georgerussia

Well, this would definitely work with feminazis. An "independend" person is not going to live the rest of your life with you, because it would create dependency on you. Armpits/ugly is more like personal preference, where the first one is easy to fix, and therefore is not worth mentioning. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The example asked was "examles of people using the non existence of god as a defence of slavery". This is completely different. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is a funny way you're trying to talk out the vote cosequence chain. Nobody argues that this is your constitutional right, and it is 100% up to you. What I have said multiple times is that: 1. Voting is the way to change actions or behavior of everyone else in society through laws. Your vote is not just expression of your beliefs - that's what your pray is for. 2. So when you vote according to your beliefs, you are trying to to change actions or behavior of everyone else in society according to your beliefs. Do you agree with this statement? If not, why? I have no idea who you are now answering. My question was totally different - is it considered appropriate for Christians to force others to follow teachings of Christ? Note the use of word "force". Actually he lobbied AGAINST his (and everyone else) religious convictions, as the Bible defends slavery in multiple places. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Not exactly. If you see the post sequence, it was about Jesus, the Bible and a lot of things which are also subject to belief, even though some people consider them facts. If everyone just replied "yes/no", there would be no discussion. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Thank you, this is really extensive answer. Do I understand correctly that you have nothing reasonable to reply except some childish stuff? And, by the way, I do not prove shit. Nor I talk shit. Please keep the shit-talk away from me. Thank you. Obviously - like you and like everyone else. But my guess is based on facts, and I have stand up on them. Besides "shit", what is your guess is based on? Yes, we can. I just have shown you an example that the God is either not mercy, or not omnipotent. So far the only thing I saw from you was pretty childish talk. Do you have anything else? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

What about a strong woman, who depends on you, but not for an every little thing? As you probably know, I'm from Europe myself, so I understand what he's talking about. There is major difference in interpretation of "being submissive", ranging from "never agree with your partner no matter what is the subject" to "well, I got beaten again - at least got some attention". I would agree with you using the last definition, but I would strongly disagree if we use the first definition. Personally I haven't yet seen a strong long term relationship where both partners involved would be completely "independent". Being independend means that a person doesn't really need a relationship, and therefore puts little to none efforts to fix the relationship when the problems come. And obviously the problems will come. At the end the person dies alone. Not a bad thing, but not something everyone is looking for. Why not? I know a lot of men and women who like to be controlled in relationship by someone who is smarter than them, as they do not want to take any responsibility as well. Not everyone wants a relationship with an "independent woman", and I always laugh hearing something like "Are you man enough to handle me?" No, sorry - I am not gay, but I am sure you will find one. Which is good thing. You wouldn't have a relationship with a man like him, but he wouldn't have a relationship with a woman like you as well. Thus saving a lot of grief for everyone involved, as such a relationship would most likely fail. Personally I have never heard "I'd never marry a man like you" from a woman I would even consider to be in relationship with. Parity assumes not only equal rights (which everyone can handle), but also equal responsibilities for actions (which much less people can really handle). That's why everyone wants to get a CEO salary, but much less people want to be a CEO themselves. As said above, it is not bad at all. And this works in Europe as well. The situation how I see it is that those strong independend women want to have relationships with no less than smart, strong and educated men. However those smart, strong and educated men do not want to have a relationship with those strong independend women. The evolution works well, and "strong and independend" leave no children, becoming an evolution dead end. I do not know yet how it works in U.S. (but I'm studying it hard, and it's close), but that's the way it worked there. P.S. As for European, I really wonder no mention of obesity rate. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Easy. What is mercy? Let's get two examples. 1. You go around the desert, and see someone thirsty. You have some water with you. You share your water. This is mercy-help. 2. You go around the desert, and see someone thirsty. You do not have any water with you, so there is nothing you can do to help. So you talk to a person, assuring him that help is coming, but unfortunately you cannot help. This is mercy-compassion. What if you have water, but just show compassion without sharing your water? Would it be mercy? No. It could be rather sadistic. Now let's replace "You" by "The God". Obviously there is no situation where there is nothing the God can do (because He is omnipotent). Therefore is the God has mercy, He should help instead of just showing compassion. Does he? Yes. But someone knows better ways to die than in gas chamber. Why the omnipotent God didn't show mercy, and at least killed them before they died from gas? I do. Those are examples. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It does. Unlike the people, He can change a life of everybody instantly. But your God definitely does not - or maybe those people who died in Nazi concentration camps were all sinners. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I don't think so. Being Gomez and picking tomatos does not make you ineligible for citizenship, but telling lies to a Judge definitely does. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, we are not going around in circles. I suspect the real reason is because two things you said are contradicting each other, and you just cannot admit it. The last post showed it clear - you said that Christians should not force others to follow the teaching of Christ, but then you again said that Christians should vote according to their beliefs (therefore trying to force others to follow the teaching of Christ). And now you're switching the topic again. There is a huge difference between being able to vote about something and actually voting about that. Every atheist is able to vote to ban religion, for example, but they do not do it - even though they are able to. Please keep your beliefs to yourself and your church, and do not force others follow them through laws. It stinks. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, if they ban driving, it would save much more people, including kids. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But if they should not force others to follow Christ teaching (that's what your "No" was for, right?) - this means that they should not vote based on their Christian worldview. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The theory itself is based on facts. The question is, not everyone agrees about the interpretation of those facts, and there are some facts which do not fit into this theory. However for most scientists there is enough evidence. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Should Christian force others - either directly or indirectly - to follow Christ teaching as well? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Go ahead. Your chance is greater than zero, but not really - because the majority already has its opinion, and this is not a question most people, who do not skydive, would care about. AGAIN! I have asked you several times not to mix when people votes are based on _facts_, and when people votes are based on _beliefs_. You and environmentalists are not the same. They have facts, and you have the Bible. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But when they express their opinion that you should not skydive in a vote, and it turns into law - just because there is more people who do not skydive, which makes them a majority - what would you say then? Exactly - because your voting affects everyone, not just you. So your vote against is based on your (probably incorrect) belief. How about allowing a white man to marry a black woman? It was against the definition of marriage for a lot of people - less than 100 years ago. You again trying to mix things which are banned for a good reason (based on factual evidence), and things based on your pure beliefs. Don't you really see the difference? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Could you point out such "denying your personal freedom", for example by provide quotes of "few atheists"? Just want to make sure that you didn't confuse denial with expressing their opinon that they would not be open to this (which was exactly the question you asked for). No, it doesn't look like that - just the question about one more competitor around. Like different container manufacturers. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I have to say your knowledge of communism is close to zero. The most distinguishing features of (true) communism is lack of private property (common ownership), not bowing to Stalin or Lenin. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's even worse than feminists. Or the same. Both seems to be kind of people who try to force others to follow their beliefs without proving any harm. The bad thing is that Congress will now waste some time discussing this useless bill (which won't pass anyway) instead of doing some real work. LOL. I still haven't met a feminist who'd dare to criticize me :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You can prove any theory if you are allowed to choose facts (and ignore facts which contradict with your theory). That's why for a scientifically correct theory _all_ facts needs to be explained, not only some of them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Isn't it the whole purpose of voting? Nobody so far have said that that forcing their views on others is a bad thing itself. I personally explained my opinion to you several times, but it seems like you ignored it completely. I have said that you may not force others to do, or not to do something just because it is based on your beliefs, which you cannot prove. Even if you still think this harms society (like not reading the Bible once a day), but cannot prove this harm, you should not _force_ anyone to do it. That's why banning smoking in family reustarants is correct (because it does damage to everyone's health, and it is proven), but banning smoking in your hotel room, if you're there alone or with other smokers, is wrong. I hope it is clear now. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

C'mon. You could ask for scientific explanation of "Men in black" movie as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My friend was in similar situation. He had a buddy, who was employed and had health coverage from his employer. And the buddy signed him up for his health insurance as his domestic partner :) You can also get it through employer. However, if your employer is a small business with less than 50 people, you may be required to fill a health questionary. You cannot be declined for pre-existing conditions, but the insurance company can raise the group rate for the employer (although I heard that the range the insurance company could raise premium is very narrow). Otherwise your only option seems to be MRMIP (major risk), which was about $600/mo last time I checked it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The things you listed are not the things which just do not fit your definition of "normal behavior". They are harmful to others, and this harm could be proven. I was talking about things which do not fit your definition of "normal behavior", but do not do any verifiable harm to others. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You don't need to. Basically what the government should do is to say that it is tough, and may have major legal cosequences you'll have to solve on your own. So if people who go that way have any disagreement about divorce (like if a woman marries two men, could she divorce just one of them?), adding extra people to marriage, inheritance, children, spouse support - they'll have to agree on everything before entering the marriage. They could do it by signing the marriage contract, for example. And if they do not, or someone changed their opinion, they are free to go to court. And so? The people are already suing for inheritance and spousal support right now. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *