georgerussia

For them - definitely. Remember, people were dying in the name of their Fuhrer. Note that Hitler is in much better position comparing to your Jesus - at least there is a lot of witnesses (still alive!) who had personally seen him, and talked to him. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Sure, I did, because your God created me that way. He definitely wanted me to lie, because he created me capable of lying. Compare it to my dog, for example - he cannot lie, which obviously means that some creatures were created like that. This leads us to logical conclusion that the God wanted the people to lie. It is obvious. Because your God is omnipotent and omniscent, everything is programmed (determined) for him. This includes Adam's behavior - the God knew that the creature he created will behave exactly like he did (if he did not know that - he is not omniscent, and therefore not omnipotent). He knew that would happen, but did not correct it - therefore approving it. But now you say he did not approve it. This is probably misunderstanding somewhere, as it either means that your God is not omniscent, or it means that your God is a sadistic asshole, who created the creature knowing it is going to eat the forbidden tree, did nothing to correct it, and then punished it for that. It is like I put a piece of nice meat in front of my starving dog, tell it "do not touch it", and then punish the dog when it eats it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That is absolutely correct. The main reason for the State to exist is to protect its citizens at all cost. If it means someone else is going to be screwed really bad - well, bad for them, they have their own State to take care on them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My theory is that the number of assholes inside the population is a fixed constant, and it stays the same in any specific subgroup inside this population. This means that some /small/ amount of judges are assholes as well, and such a reaction is expected. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I did not. According to your own words, we are going to hell because some creature the God created acted exactly like the God programmed him (and the God knew it even before). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, if you deserve going to Hell just because someone committed sins, why don't you go to Hell because you father, your brother or close friend committed sins? If you are held responsible by your God for actions of those who you never seen and have no influence over their actions, this means that you should be held even more responsible for actions of your relatives, as you directly relate to them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Such an example pops up quite often. The difference, however, is obvious: 1. For vast majority of people it does not affect their lives. The fact most people think the Earth is round (while it is really a sphere) does not affect their lives in any way. You are not told that you are going to scream in pain for your entire ethernal life because your beliefs on that matter were wrong. 2. Unlike the God existense, it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt for any reasonable individual. There is no way to prove the God exist, and all the "evidence" the people bring could as well prove that Flying Spahetti Monster and other imaginagle creatures exists as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Wow! Her God will definitely watching for that student :( * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

From my limited experience in skydiving I'd say it is very rare and unlucky for an AFF student to broke the leg in two places. If this is a typical example of how your god looks after his children, I'd say it is kinda weird, and I really want to be an orphan. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And we use neither. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So why the default answer should be "no"? It is not like you're taking away something useful. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Despite what you guess, there are still some people who do put the money where their mouth is. We have children, and do not shop in Walmart. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Let’s compare… Manuscript Evidence This proves nothing, as the fact the Bible exists is not challenged here. This is bullshit. Again, while there are numbers comparing Illiad and the Bible, there is no any explanation how did the author came to those numbers. Maybe it's the product of his imagination, or maybe he is just lying to us. Probably the best statement describing the nonsense of such a "proof" is "The bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail". Well, Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" describes places, people and events in much more details than the Bible. And any history book greatly outstands the Bible in that as well. Same as above. Proves nothing. An _excellent_ example of biblical hypocrites: This is because possible errors in those ancient writings cannot affect the life on vast majority of people, and they basically do not really care about accuracy of those writings . If somebody is able to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that Homer did not exist, it won't change the life for almost anyone. However if somebody is able to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the Bible was faked, it would definitely affect a lot of lives. Because even the smallest mistake or misinterpretation in the God's will could lead you to Hell. And that's exactly what happens now - even Christians could not agree on a single interpretation of the Bible. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then yours is based on even more unrealistic assumption that somewhing capable to create everything came from nothing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is completely unreasonable statement. Those things are completely different, and there is no way trusting work of Jesus at the cross somehow could intersect with killing. Ask the crusareds. That's just your words. Do you have any proof? (No, the words written in the Bible do not prove anything, sorry). So basically you could kill, steal and cheat your whole life, and then accept Jesus right before you die, and you will be forgiven, and saved, like the person who was crucified near Jesus. So why waste your time right now? This is not true either. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Actually chance determines everything - from whether you are going to ever exist on this planet to whether you wake up alive tomorrow instead of dying of heart attack. Even my 10 year old said this article is full of bullshit, and pointed exactly where. Is your potential auditory supposed to be the people without any brain activity? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I gave you life. This is written in the book I have. I admit I wrote it myself, but it was inspired by the God, so it must be true. How could I know it was inspired by the God? Because it is written in the book. So love me, I'm your God, and if you don't send me $100, you'll go to Hell. So basically your God is punishing us because he created us selfish by nature and fall way short of the standard set by the God? This is ridiculous. This is a crap statement. Either you are trying to tell us that the Holy Spirit is inside everyone of us (and therefore there is no reason to love God), or there are people who did not do ANY good at all in their whole life (which is not true). Another problem is that the whole definition of "good" is vague. Look on euthanasia for example; some consider it good, some consider it bad. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But without the appropriate power. It is like teaching your child that he was born to be the King of the world. This definitely falls into "mean asshole" definition. But you know why? Because the courts do not recognize the existense of the God. If they did, this defense would definitely have a good chance to work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It doesn't matter as your statement was about morals itself, not about someone acting accorging to it. Well, that's what they do. They eat the enemies, and they know if they become captives, they will be eaten as well. That's a good reason not to become a captive. Vahabbits are living by that as well - they are taught they have the rights to destroy others, because others are destroying them. Contesting the ticket (plea not guilty) does not mean you did not do it. It only means that the fact you were speeding should be proven beyond reasonable doubt (at least in Cali.). But anyway, you behaved even worse than you described in the above post: In this case not only you were wrong, and did it anyway for selfish purposes, but you were completely aware this is wrong. So why we you need any Jesus to tell you what's wrong, if some people do not obey it anyway? Let's a psychologist answer this. The only thing I could tell is that Jesus plays no parts here. So how would you tell which Christian follows the Moral Law, and which doesn't? Let's take a modern example; Jehova Witnesses and baptists tell you that it is against the God's will to pray to the God's image (icons). And they could prove it with their interpretation of the Bible, and it looks correct. Does it mean that Catholics do not follow even the Bible basics, not to mention the Moral Law? We haven't even started talking about gay marriage, abortion and death penalty... Then how do you explain the fact that the Christian community found it acceptable to have slaves before, but does not find it acceptable now, if the Moral Law didn't change? Doesn't it mean that all those Christians will definitely go to Hell for so obvious violation of the God's will? This is not correct. If Osama Bin Laden murders you, it will be perfectly acceptable for him. Well, what about self-defense murder? Murder in the war like Afganistan/Iraq, which is basically not defensive? What about murdering a suspect who is trying to run away by a police officer? Are they all wrong as well? I don't see how your relationship with a fiction character could tell anything about your morals. That's exactly what I said - so basically a politican who takes bribes, and starts wars, but remembers the Sabbath and loves the God is morally right. Is that correct? He doesn't violate your Moral Law in any way. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But it was said that Chrsitianity leads us to recognise some kind of absolute good and evil. So how good Christians are those who do not agree with the official absolute good and evil? And how far the "not sheeple" goes? Could a gay be considered a Christian? A pedophile? A mass murderer in the name of God? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So if I kill, steal and cheat, but I trust in the finished work of the cross of Jesus Christ - I am saved, right? Looks like this Martin was the first Republican. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'd second that as well if health insurance was free, and you were automatically enrolled in it unless you personally opt out. Note that becoming a donor is free, and does not cost you $xxx/month. There are only moral arguments against being an organ donor. Well, if the person cannot morally accept their organs going to someone else after they die because it is immoral, they most likely cannot morally accept organs from another dead person, leaving this person without organs - which is immoral. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope. There are rules the kids must follow. But those rules are reasonable, and the necessity is explained. Bed time is explained as the kids only grow while sleep, homework is needed to maintain her "best in classroom" status in the school. Actually I almost never help her with homework, and she is responsible to read the homework before leaving the school, and ask the teacher if she has any questions. It is also easy to enforce rules like "no pizza/pepsi" or "no TV" - we have neither in our house. From what I heard the ones who spread STDs and get pregnant are mostly from the families where everything was very restrictive, and nobody was allowed to even mention things like condoms. "Just say no" did not, and does not work. If your experience is different, please share. The problem in this approach is that if you lead a child, it will never exceed you. And while our children could be more capable than we are, they would be unable to fulfil this advantage if they only follow you. Most people I work with definitely exceed their parents' expectations. What if they followed their advice instead? Would a farmer lead his son to be the President? I doubt it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Maybe I just chose the wrong word, but I start considering something programming when the child is asked to work a lot on something which is unusual for the specific society, with the intention to make a major change in the child life. For example, NOT reading the Koran in all-Muslim country, where everyone supposed to read it, could be considered programming as well. My mother was (and is) Jehova Witness, and I am not, which I consider an example of programming as well; I follow it with my daughter, who already reads the Skeptic's Bible and knows exactly why Noah Arc is a myth. No, it's actually good for me, as I'm still learning. Thank you for explanation. I juse tell her - look around! See that gas station? Somebody cleans up the place. Someone works there as a cashier. Someone does repair and maintenance. Someone makes the pumps. Someone drives fuel trucks to provide fuel. Someone does accounting, audit, provides and maintains water and electricity, orders supplies, manages the team, and so on. Then I explain advantages and disadvantages, like the person who cleans the place earns little, but does not require any education; doctor earns a lot, but there is a lot of education and post-education involved, which will cost time - part of your life, a huge investment. And so on. It is not democracy either. We have the rules she must follow (and nobody else has to follow them), but there are areas she has freedom to decide for her future - like religion, friendship, future school/university/job, and this includes donorship as well. So they cheat! :D * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's not what I call programming. The things you mentioned are generic, and everyone does this. The devil, however, is in details. Teaching the child to read is definitely not programming. Teaching the child to read the Bible might be programming depending on circumstances, and teaching the child to read ONLY the Bible is definitely programming. That's what I'm talking about. I could only guess what "convo" means, as it is absent in my vocabulaty. However I'm only asking, not answering the "what you could be when you grow up" question, and do not provide any answers. It is HER choice, not ours, and so far we only had problems with personalities (like "I want to be Paris Hilton"), and generics ("I want to be a president" - of what?). And while we do encourage or discourage her choices, we always tell he that we respect her choice, and she is the one who will ultimately make the choice. That is true, it's definitely not our dream. But again, even though very unlikely, it will be her adult choice, not ours. Most parents do not dream about McDonalds cashier job for their kid either. Regarding how bad or good the job is - it depends what you compare with. If she becomes a nun, I wouldn't want to receive updates on her promotion either. However it doesn't mean we'll refuse her. She is our daugher, and she always be, no matter. That's obvious, as before the child becomes adult, it is basically parent choice, not theirs. Just checked the original post; oops, I didn't make it really clear, sorry. Fixed it; obviously I'm only talking about an adult choice. Nope. But you probably missed the point; we're talking about extra welfare in case the government does not allow abotrions. This makes it different. If my child came to me and asked about that, I would explain to her the reasons why the organs are donated, what they are used for, how it could save lives of other children, and therefore how important the organ donation is. However if she still decided not to donate, I would respect her wish, even though I'd be pissed off. BTW, what is "fluffer"? Haven't found any reasonable definition. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *