fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

A Christian minister would accept faith, while atheists commonly fall back on demands that God satisfy human conditions.

Telling, that.

---

The people who make the worst and most unreasonable demands of God are the people who claim to worship him. I honestly wish there was a God with enough of a sense of humor to announce, supernaturally, through the radios or via text to the cellphones of large women cruising the Walmart parking lot because they don't want to walk 100 yards, "I don't give a f--k if you find a parking space!"

And asking a guy who was crucified for your sake and had his clothes sold off by the guys sitting around waiting for him to die to help you find a parking space or a date for prom or whatever else is on your personal wish list is the ultimate act of disrespect. Some prayers really should attract a lightning bolt.

---

That's a really bitter post, Jinx, and unworthy of the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith.

It also completely ignores the point of my post, or this entire thread. But you got attention, so maybe for you that's a 'win',

---

I am tired of you calling anyone who disagrees with you, including me, a liar.

That's not bitter. It's disgusted.

And I am EXTREMELY disgusted that any person of faith would support Donald Trump, the least Christ-like person I have ever encountered in national politics, which given the fact that Dick Cheney was our vice president, is saying a lot. At least Cheney stood up for his lesbian daughter against right-wing ire toward people who are openly gay. He was honest about one issue. If Trump tells the truth, it's either accidental or self-supporting; it has nothing to do with integrity.

You want respect and a real dialog? Stop equating disagreements with your political positions as lies.

---

I only call out liars when they tell lies, Jinx. Like pretending 'disagreement with [my] political position' is the motive for calling out thugs and criminals.

I think your side is hurting itself - badly - because they have abandoned honesty and decency just to chase political power. So much so that voters in 30 states decided a bombastic ex-game show host was a better choice for President than the abomination the Democrats nominated. Now the same dirty tricks have put a once-undeniable swell of support for Democrats into jeopardy, because you knowingly defamed an honorable judge, and leftist financiers paid to lure thousands of Hondurans to swarm through Mexico, in a mob which included shooting at police and throwing homemade bombs.

Yes, you are bitter. And you have nobody to blame but yourself and your party for your situation.

---

OldBear, I generally put you on ignore because it's hopeless.

And, I'm not bitter; I'm disgusted. But I remain optimistic that Americans will reject the nastiness of Trump and efforts by Republicans to erode the democratic process so their candidates keep winning. A party that needs to suppress the vote in order to win, like Brian Kemp is trying to do, should revisit its policy positions.

But, if ANYONE is calling the thugs and criminals to do their worst, it's Donald Trump.

We've had 2 incidents in 2 weeks sparked by the hateful rhetoric that is a constant drumbeat on right-wing news sites--the pipe bombs from the guy whose car looked like a decoupage celebrating Fox News and Breitbart, and the racist shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Trump needs to tone down the rhetoric, but he won't, because he only wins by "riling up the crazies."

I fear hispanics will be the next target because Trump won't stop agitating about the "caravan" of refugees when (1) it's more than a thousand miles away, "(2) lots of the people are seeking asylum in Mexico, so the group is growing smaller as it travels; (3) they are refugees fleeing violence and extortion in their home country traveling together because that's safer and less costly than paying a "coyote" to smuggle them in.

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

You are confusing the Bible with the role of government. They are not the same thing.

---

Agreed. But lots of Christians want the U.S. to be a "Christian nation." Are the only Christian ethics that inform government policies supposed to be opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

You could make the same argument about outlawing both of those things based on your Christian beliefs.

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to gay marriage because I do not understand why the government is involved in marriage. I do not think a church should be forced to marry people that do not reflect their beliefs.

With regard to abortion, I believe that it is a human and therefore, should not be legal.

---

My husband shares your view re: abortion while I am adamant that this issue should be up to the woman because, without that legal protection, women's choices and lives are controlled by the government in a way that men's are not.

We've agreed to disagree about that issue and are still happily married after 37 years. So it is possible to disagree on that issue, respect each other's right to his/her own conclusion of why abortion should or should not be an option, and work together successfully on policies we do agree on.

The government is involved in marriage because it's a civil, legal institution that confers certain rights and responsibilities on people who enter into it, which--if they divorce--must be adjudicated and enforced by the courts. I know men AND women who are paying alimony.

---

My view on abortion is that a woman should not have the right to kill a child...her right's should not necessarily trump another person's right...but I'll agree that there are certain situations where an abortion might be necessary. I can not think of a way that government controls women's bodies in ways that they do not control men's. Could you provide examples?

My solution to the marriage issue is to simply call the government ceremony a civil partnership or whatever and then let the churches define marriage in a way that suits their beliefs.

---

Your solution to marriage makes sense--there's civil marriage and marriage as a religious institution.

But 2 Methodist lawyer I know who were involved in what ultimately became the Obergefell case recently wrote a book about the case and their support for gay marriage, and one point they make is that recognition of gay marriages confers dignity. (Which is why some right-wingers oppose it.) Their clients included two academics and a professional married to a career military service officer. Enough churches now acknowledge / perform gay marriages that these couples have options of congregations where they will be accepted.

Pregnancy is 9 months, and I speak from experience when I say that it can seem like 9 years. It can damage your body permanently. Child rearing is 20 years to a lifetime, depending on your commitment and investment and relationship. You can discover your child will be severely handicapped and know that you are not prepared, either economically or by temperament, to raise a profoundly disabled child. There are lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a pregnancy, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or governement scrutiny. It's her life, and she should choose its course.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

A Christian minister would accept faith, while atheists commonly fall back on demands that God satisfy human conditions.

Telling, that.

---

The people who make the worst and most unreasonable demands of God are the people who claim to worship him. I honestly wish there was a God with enough of a sense of humor to announce, supernaturally, through the radios or via text to the cellphones of large women cruising the Walmart parking lot because they don't want to walk 100 yards, "I don't give a f--k if you find a parking space!"

And asking a guy who was crucified for your sake and had his clothes sold off by the guys sitting around waiting for him to die to help you find a parking space or a date for prom or whatever else is on your personal wish list is the ultimate act of disrespect. Some prayers really should attract a lightning bolt.

---

That's a really bitter post, Jinx, and unworthy of the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith.

It also completely ignores the point of my post, or this entire thread. But you got attention, so maybe for you that's a 'win',

---

I am tired of you calling anyone who disagrees with you, including me, a liar.

That's not bitter. It's disgusted.

And I am EXTREMELY disgusted that any person of faith would support Donald Trump, the least Christ-like person I have ever encountered in national politics, which given the fact that Dick Cheney was our vice president, is saying a lot. At least Cheney stood up for his lesbian daughter against right-wing ire toward people who are openly gay. He was honest about one issue. If Trump tells the truth, it's either accidental or self-supporting; it has nothing to do with integrity.

You want respect and a real dialog? Stop equating disagreements with your political positions as lies.

---

I only call out liars when they tell lies, Jinx. Like pretending 'disagreement with [my] political position' is the motive for calling out thugs and criminals.

I think your side is hurting itself - badly - because they have abandoned honesty and decency just to chase political power. So much so that voters in 30 states decided a bombastic ex-game show host was a better choice for President than the abomination the Democrats nominated. Now the same dirty tricks have put a once-undeniable swell of support for Democrats into jeopardy, because you knowingly defamed an honorable judge, and leftist financiers paid to lure thousands of Hondurans to swarm through Mexico, in a mob which included shooting at police and throwing homemade bombs.

Yes, you are bitter. And you have nobody to blame but yourself and your party for your situation.

---

OldBear, I generally put you on ignore because it's hopeless.

And, I'm not bitter; I'm disgusted. But I remain optimistic that Americans will reject the nastiness of Trump and efforts by Republicans to erode the democratic process so their candidates keep winning. A party that needs to suppress the vote in order to win, like Brian Kemp is trying to do, should revisit its policy positions.

But, if ANYONE is calling the thugs and criminals to do their worst, it's Donald Trump.

We've had 2 incidents in 2 weeks sparked by the hateful rhetoric that is a constant drumbeat on right-wing news sites--the pipe bombs from the guy whose car looked like a decoupage celebrating Fox News and Breitbart, and the racist shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Trump needs to tone down the rhetoric, but he won't, because he only wins by "riling up the crazies."

I fear hispanics will be the next target because Trump won't stop agitating about the "caravan" of refugees when (1) it's more than a thousand miles away, "(2) lots of the people are seeking asylum in Mexico, so the group is growing smaller as it travels; (3) they are refugees fleeing violence and extortion in their home country traveling together because that's safer and less costly than paying a "coyote" to smuggle them in.

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

You are confusing the Bible with the role of government. They are not the same thing.

---

Agreed. But lots of Christians want the U.S. to be a "Christian nation." Are the only Christian ethics that inform government policies supposed to be opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

You could make the same argument about outlawing both of those things based on your Christian beliefs.

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to gay marriage because I do not understand why the government is involved in marriage. I do not think a church should be forced to marry people that do not reflect their beliefs.

With regard to abortion, I believe that it is a human and therefore, should not be legal.

---

My husband shares your view re: abortion while I am adamant that this issue should be up to the woman because, without that legal protection, women's choices and lives are controlled by the government in a way that men's are not.

We've agreed to disagree about that issue and are still happily married after 37 years. So it is possible to disagree on that issue, respect each other's right to his/her own conclusion of why abortion should or should not be an option, and work together successfully on policies we do agree on.

The government is involved in marriage because it's a civil, legal institution that confers certain rights and responsibilities on people who enter into it, which--if they divorce--must be adjudicated and enforced by the courts. I know men AND women who are paying alimony.

---

My view on abortion is that a woman should not have the right to kill a child...her right's should not necessarily trump another person's right...but I'll agree that there are certain situations where an abortion might be necessary. I can not think of a way that government controls women's bodies in ways that they do not control men's. Could you provide examples?

My solution to the marriage issue is to simply call the government ceremony a civil partnership or whatever and then let the churches define marriage in a way that suits their beliefs.

---

Your solution to marriage makes sense--there's civil marriage and marriage as a religious institution.

But 2 Methodist lawyer I know who were involved in what ultimately became the Obergefell case recently wrote a book about the case and their support for gay marriage, and one point they make is that recognition of gay marriages confers dignity. (Which is why some right-wingers oppose it.) Their clients included two academics and a professional married to a career military service officer. Enough churches now acknowledge / perform gay marriages that these couples have options of congregations where they will be accepted.

Pregnancy is 9 months, and I speak from experience when I say that it can seem like 9 years. It can damage your body permanently. Child rearing is 20 years to a lifetime, depending on your commitment and investment and relationship. You can discover your child will be severely handicapped and know that you are not prepared, either economically or by temperament, to raise a profoundly disabled child. There are lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a pregnancy, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or governement scrutiny. It's her life, and she should choose its course.

---

It is her life and she did choose...she chose to get pregnant. Again, I'll concede that there might be a reason to have an abortion (even though I still don't agree with it) but getting one because you don't want to get pregnant should not be one of them. I have three kids...it has not always been easy or cheap, but I made the decision and it is my responsibility to raise them. My wife and I made the decision not to get pregnant until we were ready. It's not hard to NOT get pregnant...condoms are about 75 cents...birth control pill is cheap...abstinence costs nothing.

As a Christian, I am opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery because I do not understand why the government is involved in those things.

The above paragraph was actually fadskier's that I took some liberties with. At some point there needs to be a line

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery because I do not understand why the government is involved in those things.

The above paragraph was actually fadskier's that I took some liberties with. At some point there needs to be a line

---

I won't comment on drawing the line with Trump.

Bearass-"I stated that that I believe that nature/physical laws of the universe/etc imply that they were created. Outside of some "multiverse" hypothesis, it is unreasonable to assume that this came spontaneously from complete nothingness, and that the fine tuned laws of physics just happen to be exactly as necessary for life to exist (if even one of them was off by one degree of magnitude, the universe itself wouldn't exist, much less Life). If the universe was created, there was a Creator. I call that Creator "God."

If you're asking why I believe the "God of the Bible" is the creator (as opposed to some other religions version or some unknown creator), it's because my exploration and experience has resulted in a belief that the Bible is the actual creator's revelation to mankind concerning His nature, purpose, and plan for us as created beings. That belief is sustained through faith (which I consider a necessary part of our relationship with our creator given our fallen state), so my answer has come full circle."
So may I ask you to reflect on this statement?
"(My) belief is sustained through faith (and is necessary to my relationship to God in fallen state)?
What is faith? A belief system or doctrine or something else? How is faith in God possible? It appears that your faith arises from the personal and not the objective? It appears that faith is not intellectual but more personal? Is that rue?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to lies, slander, theft and adultery because I do not understand why the government is involved in those things.

The above paragraph was actually fadskier's that I took some liberties with. At some point there needs to be a line

---

I won't comment on drawing the line with Trump.

---

and you shouldn't. Dust rocks and goo offer no right or wrong no matter how they are mixed and cooked over any time span.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.

A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.

But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.

The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.

God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.

---

There is no science in that perspective.

Waco1947 said:

---

So may I ask you to reflect on this statement?
"(My) belief is sustained through faith (and is necessary to my relationship to God in fallen state)?
What is faith? A belief system or doctrine or something else? How is faith in God possible? It appears that your faith arises from the personal and not the objective? It appears that faith is not intellectual but more personal? Is that rue?

---

Hebrews 11:1-3. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for: the evidence of things not seen . . . . . . By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

Faith is a spiritual apprehending of what God promises. It is a "seeing" or perceiving of the evidence. As I said, the universe already points to the existence of a Maker. God's fingerprints are present; Faith allows you to examine them.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So may I ask you to reflect on this statement?
"(My) belief is sustained through faith (and is necessary to my relationship to God in fallen state)?
What is faith? A belief system or doctrine or something else? How is faith in God possible? It appears that your faith arises from the personal and not the objective? It appears that faith is not intellectual but more personal? Is that rue?

---

Hebrews 11:1-3. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for: the evidence of things not seen . . . . . . By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

Faith is a spiritual apprehending of what God promises. It is a "seeing" or perceiving of the evidence. As I said, the universe already points to the existence of a Maker. God's fingerprints are present; Faith allows you to examine them.

---

. Yes that's faith. Now how does that faith relate to "God is control?"

Jinx 2 said:

---

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

Since you brought up Scripture, consider:

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber."

Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him"

There is a very great difference between an immigrant and someone who ignores laws.. Morally as much as legally.

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So may I ask you to reflect on this statement?
"(My) belief is sustained through faith (and is necessary to my relationship to God in fallen state)?
What is faith? A belief system or doctrine or something else? How is faith in God possible? It appears that your faith arises from the personal and not the objective? It appears that faith is not intellectual but more personal? Is that rue?

---

Hebrews 11:1-3. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for: the evidence of things not seen . . . . . . By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

Faith is a spiritual apprehending of what God promises. It is a "seeing" or perceiving of the evidence. As I said, the universe already points to the existence of a Maker. God's fingerprints are present; Faith allows you to examine them.

---

. Yes that's faith. Now how does that faith relate to "God is control?"

---

Not sure what you're asking. We were discussing how it applies to Him having created the universe. If He created the universe, it necessarily follows that He is in control of it (unless you think He's capable of creating something He can't control; which is a bit of a paradox).

I obviously believe that He created the universe. Therefore, I believe He is in control of it. I do not believe He determines human choices. The Bible illustrates that He granted free will to human beings, which is what makes us capable of love, and makes us culpable for sin. However, even in a free will context, He is in control in that He exists outside linear time and knows the result of every free will choice across the entirety of creation's time line. Knowing this, He chose to create the universe anyway, and the events are unfolding according to HIs knowledge and purpose.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.

A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.

But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.

The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.

God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.

---

There is no science in that perspective.

---

I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

Since you brought up Scripture, consider:

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber."

Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him"

There is a very great difference between an immigrant and someone who ignores laws.. Morally as much as legally.

---

If I were going to comment, I would ask out of curiosity - Do you believe all laws of the OT are good, valid and should be applied, or only some?

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.

A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.

But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.

The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.

God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.

---

There is no science in that perspective.

---

I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god.

---

If I were going to respond to your hypothetical comment, I would point out that quantum mechanics does no such thing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

Since you brought up Scripture, consider:

John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber."

Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him"

There is a very great difference between an immigrant and someone who ignores laws.. Morally as much as legally.

---

If I were going to comment, I would ask out of curiosity - Do you believe all laws of the OT are good, valid and should be applied, or only some?

---

You have to ask what was the purpose of the laws.

The laws were to act as a mirror to show that we needed a savior. Yes, they were good for what they were supposed to be/do.

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.

A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.

But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.

The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.

God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.

---

There is no science in that perspective.

---

I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.

Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.

Including selling your sister into slavery?

Waco1947 said:

---

Including selling your sister into slavery?

---

Do you mean the verse that starts with "if"?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Including selling your sister into slavery?

---

Do you mean the verse that starts with "if"?

---

Sure if that makes a difference

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

A Christian minister would accept faith, while atheists commonly fall back on demands that God satisfy human conditions.

Telling, that.

---

The people who make the worst and most unreasonable demands of God are the people who claim to worship him. I honestly wish there was a God with enough of a sense of humor to announce, supernaturally, through the radios or via text to the cellphones of large women cruising the Walmart parking lot because they don't want to walk 100 yards, "I don't give a f--k if you find a parking space!"

And asking a guy who was crucified for your sake and had his clothes sold off by the guys sitting around waiting for him to die to help you find a parking space or a date for prom or whatever else is on your personal wish list is the ultimate act of disrespect. Some prayers really should attract a lightning bolt.

---

That's a really bitter post, Jinx, and unworthy of the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith.

It also completely ignores the point of my post, or this entire thread. But you got attention, so maybe for you that's a 'win',

---

I am tired of you calling anyone who disagrees with you, including me, a liar.

That's not bitter. It's disgusted.

And I am EXTREMELY disgusted that any person of faith would support Donald Trump, the least Christ-like person I have ever encountered in national politics, which given the fact that Dick Cheney was our vice president, is saying a lot. At least Cheney stood up for his lesbian daughter against right-wing ire toward people who are openly gay. He was honest about one issue. If Trump tells the truth, it's either accidental or self-supporting; it has nothing to do with integrity.

You want respect and a real dialog? Stop equating disagreements with your political positions as lies.

---

I only call out liars when they tell lies, Jinx. Like pretending 'disagreement with [my] political position' is the motive for calling out thugs and criminals.

I think your side is hurting itself - badly - because they have abandoned honesty and decency just to chase political power. So much so that voters in 30 states decided a bombastic ex-game show host was a better choice for President than the abomination the Democrats nominated. Now the same dirty tricks have put a once-undeniable swell of support for Democrats into jeopardy, because you knowingly defamed an honorable judge, and leftist financiers paid to lure thousands of Hondurans to swarm through Mexico, in a mob which included shooting at police and throwing homemade bombs.

Yes, you are bitter. And you have nobody to blame but yourself and your party for your situation.

---

OldBear, I generally put you on ignore because it's hopeless.

And, I'm not bitter; I'm disgusted. But I remain optimistic that Americans will reject the nastiness of Trump and efforts by Republicans to erode the democratic process so their candidates keep winning. A party that needs to suppress the vote in order to win, like Brian Kemp is trying to do, should revisit its policy positions.

But, if ANYONE is calling the thugs and criminals to do their worst, it's Donald Trump.

We've had 2 incidents in 2 weeks sparked by the hateful rhetoric that is a constant drumbeat on right-wing news sites--the pipe bombs from the guy whose car looked like a decoupage celebrating Fox News and Breitbart, and the racist shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Trump needs to tone down the rhetoric, but he won't, because he only wins by "riling up the crazies."

I fear hispanics will be the next target because Trump won't stop agitating about the "caravan" of refugees when (1) it's more than a thousand miles away, "(2) lots of the people are seeking asylum in Mexico, so the group is growing smaller as it travels; (3) they are refugees fleeing violence and extortion in their home country traveling together because that's safer and less costly than paying a "coyote" to smuggle them in.

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

You are confusing the Bible with the role of government. They are not the same thing.

---

Agreed. But lots of Christians want the U.S. to be a "Christian nation." Are the only Christian ethics that inform government policies supposed to be opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

You could make the same argument about outlawing both of those things based on your Christian beliefs.

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to gay marriage because I do not understand why the government is involved in marriage. I do not think a church should be forced to marry people that do not reflect their beliefs.

With regard to abortion, I believe that it is a human and therefore, should not be legal.

---

My husband shares your view re: abortion while I am adamant that this issue should be up to the woman because, without that legal protection, women's choices and lives are controlled by the government in a way that men's are not.

We've agreed to disagree about that issue and are still happily married after 37 years. So it is possible to disagree on that issue, respect each other's right to his/her own conclusion of why abortion should or should not be an option, and work together successfully on policies we do agree on.

The government is involved in marriage because it's a civil, legal institution that confers certain rights and responsibilities on people who enter into it, which--if they divorce--must be adjudicated and enforced by the courts. I know men AND women who are paying alimony.

---

My view on abortion is that a woman should not have the right to kill a child...her right's should not necessarily trump another person's right...but I'll agree that there are certain situations where an abortion might be necessary. I can not think of a way that government controls women's bodies in ways that they do not control men's. Could you provide examples?

My solution to the marriage issue is to simply call the government ceremony a civil partnership or whatever and then let the churches define marriage in a way that suits their beliefs.

---

Child rearing is 20 years to a lifetime, depending on your commitment and investment and relationship. You can discover your child will be severely handicapped and know that you are not prepared, either economically or by temperament, to raise a profoundly disabled child. There are lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a pregnancy, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or governement scrutiny. It's her life, and she should choose its course.

---

Why wouldn't this apply to a mother whose child becomes profoundly disabled as a 1 year old? In such instances, would you say that there are "lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a child's life, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or government scrutiny?"

If not, why not?

---

Hard debate. If you find out, while your child is still in the womb, that he or she is going to be born without any brain above and beyond automomic responses or with something like cri du chat syndrome (literally cry of the cat, because children with this abnormality make a noise that sounds like a cat's meow), where the child suffers from microcephaly and is profoundly delayed and handicapped, you might choose to end that pregnancy because the child's qualify of life will be poor to non-existent, and yours will be, too. Both, I believe, are valid considerations.

I grew up with a profoundly ******ed (that was the term we used back then) brother whom we suspected was likely often in pain, because he became violently self-abusive, particularly with his head, as he got older. My parents had to institutionalize him at 10 because, as my father told me later, "It was either institutionalize him, or wait 2 years and institutionalize your mother." Phil had frequent tantrums where he threw himself against walls and banged his head on the floors so hard I'm not sure how he escaped concussion. We couldn't keep furniture in his room that wasn't foam rubber. The only treatment in the 1960s was for my parents--and it took both of them, using all their strength, or my mother and older brother working together, to wrestle him down to the floor and give him knock-out drops. Imagine being awakened 2 or 3 nights a week for such a struggle and having one of two of those struggles during the day each week. The physical exhaustion comes first, but the emotional exhaustion is the real killer. The old saw, "God only gives people burdens he know they can bear," didn't anticipate my brother and the exhausting 24/7 aspect of his care when things were going to get worse rather than better.

Bottom line: People should have some freedom to decide for themselves what they're capable of doing. Our society doesn't provide national healthcare or home health aides for families coping with severely disabled children. You're pretty much on your own. People with means may manage fairly well, because they can provide themselves respite care. Ordinary families can really struggle, especially if there are other children who need parenting and don't get much because a profoundly handicapped sibling requires most of the resources and attention. Nobody likes to talk about the practical considerations. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The incredibly difficulty of caring for some handicapped children probably explains why more than half of the men in my brother's unit at the institution had been abandoned as infants or small children. Their parents literally couldn't take it. I became his guardian after I married and moved to my parents' home state, where he was institutionalized. When you spent time in his unit, you understood why. Things could go from calm to bedlam in a split second. The therapists there tried just about every protective helmet used in sports and for every other purpose to stop my brother from wounding and breaking his head. He managed to destroy them all. By the time he died, at age 32, his head had no hair left on it because of the scars. I had genetic counseling, which determined that my brother was "an anomaly" and that I had no greater chance of having a child with his rare combination of issues than anyone else. I was still scared to death, and am still insanely grateful for the two normal daughters I had. That said, I was 30 before I was certain I was willing to take the risk of a pregnancy.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

A Christian minister would accept faith, while atheists commonly fall back on demands that God satisfy human conditions.

Telling, that.

---

The people who make the worst and most unreasonable demands of God are the people who claim to worship him. I honestly wish there was a God with enough of a sense of humor to announce, supernaturally, through the radios or via text to the cellphones of large women cruising the Walmart parking lot because they don't want to walk 100 yards, "I don't give a f--k if you find a parking space!"

And asking a guy who was crucified for your sake and had his clothes sold off by the guys sitting around waiting for him to die to help you find a parking space or a date for prom or whatever else is on your personal wish list is the ultimate act of disrespect. Some prayers really should attract a lightning bolt.

---

That's a really bitter post, Jinx, and unworthy of the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith.

It also completely ignores the point of my post, or this entire thread. But you got attention, so maybe for you that's a 'win',

---

I am tired of you calling anyone who disagrees with you, including me, a liar.

That's not bitter. It's disgusted.

And I am EXTREMELY disgusted that any person of faith would support Donald Trump, the least Christ-like person I have ever encountered in national politics, which given the fact that Dick Cheney was our vice president, is saying a lot. At least Cheney stood up for his lesbian daughter against right-wing ire toward people who are openly gay. He was honest about one issue. If Trump tells the truth, it's either accidental or self-supporting; it has nothing to do with integrity.

You want respect and a real dialog? Stop equating disagreements with your political positions as lies.

---

I only call out liars when they tell lies, Jinx. Like pretending 'disagreement with [my] political position' is the motive for calling out thugs and criminals.

I think your side is hurting itself - badly - because they have abandoned honesty and decency just to chase political power. So much so that voters in 30 states decided a bombastic ex-game show host was a better choice for President than the abomination the Democrats nominated. Now the same dirty tricks have put a once-undeniable swell of support for Democrats into jeopardy, because you knowingly defamed an honorable judge, and leftist financiers paid to lure thousands of Hondurans to swarm through Mexico, in a mob which included shooting at police and throwing homemade bombs.

Yes, you are bitter. And you have nobody to blame but yourself and your party for your situation.

---

OldBear, I generally put you on ignore because it's hopeless.

And, I'm not bitter; I'm disgusted. But I remain optimistic that Americans will reject the nastiness of Trump and efforts by Republicans to erode the democratic process so their candidates keep winning. A party that needs to suppress the vote in order to win, like Brian Kemp is trying to do, should revisit its policy positions.

But, if ANYONE is calling the thugs and criminals to do their worst, it's Donald Trump.

We've had 2 incidents in 2 weeks sparked by the hateful rhetoric that is a constant drumbeat on right-wing news sites--the pipe bombs from the guy whose car looked like a decoupage celebrating Fox News and Breitbart, and the racist shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Trump needs to tone down the rhetoric, but he won't, because he only wins by "riling up the crazies."

I fear hispanics will be the next target because Trump won't stop agitating about the "caravan" of refugees when (1) it's more than a thousand miles away, "(2) lots of the people are seeking asylum in Mexico, so the group is growing smaller as it travels; (3) they are refugees fleeing violence and extortion in their home country traveling together because that's safer and less costly than paying a "coyote" to smuggle them in.

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

You are confusing the Bible with the role of government. They are not the same thing.

---

Agreed. But lots of Christians want the U.S. to be a "Christian nation." Are the only Christian ethics that inform government policies supposed to be opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

You could make the same argument about outlawing both of those things based on your Christian beliefs.

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to gay marriage because I do not understand why the government is involved in marriage. I do not think a church should be forced to marry people that do not reflect their beliefs.

With regard to abortion, I believe that it is a human and therefore, should not be legal.

---

My husband shares your view re: abortion while I am adamant that this issue should be up to the woman because, without that legal protection, women's choices and lives are controlled by the government in a way that men's are not.

We've agreed to disagree about that issue and are still happily married after 37 years. So it is possible to disagree on that issue, respect each other's right to his/her own conclusion of why abortion should or should not be an option, and work together successfully on policies we do agree on.

The government is involved in marriage because it's a civil, legal institution that confers certain rights and responsibilities on people who enter into it, which--if they divorce--must be adjudicated and enforced by the courts. I know men AND women who are paying alimony.

---

My view on abortion is that a woman should not have the right to kill a child...her right's should not necessarily trump another person's right...but I'll agree that there are certain situations where an abortion might be necessary. I can not think of a way that government controls women's bodies in ways that they do not control men's. Could you provide examples?

My solution to the marriage issue is to simply call the government ceremony a civil partnership or whatever and then let the churches define marriage in a way that suits their beliefs.

---

Child rearing is 20 years to a lifetime, depending on your commitment and investment and relationship. You can discover your child will be severely handicapped and know that you are not prepared, either economically or by temperament, to raise a profoundly disabled child. There are lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a pregnancy, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or governement scrutiny. It's her life, and she should choose its course.

---

Why wouldn't this apply to a mother whose child becomes profoundly disabled as a 1 year old? In such instances, would you say that there are "lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a child's life, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or government scrutiny?"

If not, why not?

---

Hard debate. If you find out, while your child is still in the womb, that he or she is going to be born without any brain above and beyond automomic responses or with something like cri du chat syndrome (literally cry of the cat, because children with this abnormality make a noise that sounds like a cat's meow), where the child suffers from microcephaly and is profoundly delayed and handicapped, you might choose to end that pregnancy because the child's qualify of life will be poor to non-existent, and yours will be, too. Both, I believe, are valid considerations.

I grew up with a profoundly ******ed (that was the term we used back then) brother whom we suspected was likely often in pain, because he became violently self-abusive, particularly with his head, as he got older. My parents had to institutionalize him at 10 because, as my father told me later, "It was either institutionalize him, or wait 2 years and institutionalize your mother." Phil had frequent tantrums where he threw himself against walls and banged his head on the floors so hard I'm not sure how he escaped concussion. We couldn't keep furniture in his room that wasn't foam rubber. The only treatment in the 1960s was for my parents--and it took both of them, using all their strength, or my mother and older brother working together, to wrestle him down to the floor and give him knock-out drops. Imagine being awakened 2 or 3 nights a week for such a struggle and having one of two of those struggles during the day each week. The physical exhaustion comes first, but the emotional exhaustion is the real killer. The old saw, "God only gives people burdens he know they can bear," didn't anticipate my brother and the exhausting 24/7 aspect of his care when things were going to get worse rather than better.

Bottom line: People should have some freedom to decide for themselves what they're capable of doing. Our society doesn't provide national healthcare or home health aides for families coping with severely disabled children. You're pretty much on your own. People with means may manage fairly well, because they can provide themselves respite care. Ordinary families can really struggle, especially if there are other children who need parenting and don't get much because a profoundly handicapped sibling requires most of the resources and attention. Nobody likes to talk about the practical considerations. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The incredibly difficulty of caring for some handicapped children probably explains why more than half of the men in my brother's unit at the institution had been abandoned as infants or small children. Their parents literally couldn't take it. I became his guardian after I married and moved to my parents' home state, where he was institutionalized. When you spent time in his unit, you understood why. Things could go from calm to bedlam in a split second. The therapists there tried just about every protective helmet used in sports and for every other purpose to stop my brother from wounding and breaking his head. He managed to destroy them all. By the time he died, at age 32, his head had no hair left on it because of the scars. I had genetic counseling, which determined that my brother was "an anomaly" and that I had no greater chance of having a child with his rare combination of issues than anyone else. I was still scared to death, and am still insanely grateful for the two normal daughters I had. That said, I was 30 before I was certain I was willing to take the risk of a pregnancy.

---

So it's okay to kill a one-year-old, or not? I think that was the question.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

A Christian minister would accept faith, while atheists commonly fall back on demands that God satisfy human conditions.

Telling, that.

---

The people who make the worst and most unreasonable demands of God are the people who claim to worship him. I honestly wish there was a God with enough of a sense of humor to announce, supernaturally, through the radios or via text to the cellphones of large women cruising the Walmart parking lot because they don't want to walk 100 yards, "I don't give a f--k if you find a parking space!"

And asking a guy who was crucified for your sake and had his clothes sold off by the guys sitting around waiting for him to die to help you find a parking space or a date for prom or whatever else is on your personal wish list is the ultimate act of disrespect. Some prayers really should attract a lightning bolt.

---

That's a really bitter post, Jinx, and unworthy of the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith.

It also completely ignores the point of my post, or this entire thread. But you got attention, so maybe for you that's a 'win',

---

I am tired of you calling anyone who disagrees with you, including me, a liar.

That's not bitter. It's disgusted.

And I am EXTREMELY disgusted that any person of faith would support Donald Trump, the least Christ-like person I have ever encountered in national politics, which given the fact that Dick Cheney was our vice president, is saying a lot. At least Cheney stood up for his lesbian daughter against right-wing ire toward people who are openly gay. He was honest about one issue. If Trump tells the truth, it's either accidental or self-supporting; it has nothing to do with integrity.

You want respect and a real dialog? Stop equating disagreements with your political positions as lies.

---

I only call out liars when they tell lies, Jinx. Like pretending 'disagreement with [my] political position' is the motive for calling out thugs and criminals.

I think your side is hurting itself - badly - because they have abandoned honesty and decency just to chase political power. So much so that voters in 30 states decided a bombastic ex-game show host was a better choice for President than the abomination the Democrats nominated. Now the same dirty tricks have put a once-undeniable swell of support for Democrats into jeopardy, because you knowingly defamed an honorable judge, and leftist financiers paid to lure thousands of Hondurans to swarm through Mexico, in a mob which included shooting at police and throwing homemade bombs.

Yes, you are bitter. And you have nobody to blame but yourself and your party for your situation.

---

OldBear, I generally put you on ignore because it's hopeless.

And, I'm not bitter; I'm disgusted. But I remain optimistic that Americans will reject the nastiness of Trump and efforts by Republicans to erode the democratic process so their candidates keep winning. A party that needs to suppress the vote in order to win, like Brian Kemp is trying to do, should revisit its policy positions.

But, if ANYONE is calling the thugs and criminals to do their worst, it's Donald Trump.

We've had 2 incidents in 2 weeks sparked by the hateful rhetoric that is a constant drumbeat on right-wing news sites--the pipe bombs from the guy whose car looked like a decoupage celebrating Fox News and Breitbart, and the racist shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Trump needs to tone down the rhetoric, but he won't, because he only wins by "riling up the crazies."

I fear hispanics will be the next target because Trump won't stop agitating about the "caravan" of refugees when (1) it's more than a thousand miles away, "(2) lots of the people are seeking asylum in Mexico, so the group is growing smaller as it travels; (3) they are refugees fleeing violence and extortion in their home country traveling together because that's safer and less costly than paying a "coyote" to smuggle them in.

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

You are confusing the Bible with the role of government. They are not the same thing.

---

Agreed. But lots of Christians want the U.S. to be a "Christian nation." Are the only Christian ethics that inform government policies supposed to be opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

You could make the same argument about outlawing both of those things based on your Christian beliefs.

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to gay marriage because I do not understand why the government is involved in marriage. I do not think a church should be forced to marry people that do not reflect their beliefs.

With regard to abortion, I believe that it is a human and therefore, should not be legal.

---

My husband shares your view re: abortion while I am adamant that this issue should be up to the woman because, without that legal protection, women's choices and lives are controlled by the government in a way that men's are not.

We've agreed to disagree about that issue and are still happily married after 37 years. So it is possible to disagree on that issue, respect each other's right to his/her own conclusion of why abortion should or should not be an option, and work together successfully on policies we do agree on.

The government is involved in marriage because it's a civil, legal institution that confers certain rights and responsibilities on people who enter into it, which--if they divorce--must be adjudicated and enforced by the courts. I know men AND women who are paying alimony.

---

My view on abortion is that a woman should not have the right to kill a child...her right's should not necessarily trump another person's right...but I'll agree that there are certain situations where an abortion might be necessary. I can not think of a way that government controls women's bodies in ways that they do not control men's. Could you provide examples?

My solution to the marriage issue is to simply call the government ceremony a civil partnership or whatever and then let the churches define marriage in a way that suits their beliefs.

---

Child rearing is 20 years to a lifetime, depending on your commitment and investment and relationship. You can discover your child will be severely handicapped and know that you are not prepared, either economically or by temperament, to raise a profoundly disabled child. There are lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a pregnancy, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or governement scrutiny. It's her life, and she should choose its course.

---

Why wouldn't this apply to a mother whose child becomes profoundly disabled as a 1 year old? In such instances, would you say that there are "lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a child's life, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or government scrutiny?"

If not, why not?

---

Hard debate. If you find out, while your child is still in the womb, that he or she is going to be born without any brain above and beyond automomic responses or with something like cri du chat syndrome (literally cry of the cat, because children with this abnormality make a noise that sounds like a cat's meow), where the child suffers from microcephaly and is profoundly delayed and handicapped, you might choose to end that pregnancy because the child's qualify of life will be poor to non-existent, and yours will be, too. Both, I believe, are valid considerations.

I grew up with a profoundly ******ed (that was the term we used back then) brother whom we suspected was likely often in pain, because he became violently self-abusive, particularly with his head, as he got older. My parents had to institutionalize him at 10 because, as my father told me later, "It was either institutionalize him, or wait 2 years and institutionalize your mother." Phil had frequent tantrums where he threw himself against walls and banged his head on the floors so hard I'm not sure how he escaped concussion. We couldn't keep furniture in his room that wasn't foam rubber. The only treatment in the 1960s was for my parents--and it took both of them, using all their strength, or my mother and older brother working together, to wrestle him down to the floor and give him knock-out drops. Imagine being awakened 2 or 3 nights a week for such a struggle and having one of two of those struggles during the day each week. The physical exhaustion comes first, but the emotional exhaustion is the real killer. The old saw, "God only gives people burdens he know they can bear," didn't anticipate my brother and the exhausting 24/7 aspect of his care when things were going to get worse rather than better.

Bottom line: People should have some freedom to decide for themselves what they're capable of doing. Our society doesn't provide national healthcare or home health aides for families coping with severely disabled children. You're pretty much on your own. People with means may manage fairly well, because they can provide themselves respite care. Ordinary families can really struggle, especially if there are other children who need parenting and don't get much because a profoundly handicapped sibling requires most of the resources and attention. Nobody likes to talk about the practical considerations. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The incredibly difficulty of caring for some handicapped children probably explains why more than half of the men in my brother's unit at the institution had been abandoned as infants or small children. Their parents literally couldn't take it. I became his guardian after I married and moved to my parents' home state, where he was institutionalized. When you spent time in his unit, you understood why. Things could go from calm to bedlam in a split second. The therapists there tried just about every protective helmet used in sports and for every other purpose to stop my brother from wounding and breaking his head. He managed to destroy them all. By the time he died, at age 32, his head had no hair left on it because of the scars. I had genetic counseling, which determined that my brother was "an anomaly" and that I had no greater chance of having a child with his rare combination of issues than anyone else. I was still scared to death, and am still insanely grateful for the two normal daughters I had. That said, I was 30 before I was certain I was willing to take the risk of a pregnancy.

---

There is no valid consideration other than life. Even if a child like your brother was born, what did that child do to deserve death? Nothing. Abortion is pure selfishness.

Fad "if it is her life and she did choose...she chose to get pregnant." That silly. There are a thousamf reasons she gets pregnant without choosing.

It was a question not a statement of faith?

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

I stated that that I believe that nature/physical laws of the universe/etc imply that they were created. Outside of some "multiverse" hypothesis, it is unreasonable to assume that this came spontaneously from complete nothingness, and that the fine tuned laws of physics just happen to be exactly as necessary for life to exist (if even one of them was off by one degree of magnitude, the universe itself wouldn't exist, much less Life). If the universe was created, there was a Creator. I call that Creator "God."

If you're asking why I believe the "God of the Bible" is the creator (as opposed to some other religions version or some unknown creator), it's because my exploration and experience has resulted in a belief that the Bible is the actual creator's revelation to mankind concerning His nature, purpose, and plan for us as created beings. That belief is sustained through faith (which I consider a necessary part of our relationship with our creator given our fallen state), so my answer has come full circle.

---

In the world of philosophy and dialogue does one simply say " I explored other religions and I decided I'm right." How does one dialogue with your personal revelation? If I claim a different revelation why does yours claim credence over mine?

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

I stated that that I believe that nature/physical laws of the universe/etc imply that they were created. Outside of some "multiverse" hypothesis, it is unreasonable to assume that this came spontaneously from complete nothingness, and that the fine tuned laws of physics just happen to be exactly as necessary for life to exist (if even one of them was off by one degree of magnitude, the universe itself wouldn't exist, much less Life). If the universe was created, there was a Creator. I call that Creator "God."

If you're asking why I believe the "God of the Bible" is the creator (as opposed to some other religions version or some unknown creator), it's because my exploration and experience has resulted in a belief that the Bible is the actual creator's revelation to mankind concerning His nature, purpose, and plan for us as created beings. That belief is sustained through faith (which I consider a necessary part of our relationship with our creator given our fallen state), so my answer has come full circle.

---

In the world of philosophy and dialogue does one simply say " I explored other religions and I decided I'm right." How does one dialogue with your personal revelation? If I claim a different revelation why does yours claim credence over mine?

---

One is your creation only.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I don't believe God is a micromanager. I think he sets everything in motion and allows each individual to make their own decisions. Unlike the animals, God have us humans the ability to reason.

God is good.

---

Could God act on physics if God chose to

---

Yes, He is sovereign over everything in the universe, including physics, because He created it. He is even sovereign with regard to human free will, in that He is outside of time (his creation) and knows the result of every free choice. How much He chooses to "control" events in linear time is entirely up to him.

---

What is your evidence that God created it?

---

A Christian minister would accept faith, while atheists commonly fall back on demands that God satisfy human conditions.

Telling, that.

---

The people who make the worst and most unreasonable demands of God are the people who claim to worship him. I honestly wish there was a God with enough of a sense of humor to announce, supernaturally, through the radios or via text to the cellphones of large women cruising the Walmart parking lot because they don't want to walk 100 yards, "I don't give a f--k if you find a parking space!"

And asking a guy who was crucified for your sake and had his clothes sold off by the guys sitting around waiting for him to die to help you find a parking space or a date for prom or whatever else is on your personal wish list is the ultimate act of disrespect. Some prayers really should attract a lightning bolt.

---

That's a really bitter post, Jinx, and unworthy of the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith.

It also completely ignores the point of my post, or this entire thread. But you got attention, so maybe for you that's a 'win',

---

I am tired of you calling anyone who disagrees with you, including me, a liar.

That's not bitter. It's disgusted.

And I am EXTREMELY disgusted that any person of faith would support Donald Trump, the least Christ-like person I have ever encountered in national politics, which given the fact that Dick Cheney was our vice president, is saying a lot. At least Cheney stood up for his lesbian daughter against right-wing ire toward people who are openly gay. He was honest about one issue. If Trump tells the truth, it's either accidental or self-supporting; it has nothing to do with integrity.

You want respect and a real dialog? Stop equating disagreements with your political positions as lies.

---

I only call out liars when they tell lies, Jinx. Like pretending 'disagreement with [my] political position' is the motive for calling out thugs and criminals.

I think your side is hurting itself - badly - because they have abandoned honesty and decency just to chase political power. So much so that voters in 30 states decided a bombastic ex-game show host was a better choice for President than the abomination the Democrats nominated. Now the same dirty tricks have put a once-undeniable swell of support for Democrats into jeopardy, because you knowingly defamed an honorable judge, and leftist financiers paid to lure thousands of Hondurans to swarm through Mexico, in a mob which included shooting at police and throwing homemade bombs.

Yes, you are bitter. And you have nobody to blame but yourself and your party for your situation.

---

OldBear, I generally put you on ignore because it's hopeless.

And, I'm not bitter; I'm disgusted. But I remain optimistic that Americans will reject the nastiness of Trump and efforts by Republicans to erode the democratic process so their candidates keep winning. A party that needs to suppress the vote in order to win, like Brian Kemp is trying to do, should revisit its policy positions.

But, if ANYONE is calling the thugs and criminals to do their worst, it's Donald Trump.

We've had 2 incidents in 2 weeks sparked by the hateful rhetoric that is a constant drumbeat on right-wing news sites--the pipe bombs from the guy whose car looked like a decoupage celebrating Fox News and Breitbart, and the racist shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Trump needs to tone down the rhetoric, but he won't, because he only wins by "riling up the crazies."

I fear hispanics will be the next target because Trump won't stop agitating about the "caravan" of refugees when (1) it's more than a thousand miles away, "(2) lots of the people are seeking asylum in Mexico, so the group is growing smaller as it travels; (3) they are refugees fleeing violence and extortion in their home country traveling together because that's safer and less costly than paying a "coyote" to smuggle them in.

Let me be clear in stating that we do not have to give asylum to every refugee who shows up at our borders. But we do have a process for that, and perhaps rather than deploying our military, which costs a lot and is solely for the purpose of political grandstanding, Trump should have deployed a small army of immigration judges and lawyers to greet these people at the border and process their claims. With unemployment at a low, we need some of those people. Some will have valid fears; some not.

And whatever happened Matthew 25:35: For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.

---

You are confusing the Bible with the role of government. They are not the same thing.

---

Agreed. But lots of Christians want the U.S. to be a "Christian nation." Are the only Christian ethics that inform government policies supposed to be opposition to abortion and gay marriage?

You could make the same argument about outlawing both of those things based on your Christian beliefs.

---

As a Christian, I am opposed to gay marriage...BUT that is MY opinion...ultimately, it is up to God and not me...therefore, I keep my personal views quiet because my opinion doesn't matter. As a citizen of the US, I am not opposed to gay marriage because I do not understand why the government is involved in marriage. I do not think a church should be forced to marry people that do not reflect their beliefs.

With regard to abortion, I believe that it is a human and therefore, should not be legal.

---

My husband shares your view re: abortion while I am adamant that this issue should be up to the woman because, without that legal protection, women's choices and lives are controlled by the government in a way that men's are not.

We've agreed to disagree about that issue and are still happily married after 37 years. So it is possible to disagree on that issue, respect each other's right to his/her own conclusion of why abortion should or should not be an option, and work together successfully on policies we do agree on.

The government is involved in marriage because it's a civil, legal institution that confers certain rights and responsibilities on people who enter into it, which--if they divorce--must be adjudicated and enforced by the courts. I know men AND women who are paying alimony.

---

My view on abortion is that a woman should not have the right to kill a child...her right's should not necessarily trump another person's right...but I'll agree that there are certain situations where an abortion might be necessary. I can not think of a way that government controls women's bodies in ways that they do not control men's. Could you provide examples?

My solution to the marriage issue is to simply call the government ceremony a civil partnership or whatever and then let the churches define marriage in a way that suits their beliefs.

---

Child rearing is 20 years to a lifetime, depending on your commitment and investment and relationship. You can discover your child will be severely handicapped and know that you are not prepared, either economically or by temperament, to raise a profoundly disabled child. There are lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a pregnancy, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or governement scrutiny. It's her life, and she should choose its course.

---

Why wouldn't this apply to a mother whose child becomes profoundly disabled as a 1 year old? In such instances, would you say that there are "lots of reasons a woman might choose to end a child's life, and those reasons should not be subject to judgment or government scrutiny?"

If not, why not?

---

Hard debate. If you find out, while your child is still in the womb, that he or she is going to be born without any brain above and beyond automomic responses or with something like cri du chat syndrome (literally cry of the cat, because children with this abnormality make a noise that sounds like a cat's meow), where the child suffers from microcephaly and is profoundly delayed and handicapped, you might choose to end that pregnancy because the child's qualify of life will be poor to non-existent, and yours will be, too. Both, I believe, are valid considerations.

I grew up with a profoundly ******ed (that was the term we used back then) brother whom we suspected was likely often in pain, because he became violently self-abusive, particularly with his head, as he got older. My parents had to institutionalize him at 10 because, as my father told me later, "It was either institutionalize him, or wait 2 years and institutionalize your mother." Phil had frequent tantrums where he threw himself against walls and banged his head on the floors so hard I'm not sure how he escaped concussion. We couldn't keep furniture in his room that wasn't foam rubber. The only treatment in the 1960s was for my parents--and it took both of them, using all their strength, or my mother and older brother working together, to wrestle him down to the floor and give him knock-out drops. Imagine being awakened 2 or 3 nights a week for such a struggle and having one of two of those struggles during the day each week. The physical exhaustion comes first, but the emotional exhaustion is the real killer. The old saw, "God only gives people burdens he know they can bear," didn't anticipate my brother and the exhausting 24/7 aspect of his care when things were going to get worse rather than better.

Bottom line: People should have some freedom to decide for themselves what they're capable of doing. Our society doesn't provide national healthcare or home health aides for families coping with severely disabled children. You're pretty much on your own. People with means may manage fairly well, because they can provide themselves respite care. Ordinary families can really struggle, especially if there are other children who need parenting and don't get much because a profoundly handicapped sibling requires most of the resources and attention. Nobody likes to talk about the practical considerations. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The incredibly difficulty of caring for some handicapped children probably explains why more than half of the men in my brother's unit at the institution had been abandoned as infants or small children. Their parents literally couldn't take it. I became his guardian after I married and moved to my parents' home state, where he was institutionalized. When you spent time in his unit, you understood why. Things could go from calm to bedlam in a split second. The therapists there tried just about every protective helmet used in sports and for every other purpose to stop my brother from wounding and breaking his head. He managed to destroy them all. By the time he died, at age 32, his head had no hair left on it because of the scars. I had genetic counseling, which determined that my brother was "an anomaly" and that I had no greater chance of having a child with his rare combination of issues than anyone else. I was still scared to death, and am still insanely grateful for the two normal daughters I had. That said, I was 30 before I was certain I was willing to take the risk of a pregnancy.

---

Hard debate?

If a mother thinks a child is too difficult, or too limiting on her own life, can she kill it? Yes or no. The fact that this is a hard question for you is truly horrifying.

Waco1947 said:

---

Fad "if it is her life and she did choose...she chose to get pregnant." That silly. There are a thousamf reasons she gets pregnant without choosing.

---

Thousands? There is exactly ONE reason someone gets pregnant with no choice in the matter. Forcible rape.

Jinx makes a nice argument; not for offing a child but for knocking off an old person.

Slippery slope indeed

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Including selling your sister into slavery?

---

Do you mean the verse that starts with "if"?

---

Sure if that makes a difference

---

Are you seriously arguing that the word if is not crucial to the sentence?

Waco1947 said:

---

Fad "if it is her life and she did choose...she chose to get pregnant." That silly. There are a thousamf reasons she gets pregnant without choosing.

---

There's a known risk to sex. She knew those risks and willingly chose to engage in the activity.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I'd like to address the topic. It starts with the Book of 'Job'.

A lot of people don't read the Bible, and those who do usually skip most of the Old Testament. The book of Job is especially difficult to digest, because of the apparent callousness of God. Here's His faithful servant Job, who is described as "blameless" in the text, who loses his fortune, his friends, his health and most of his family, just because God wants to prove to Satan that Job won't turn against God, no matter what. A lot of people have noted that it sure looks like injustice how Job is treated, except that God is GOD and you can't really argue 'Truth to Power' when the Power is Absolute.

But careful thought may reveal a different perspective and meaning. After all, while God rebukes Job for questioning Him at his low point, God also restores Job to health, wealth, and family, along with telling Job's no-good friends that they need to show respect and support to Job. It seems God operates on moral levels unknown to humans.

The science in this perspective shows up when we consider the Quantum Universe. Quantum Mechanics apply very different rules than we see in Einstein's physics, so much so that one type of quark is known as 'strange' for good reason.

God is farther above humans, than humans are to bacteria. It is therefore no mystery that humans cannot understand all of God's controls and rules for the multiverse.

---

There is no science in that perspective.

---

I won't comment on the fact that Quantum Mechanics inidicates this universe is exactly what you would expect to see without the need for any shenanigans by a god. And, I won't comment on the book of Job as being an example of what you would expect a primitive people with primitive understanding, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, would write as part of their primitive attempt to assign understanding and explanation to their existence. An intelligent man recently said - "There is no science in that perspective."

---

^^^ Evasion ^^^

Science is used to explain natural phenomonae, and honest scientists always understand that there are areas where we don't understand the forces at work now, and in some cases may never understand.

Causality is a scientific concept, and one of the principal scientific rules is that nothing can create itself. A universe spontaneously coming into existence therefore violates science. As for claiming that Quantum Mechanics somehow disproves God, that's simply emotional nonsense, on the same hysterical level of those people who continue to insist the Earth is flat.

---

If I were going to comment on this thread, I would remind you that I never said Quantum Mechanics disproves God. What I have said is that general relativity breaks down at the quantum level, and quantum theory gives a plausible explanation for how the universe can come into existence from nothing without the need for any god. I do think what we understand at the quantum level makes it highly unlikely there is a god, especially the god of the Old Testament, New Testament, Quran, Book of Mormon. BTW - under your concept, who created the god of the OT/NT/Q/BM?

I'm not replying, because this site has trouble loading posts with too many replies--at least on my Mac.

Right now, the old person in my life is my mother-in-law, a saint who spent a life as a Methodist minister's wife (a hard job for which there's no pay), sung a beautiful alto in some church choirs, played the piano at some small churches then taught a bilingual kindergarten class for 25 years, during which she earned a master's in teaching at A&M, commuting there with 3 other teachers while working full-time while my husband was at Baylor. After she retired, she taught English as a second language to several immigrants, who revered her.

She was and is a good woman, and now that she is in terrible health and in constant pain with arthritis, our goal is to make her remaining days as comfortable as possible. She has more than earned whatever it takes to keep her comfortable--and, sadly, it take some powerful painkillers that make her nauseated and confused. Things are actually better since we moved her from assisted living into full nursing care and from Temple to Dallas, because her medical team has finally managed to find a pain regime that's reasonably effective that doesn't make her too nauseated to eat.

Making sure my much-loved mother-in-law--the only mother I've had for the past 20 years--is safe and comfortable is a much different care challenge that wrestling a profoundly handicapped boy who can really physically injure you in his quest to hurt himself to the ground while you try to knock him out. Those of you who don't understand the difference between loving and caring for a parent in old age and trying to care for a child who is severely handicapped and whose care is so physically demanding you are regularly bruised and beat up and constantly exhausted because of lack of sleep lack empathy. No one would choose that life--for either parents or child--if they knew what was coming.*@%**%&$ you fellas and your staggering lack of comprehensive and empathy.

Just to make sure I understand Jinx, what you are saying is that some lives are worth keeping and some aren't. Is this correct?

Yes, I know a part of the stories now with your brother, your parents and your MIL. None of those situations you have described are easy. In the faith that you gave up, there is a verse that says "my grace is sufficient".

We don't know why some of us have easier roads than others but we certainly do.

What I sent you on the PM still applies. Your interpretation of my empathy has no bearing on your soul.