom of religion remained.  

The U.S. Constitution has 7 principles, one of those are "Individual Rights" which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution - Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion. 

I am sure that there have been many debates about the language within the Declaration of Independence that state "to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" and "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator".  

And don't take this as an attempt trying to prove the existence of God or any gods, that's not the intent. 

The only purpose here is to show that the people that came here and established the U.S.A. had religious views and religious principles.

Which is most likely the reason that our govt is influenced with religion. 

But when you are singling out "Christianity".... 

Can you name any law that Congress has made that respects only the establishment of Christianity?

The last time I asked someone that, gay marriage and school prayer was the answer. 

Christianity - is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life, teachings and purported miracles of Jesus of Nazareth.

Judaism - Jews - Don't fit the Christianity definition. 

Islam - Muslim - They don't fit the definition either, and they kill homosexuals.

With the exception of some reformed Jews, and some Christian denominations accepting homosexual marriage.......they all oppose homosexuality. 

School prayer, never was a law that required it. It was common practice. History of that will show you that this country was founded on religious principles by those looking for religious freedom.     

The Christianity group has just as much right to petition the govt and influence them as any other group, and grow in number to be the larger group.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> American History.
> 
> One of the reasons that settlers came was for freedom of religion.
> 
> ...



That is absolutely right.  Blue laws are about all that's left.


----------



## Spotlite (May 28, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That is absolutely right.  Blue laws are about all that's left.



And unless I’m mistaken, only 12 states still have Blue laws. But........those were not just for Christianity. Islam forbids alcohol. 

Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have days of rest.

A little history research will show you that blue laws affecting us started or were carried on with settlers.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> American History.
> 
> One of the reasons that settlers came was for freedom of religion.
> 
> ...



Nobody is questioning their right to their beliefs nor their right to self government. But when their influence pushes against my own views then expect a push back. Laws that favor Christianity? Not as many as there once were fortunately. Now the pushing tends to be at the local and state level. Sometimes it’s annoying but benign like government endorsements of a religious viewpoint on government property or currency. Other times it’s more pernicious like the effort to replace science with mythology in the classroom, laws that criminalize what one consumes, laws that criminalize commerce at certain religious times, and provisions in state constitutions that restrict the holding of public office to theists.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 1, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And unless I’m mistaken, only 12 states still have Blue laws. But........those were not just for Christianity. Islam forbids alcohol.
> 
> Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have days of rest.
> 
> A little history research will show you that blue laws affecting us started or were carried on with settlers.



Maybe atheists should reciprocate with a particular day that bibles and other religious paraphernalia may not be purchased. Now that we’ve established it’s ok to use the law to inconvenience others that don’t hold our views on the gods.


----------



## Israel (Jun 1, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe atheists should reciprocate with a particular day that bibles and other religious paraphernalia may not be purchased. Now that we’ve established it’s ok to use the law to inconvenience others that don’t hold our views on the gods.



I see that...if a thing is legal to purchase 6 days of the week, why prohibit it on some other day? Prohibition had already been shown to do little more than line the pockets of those willing to stack up bodies in efforts to get around it, and pave the way for more grievous forms of corruption. It's almost always a sure bet that if you want men to do something, make a law against it...and they'll come a'flocking.
So, if you want to create more of a demand for Bibles ...or smuggling of them...and raise up an Elliot Ness for today "Hey, those aren't copies of The God Delusion! They're just printing up fake covers! Get the matches..." well...granny's in jail for distribution...
again.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 1, 2018)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe atheists should reciprocate with a particular day that bibles and other religious paraphernalia may not be purchased. Now that we’ve established it’s ok to use the law to inconvenience others that don’t hold our views on the gods.



I’d be ok with that. I dont support blue laws anyway. Im just saying that blue laws date back to our Founders. Now, are you still questioning biblical influences on laws?


----------

