the lunacy continues....

so....this is really bordering on percieved.....insanity...i dont know whats worse, the law, or the fact that so many want it instituted under islamic law....amazing, scary, and point proving for some.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12009717/

we will not be able to get away from this topic ever again i fear... :/

Doc B... :dodgy:

Religion can be a scary thing.

You know, there are two things that bother me deeply. I am not sure if this thread is the proper place to put it but it is marginally related.

1st, right after the war, a bunch of nuts went to the war area from the United states and assumed that it was their right, and place to initiate the area to their religion. This is a country, that has religious views predating anything in the United States, and yet, they wanted to enlighten them. Give me a f**king break. :rolleyes:

2nd, people I see daily are giving people a hard time just because they assume that they are "Towel Heads" ... I was in a store just yesterday. It was a gas station/convenience store place. This woman was giving this person a hard time, IMO, just because they were not white, but looked Indian/Jew/Iranian.. or whatever brown skinned race the person truly was. The person behind the counter was nice and courteous and yet the woman constantly harangued her about something to do with her credit card not working and she had to use cash.

I am so tired of the racial abuse just because the person has a dot on their forehead, or speaks funny.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I don't really think this is a racial issue, Orpheus.

reaper47 said:
I don't really think this is a racial issue, Orpheus.

No, perhaps not, but as I said, its marginally related. We are discussing races, perhaps not racism, but cultural races.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I really hope he isn't executed. This is another example of where local culture/religion conflicts with international ideals. It's a tough issue...

You know what though? He knew in advance that it could happen, and chose to proceed anyway.

What you should do is hope that he made the right choice, for the reasons he felt were necessary to make them.

If he dies, he will have died for a belief that has been died for countless times before. Religious freedom.

He is not unique, but he could be the catalyst for change. Lets hope so.

In the back of my mind however, I feel that if he dies, knowing that he would have for committing this action then he got exactly what his fate dictated. If more people had to pay for their actions, then perhaps... shrugs

Who knows...

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Well - one surely can't blame him for pursuing a basic freedom, despite the argument that he knew the punishment.

Addicted to Morphine said:
Well - one surely can't blame him for pursuing a basic freedom, despite the argument that he knew the punishment.

No, I do not blame him. I do feel that all choices have prices. This price is a bit steep, but still it was a payment clearly stated in advance of the decision.

As I said, lets hope that he is a catalyst for change. Sometimes it takes a martyr. Sadly it does.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Addicted to Morphine said:
I really hope he isn't executed. This is another example of where local culture/religion conflicts with international ideals. It's a tough issue...

....actually, they ARENT international ideals, and in the western mind, thats a part of the problem....

....and as much as i hate to say it orph, you may be right ..... i think our national mindset has shifted to one of over-reactionary fear.....at least, elevated anxiety....sad really, we as a country really only want "the best" for the world....even if we dont really know what that is...

Doc B... :dodgy:

Dr Brasso said:
....and as much as i hate to say it orph, you may be right .....

Why hate to say so? I am in actuality right so infrequently that you could actually truly keep track of the events. It has got to be less than half a dozen times in the years I have been here.

I worry, for reasons damned few truly understand. I hope that I live to see racism eliminated. I am a pragmatist however and know the futility of such a wish. However, I still wish it.

In the end, all I can hope to do is go to bed each night with a clear conscience.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

"He knew the risks and he still did it, so it's his fault." That's exactly what I said about casual sex and getting STDs, but nobody wanted to agree with me then.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Meh, this is different. You don't know whether your girl has aids or not since it's not on national news<span style="color: lightblue;">.

Couldn't their government, who claims that
they'd rather not execute him as not to attract sanctions from western
countries (yet fear of an outburst of violence from the population if
the prisoner lives) just say that they executed him, provide some
blurry video of the "execution" and use their intelligence agency to
exfiltrate the prisoner under a fake name?

</span>

Nickelplate said:
"He knew the risks and he still did it, so it's his fault." That's exactly what I said about casual sex and getting STDs, but nobody wanted to agree with me then.

Nickel, nobody agreed with the way you were phrasing your sentences. I detected nobody outright disagreeing with you.

You seem to think that action=price is all there is. When its a bit more than that I'm afraid.

I bet, if you restructured your arguments about casual sex you'd have made your point.

shrugs

Then again, being a Missourian has its drawbacks.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The thing here is, we expect a country to adapt to have respect for other religions as a western rule. And we expect this to happend in 2 years. But people dont realize that we used to have such a short viewed mind here to, 2/3 generations ago. Since generations pass by people will change, not in 2 years. And now everyone is pissed off about this, again, showing the short minded thinking of people.

I feel sorry for the christian, but that's life. I think its worse that 3000 africans die every day because we want to maintain or life style in the west.

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

update.....wisdom prevails, even if its not for the reasons stated.... :wink:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12022144/

Doc B... :dodgy:

Andrei said:
Meh, this is different. You don't know whether your girl has aids or not since it's not on national news<SPAN style="COLOR: lightblue">.

Couldn't their government, who claims that they'd rather not execute him as not to attract sanctions from western countries (yet fear of an outburst of violence from the population if the prisoner lives) just say that they executed him, provide some blurry video of the "execution" and use their intelligence agency to exfiltrate the prisoner under a fake name?
</SPAN>

It SHOULD be on the national news... I don't like AIDS.

and

That Idea would be too smart.

Orph: I don't think we are dealing with anything more than "Actions = Consequences" because EVERY action has consequences. It doesn't matter if you knew about them beforehand or not. They're going to happen. Personally, I hope he doesn't get executed simply because I don't beleive that a country should be ruled by religious clergy, and because he's a Christian too.

I bet if I restructured your face, it'd make a point. Psh... Arkansas... :rolleyes:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Nickelplate said:
I bet if I restructured your face, it'd make a point. Psh... Arkansas... :rolleyes:

Don't bite off more than you can chew my friend. :biggrin:

Seriously though, I think if you rephrased your sentiments you'd win an audience. Right now, you have nobody.... End of story.

I seldom win an argument, but in losing I retain an audience simply because of how I lost. I never lose poorly. I just fail to win. There is a difference.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
I seldom win an argument, but in losing I retain an audience simply because of how I lost. I never lose poorly. I just fail to win.

3 out of 4 is quite good.... :rolleyes:

---

i eat paint

hey, nobody's perfect... :dodgy:

/////runs

Doc B... :dodgy:

fishy said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

I seldom win an argument, but in losing I retain an audience simply because of how I lost. I never lose poorly. I just fail to win.

3 out of 4 is quite good.... :rolleyes: </div></div>

Friends? or losses ol'fishman?

I know that I seldom win, but you gotta admit that there are many ways to lose.

*giggles*

One can lose through utter confusion and still maintain a modicum of winning. Or, the essence of it.

I have lost nearly every debate you and I have had, and yet, in losing I still made my point/position clear. One can lose and lose totally.
Nite-nite Fish... And Nite-nite everyone else too.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Restructuring my arguments would change what I'm arguing for. If you don't like the truth, then you never will, because then you would have to admit being wrong all that time.

I mean, think about it. If christianity turns out to be what is right, (hypothetically of course, so we don't have any whining) then think of how many people will have living completely detestable lives. Breaking tons of commandments and doing so many immoral things that they have been justifying to themselves and other people for so long. It's not easy to give control of your life like that, so I can see where you would want to resist what I have to say.

Anyway, a debate is not a highschool popularity contest where you try to get as many people as you can to agree with you or like you. I don't really care how many people "got my back." because it's MY side of the debate that I'm presenting. If you need to validate yourself by taking the majority side of a debate and patronizing the other side, then do it.

You just need to tell the difference between an ARGUMENT and a DEBATE. I think you turn the former into the latter too often.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

http://www.kidprintables.com/coloring/summertime/fishing.gif

---

i eat paint

Fishy, is that Kermit's head?

Yeah, that's kermit's head.

And what's with the HUGE fish?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

...
You just need to tell the difference between an ARGUMENT and a DEBATE. I think you turn the former into the latter too often.

I kindly concur.

I'm not entirely sure how you win or lose a debate exactly, and what does "winning" consist of? The other person's dropping out? Or their change of view? What is losing? Leaving the debate? Or not being able to convince the other debaters?

Sadly, online dictionaries don't separate these words much. However, plenty of things online are wrong anyway.

I'll probably never understand why you, Orph, try to make things about right and wrong so often. It's silly. Not to mention, half the time you're arguing with facts ... like saying blue isn't blue. And, I know you don't have a fourth color band, since you're not a woman ... right?

It's just ... odd.

Enjoy your long ass drive to Illinois or some such place.

Back on track:

While it's great to see diplomacy in this type of situation ... there's some things people don't particularly understand. In these countries, they're all ran religiously ... if they don't know what to do they check a holy text to see what it says. Of course, this leads to crazy things happening, since the texts were written several hundred years ago and don't apply almost at all to current situations (except in morality, maybe).

However, this is where problems arise. How do you be "just" about something in a country where the government, for the most part, is dictated by religion? Especially because religion requires interpretation, and, obviously, people can interpret anything to mean what they want. Injecting this "separatist" view on this type of society leads to such bizarre situations, I don't understand how people can be surprised or even mildly shocked.

In any case, I DO hope some acceptance of differences reached everyplace some day. That isn't to say change things everywhere to a democracy or something like that. But, just that differences are accepted rather than hunted out and destroyed on a global scale.

There are some funny aspects to things like this though. For instance, Libya, since the sanctions from the 70-80s are now lifted, the US can send things over ... in studying for this I found there are only three things not allowed to be imported:

1. Any alcohol product
2. Any pork product
3. Anything Israeli

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

3. Anything Israeli

Hmm...i guess they're trying to give Israel a rejection complex. Economically, it
doesn't matter; they're exporting all sorts of stuff to Romania and
Bulgaria. I just wish they had instructions in english (or at least
that french gibberish :razz: ) so that I'll know that i'm not buying fermented
goat parts (they're good for you, though).

Nickelplate said:
Restructuring my arguments would change what I'm arguing for. If you don't like the truth, then you never will, because then you would have to admit being wrong all that time.

.

What you seem to be overlooking Nickel is, I wasn't part of that particular discussion. I, being an outside viewer, can form opinions about your part in it without ever typing a word.

What you want to attempt to do is draw in anything from my past as part of your defense of position. Since I am wrong so often, AND don't mush words, you are saying that I am "wrong" then by association, my comments about your sexual debate must be also inaccurate.

Just because no one understands why I see life as a series of "rights" and "wrongs" doesn't place you in a position of knowing that my viewpoint is a total fallacy.

I have said, on numerous occasions that I view life in Black and White. It is not going to change because a bunch of "younger folk" (I hesitate to say children in spite of my thinking it) tell me that doing so is weird or strange. I argue the facts as I understand them. If I want to argue about the color blue I will. I was a house painter for almost a decade and believe me there are so many shades of blue that one could actually argue over them if they so chose to. I wouldn't but the fact remains that I could.

Now, the best thing you can do, each of you is "LEARN ORPHEUS" and stop trying to mold him into your own images of how things are. None of you are nearly old enough, nor experienced enough to tell me how to live my life. My successes and failures are 100% of my own making and I am proud of each.

Nickel, you were/are on the losing side of the sexual debate. I do not believe in majority rules so I do not feel that you are on the wrong side because so many are on the other side. I feel that you are on the wrong side simply because you do not know how to postulate your ideals in a satisfactory method.

I personally agree with you on it, but abhor your words of expression. It shows a decidedly ignorant methodology.

(Although I was primarily talking to NickelPlate, my words encompass you as well Crono. Mind your own business in how I view the world)

/2 cents

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I view the world as black and white too. Either something is wrong or it is right. And you are wrong.

Nobody "wins" or "loses" a debate. Debates in public fora should not be about competition. They should be about expressing ideas, and learning from one another. But when one person refuses to learn from others, they turn a debate into an argument and seek only to "win." Then they end it with things like "/2 cents" so as to justify thier antagonistic position by telling everyone it's just thier free expression of ideas.

[edit] how DOES someone "win" anyway? whoever can call eachother n00b or "immature children" the most? I mean... what?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

OK, since you seem to want to mush words we'll use yours.

In the debate over casual sex, you were the least able to express yourself in anything approaching satisfactory. Everyone else seemed more aptly able and you failed to pose your position adequately.

Now, that did not read "you lost"

Does that make you feel any better now?

As I said, I agreed with you, mostly. You just seemed hell bent to lose. :rolleyes:

Stop splitting hairs with me Nickel. You can't win that way I assure you.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

GRRRR! Nobody here is trying to WIN anything but YOU! Full Stop.

I'm not discussing it any further, because YOU seem hellbent on being a troublemaker.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Did it really escape your notice that I didn't even participate in that discussion?

How can I cause trouble, being a non-participant?

I think you are confused on what it means to "win" and "lose" at anything. There are many shades of each, and all are not marked by a checkered flag at the finish line.

I honestly think you are losing track of any forms of proper discussion, and the value of being in a "winning" line of thinking.

Anyway, the other discussion wasn't important enough for me to discuss then, and it sure as hell isn't worth my time now either.

/methinks you are still bent and since I am stupider than the people you "lost" to, your wanting to vent upon me.

Why don't you go back and lose some more to the smart kids, and leave this dumb old man in peace.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
Did it really escape your notice that I didn't even participate in that discussion?

How can I cause trouble, being a non-participant?

You're making trouble in THIS one, you crazy nut! you just keep talkin trash trying to get people all angry so you can point out how "irrational" they are being, so you can appear to be right.

Orpheus said:
I think you are confused on what it means to "win" and "lose" at anything. There are many shades of each, and all are not marked by a checkered flag at the finish line.

What happened to "seeing the world in black and white?" Coz, by principle, you should beleive that you either WIN or you LOSE. Make up your mind, Kerry.

and nobody won OR lost the OTHER convo because YOU weren't in there screwin' it up.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Nickelplate said:
and nobody won OR lost the OTHER convo because YOU weren't in there screwin' it up.

Read this 10 times, then tell me honestly that you meant it.

If you did, read it 10 more times and get back to me because its a level of craziness that I would like to document for posterity.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Whatev.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Think of it this way. I am a dumb old man, and you cannot complete a thought without getting flustered. Its no wonder that those smart kids outflanked you.

Call it winning, or losing. Call it anything you wish that denotes primary and secondary placement in any debate, but the fact remained, you had a chance to prove your point and all you can do is get angry with me about it.

shrugs

Oh well. But I know where I stand in every conversation I attend. At least when its over with I do.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Nobody outflanked me, and I'm not angry. It's just pointelss trying to talk to you.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I concede. You win, by default.

Have a good day.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

What an apposite thread title, though unintentionally so.

Nickel, I think that Orph has tried to offer peace several times, following your initial bitter revisitation of a previous discussion.

As Orph said, your arguments in that discussion were not persuasive. He was being conciliatory in his language; I am more blunt: over the point in question, your arguments were incoherent.

But so what? We all make mistakes. I often have the error of my thinking corrected, and not always by people smarter than I (I flatter myself that they are in short supply). It's easy to miss an unintended consequence of your opinions; the mature response is to reconsider your theory, and either adjust or abandon it.

Alternatively you can sulk in the corner.

I stress, as Orph has done, that we are not talking about you being wrong. We are talking about you presenting an incoherent view. That view could, with a little modification, become self-consistent.

Indeed, you may already have a self-consistent view; but if so, it was poorly presented before.

Now, about more general issues:

Clearly, it is wrong to state that "actions = consequences". The relationship between actions and consequences may be more or less direct, but it certainly cannot consist of identity. This is a staggeringly blithe simplification and reflects your previous careless thinking.

And, on a yet more general note, some words of wisdom that I wish were mine:

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
-Andre Gide

i've got a 3rd point of view, but i don't think it would win the debate. i'll keep it for the play offs, though.

---

i eat paint

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I concede. You win, by default.

Have a good day.

</DIV></DIV>

No, I DON'T win! NOBODY WINS!! AHHHHHHGGGG! lol
You have a nice day yourself. :biggrin:

Gollum, I can't help it that you don't understand. I'm sure Physics is "incoherent" to the 6th grade special ed. class, too. It's okay.

• I was simplifying things for those certain people who want to pick apart the more verbose stuff.
• If anyone else in the whole gosh darn forum knew thier bible, instead of wanting it banned in schools, my point would be PLENTY clear.
• Nobody knows who the heck Andre Gide is. What makes him think that HIS statement is truth? I doubt him.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Gollum, I can't help it that you don't understand. I'm sure Physics is "incoherent" to the 6th grade special ed. class, too. It's okay.

• I was simplifying things for those certain people who want to pick apart the more verbose stuff.
• If anyone else in the whole gosh darn forum knew thier bible, instead of wanting it banned in schools, my point would be PLENTY clear.
• Nobody knows who the heck Andre Gide is. What makes him think that HIS statement is truth? I doubt him.

</DIV></DIV>
[list]
[/list]

"Incoherent" does not mean "incomprehensible". You need to look up the meaning of words before you use them.

A view is incoherent if (and only if) its elements fail to cohere -- that is to say, they cannot be consistently combined. An incoherent view is one that is self-contradictory. It collapses under a small, accurately targeted criticism.

I understood your view, as expressed, perfectly well. It was self-contradictory.

Now, point by point:

1. Right, so you were simplifying. I suppose if you had been more verbose, we would all have seen how coherent your view was.

Not convincing. It seems more likely to me that you were "simplifying" because you had nothing substantial further to say.

In any case, you can't defend a poor argument by claiming that you have a better one up your sleeve.

2. The incoherency of your views (about deserving, need I remind you?) had nothing to do with the bible. Invoking it here is irrelevant.

As it happens, I know the bible passably well. I am, I confess, a bit rusty on the Old Testament.

3. You are under no compulsion to believe Gide's aphorism. I do not present it as an argument, but merely as an item for reflection. I do not claim to justify his assertion in any way.

And, by the way, he was a French writer and moralist.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gollum</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>It was self-contradictory.</DIV></DIV>

Please explain how.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gollum</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>In any case, you can't defend a poor argument by claiming that you have a better one up your sleeve.</DIV></DIV>

That's a good point to remember for later, because so many people do that on forums. But I really wasn't trying to do that. What I was saying is that my points may have come off as sounding wrong, because if i had put background info and every little detail it'd've been about 10 pages long, and I didn't wanna write all that. Same argument, just truncated a bit too much, perhaps.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gollum</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>2. The incoherency of your views (about deserving, need I remind you?) had nothing to do with the bible. Invoking it here is irrelevant.

As it happens, I know the bible passably well. I am, I confess, a bit rusty on the Old Testament.

</DIV></DIV>

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death."

So if all have sinned and if you sin you've earned death, then we can infer that ALL have earned death by thier actions.

So really, everyone gets what they deserve and deserves what they get. Only they don't even get the full amount of what they deserve, because what EVERYONE deserves is to die. And not everyone dies right after they... tell a lie or something... So THAT is how it relates to the bible.

Lots of folks don't know much old testament, It's got some cool stories and stuff though.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gollum</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>And, by the way, he was a French writer and moralist.</DIV></DIV>
Thanks, I didn't know that before. :smile: /me looks up on wikipedia

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Gollum said:
In any case, you can't defend a poor argument by claiming that you have a better one up your sleeve.

That's a good point to remember for later, because so many people do
that on forums. But I really wasn't trying to do that. What I was
saying is that my points may have come off as sounding wrong, because
if i had put background info and every little detail it'd've been about
10 pages long, and I didn't wanna write all that. Same argument, just
truncated a bit too much, perhaps.

yes, but if you would have taken the time to at least provide enough
detail for it to be a worthwhile argument maybe the would have taken
you more seriously

Fatstrings..... sigh.... okay?

Seriously, if I'd known that you were missing so much information that you could not put it together, I'd have started from the beginning, just for you, little fella. Let's hear you say your ABC's! If you can do that, I'll keep filling in the blanks until you can get it.

I just figured that the SnarkPit has a high concentration of intellectuals and that they would at least know a little bit about religions. Even if you're not part of the whole "Christian" thing, you should at least know the basic tenets, so that you know WHY you reject it's teachings. Otherwise how can you reject the teachings so vehemently and disagree with someone who is well-versed (no pun intended) in them? If you reject something without really finding out what it's about then you really aren't an intellectual are you?

Next time I won't make that mistake. I'll write the ten pages, but you fellows better dang well read it, coz I don't want all that to go to waste.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
Please explain how.
</DIV></DIV>

You asserted that (paraphrase, but accurate): if an action leads to bad consequences, then the acting agent deserves to suffer those consequences. You also asserted that, if the agent is lucky and does not suffer bad consequences, then he does not deserve the consequences that he avoided by fortune.

I contradicted you, claiming that a theory of desert cannot be based on chance. You accepted my claim, and by adding my claim to your set of propositions you made the whole thing incoherent (ie, a contradictory set).

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death."

So if all have sinned and if you sin you've earned death, then we can infer that ALL have earned death by thier actions.

So really, everyone gets what they deserve and deserves what they get. Only they don't even get the full amount of what they deserve, because what EVERYONE deserves is to die. And not everyone dies right after they... tell a lie or something... So THAT is how it relates to the bible.</DIV></DIV>

This view is different from the one you expressed before. It is coherent (it forms a consistent set). You can also consistently include my claim that desert must not be based on chance, to make for a severe but logically sound position.

I happen to disagree with this view -- I think it is inhumanly uncompassionate and, if heartfelt, evinces a disturbing nihilism -- but I respect its intellectual integrity.

Note that you must still be on your guard against potential inconsistencies in this view. In particular, your assertion that everyone deserves what he gets and gets what he deserves must, if left unqualified, be supported by a claim that nothing happens by chance. I believe that you can consistently make this claim by appealing to the perfection of divine justice; and if necessary, you can argue that the injust vicissitudes of this earthly life will be put right by reward or punishment in the afterlife.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

Lots of folks don't know much old testament, It's got some cool stories and stuff though.</DIV></DIV>

Indeed! I'm often disappointed that the Gideons only distribute New Testaments, because the OT is much more fun. :smile:

Nickelplate said:
Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death."
So if all have sinned and if you sin you've earned death, then we can infer that ALL have earned death by thier actions.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If the father thinks that we deserve life through JC, who are you to contradict Him?

---

i eat paint

Not everyone has JC, and it never says that we DESERVE to have his grace, it says it is a GIFT. That's the whole point. Even those who DO have JC still DESERVE death, they just won't get it because they've accepted God's grace.

[edit] Gollum, let me correct myself "Everyone deserves what he gets, but NOT everony gets what they deserve." this leaves room for the lucky folks who DON'T get the bad consequences, yeah?

I don't think it's nihilistik at all. Yes, we all DESERVE death and hell, but if we do the right thing, (not THINGS) then we don't have to get what we truly deserve. There is a lifeline extended to us by God, and all you have to do is take it and you will be saved from the unfortunate fate we have made for ourselves because of our sin. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it's REALLY hard to get people to BELIEVE in God. I know I wouldn't take a lifeline if I didn't see anything at the other end. How pointless. Anyway, that's pretty much the basis of Christianity... lol

PS. I'll send ya an OT bible if you want.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

...and yet, its all still hearsay... :/

Doc B.... :dodgy:

well, if you wan't to be pedantic, show me where it says 'deserve' in your misquote.

---

i eat paint