dialamah

Explain to me again how "Do what I say or DIE" is the same as 'free will' and an actual choice? When Christians are presented that choice by Islamists, do you stand by those Christians who CHOSE to die, or do you stand by those Christians who chose to LIVE?

So what you are saying is that you both contributed what you were able, and you supported each other. Why shouldn't a tribe, village, town, city, province and country operate in the same way? Not to mention, I think they have essentially throughout human history. Beggars have been around forever, and been supported by the more generous among the citizenry; people unwilling to share their wealth with anyone have also been around forever. Yes, of course businesses make huge errors and go out of business. Countries also go out of "business" so to speak, or we'd all be Egyptians or Babylonians. But one of the major differences between a country and a corporation is that a country exists to look after it's citizens. It's not to make a profit, get the best return on investment or to pay shareholders. It is simply to take care of it's citizens. I think that's a pretty important difference starting off. But specifically for budgeting - a country's budget is called an 'economy', not a budget and I think that alone should be a pretty good clue that a household budget is very different animal than a country's economic policy. I'm not an economist, so I'm not about to explain why a government running a deficit or adding to debt can be 'good for it's citizens'. However, in case you are interested in why that might be so, here are a few cites. http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2016/09/20/what-if-the-national-economy-is-like-a-household-budget/ https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2013/mar/26/federal-budget-household-finances-fed https://theconversation.com/why-the-federal-budget-is-not-like-a-household-budget-35498 I also wish there was a better way to make politicians accountable. Perhaps like you, I find huge government pensions on minimal served time outrageous; it's not that I'm against pensions, but that everyone else has to put in a full work life to get a full pension, and so should politicians. I would also like to change the Senate: they show up to get paid, they have limited terms (maybe; there may be unintended consequences to that). I wish there was a way to ensure politicians would work together - this "if I do it it's good/if you do it I'll criticize" form of politics is stupid and annoying. I hoped the election reform promised by JT might address that, but he decided against. I have read that garden-variety sociopaths make successful politicians, and that seems to ring true a lot of the time.

I have it on good authority that the OT was abrogated by the coming of Christ and no longer applies. Or is this another example of 'picking and choosing' what to believe? Something that every faithful person on the planet does, regardless of faith.

Have you ever seen someone near the end of life? We don't really have palliative care, at least not for everybody. Its for those who can afford it, who have family and friends who can advocate for it. Otherwise, you are just as likely to be booted home to die alone, no care and certainly no pain meds. If someone chooses and can afford and find palliative care for themselves or their loved ones, I support that certainly. But if one knows that their illness is terminal, that they are going to live in severe pain, managed by opiods so powerful they will be essentially unconscious most of the time or with no cognitive ability, why should they be forced to do so? The Bible and Christians talk about 'free will', yet it seems that free will is not really what God is about. We must follow his rules, like it or not, or risk burning in eternal torment. And then if the 'gift of life' given us is so filled with pain that we want only to die, once again our vaunted "free will" is subject to God's will that we should suffer. Christ on the cross is nothing compared to the pain God inflicts upon some of the humans he "loves" so much, with the instruction that we must suffer it, or else. These are not the behaviors of a loving being.

Where does the bible mention "Due Process"? I never said you did; I only said that it happens and such children are around 8 times more likely to commit suicide than straight youth. If the Christian faith teaches that LGBTQ people are unacceptable to God and to the Church, would that not be seen as rejection by kids? If rejection by parents and community results in suicide, does it matter how respectful you are when you tell someone that they are unacceptable? Now I appreciate that you believe it's important to treat people with respect. But if your child's school were supporting a straight-gay alliance, or was providing information on LGBTQ, would you object to that or would you accept it as a way to offer respect to LGBTQ children, to help such kids to feel accepted and to reduce suicide? I realize that you do not speak for all Christians, but I don't want to assume wrong things about you personally.

If God will do what He wants with you, why the "OR?" If you've got no choice - if God directs everything - what's the punishment for? 1. People who "choose" not to believe in God are punished, usually with the threat of eternal punishment. That is not really "free will" anymore than it is when someone holds a gun to your head and says "Tell me what I want to hear or I will kill you." 2. If God has a plan for you, then that is what will happen. Calling that free will is like saying a puppet has free will. Ergo: no free will.

Free will = God will do what he wants with you OR you will suffer eternal torture. Got it.

Yes, it is in the hands of the powerful and rich; you and Argus would add to that with your 'if you pay extra tax, you get an extra say' People with more money pay more tax; this would be true even if everyone were taxed at exactly the same rate. We aren't, but nonetheless if you make enough money to be taxed that extra amount, you also have more discretionary income than those who are at a lower tax rate. You guys don't seem to understand that; instead, you take the view that you shouldn't have to contribute as per your ability. I don't know if you are married, or if your wife worked, but if you are like most of us 'older' couples, you probably made more than your wife. So, in terms of building and maintaining your household, did you expect your wife to contribute more or most of her overall income to the household to match the 'higher' amount you were able to contribute? Or did you reduce your contribution to the household in order to match your wife's reduced ability, and keep the rest for your own benefit and wellbeing? Or did you arrange the contributions to the household so that you each had some of your own money, even if it meant you (or possibly your wife) actually contributed more to the running of your household? Running a country, or a business, is not like running a household. Imagine if a company CEO could never negotiate a loan for expansion in case it wouldn't be paid back before he left that position, and it was left to the next CEO to ensure that the company repaid the loan? It's a ridiculous notion for a company, and even more ridiculous for a country. What if we had to go to war, and had to borrow money to do that - but couldn't, because it wouldn't be paid back within 4 years? What if climate change decimates coastal areas and we want to save lives to the tune of a billion dollars - but the law didn't allow that, so millions die or are left homeless and in poverty? You can't make partisanship illegal; it is part of human nature to 'pick a team'. What would be better would be to make being stupid illegal, but since we all have a different idea of what constitutes "stupid" - usually based on along partisanship lines, I notice - that's another non-starter.

Gee whizzikers, just how can we ensure our democracy is only available to certain people? That's what democracy is all about, eh - disenfranchising those who 'lack' in some way - whether it's physically, mentally or (mostly) monetarily. We can just modify the definition of 'democracy', eh? Democracy: a : a government by (some of) the people; especially : rule of the majority whoever has the most money. b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people (who have the most money) and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation (designed to eliminate a substantial portion of the people in the country from having any say) usually involving periodically held free limited elections

Poll: who believes this photo isn't fake? PS: you can buy this meme here, use it to scare all your friends. It's also on Pinterest, save yourself $5.

People who are determined to end their life already do so, or they try over and over until they succeed or become to ill to keep trying. Saying one supports doctor-assisted suicide doesn't mean throwing up one's hands in the face of someone expressing a wish to die. I can support someone's right to make that choice, but still do all in my power to persuade them not to if the situation is likely to change for them, given time. By the way, initiatives to support LGTBQ students in schools reduce youth suicide. Parental rejection of an LGTBQ child means a higher risk that child will kill themselves. Wider acceptance of LGTBQ in society reduces youth suicide and reduces attacks on and murders of gay people. As a Christian who believes life is sacred, do you support or oppose wider acceptance of LGTBQ in schools and society, including gay marriage?

Yes, the conservative way -- reminding immigrants they second class citizens and should exhibit unending gratitude for being permitted in the country and shouldn't be permitted an opinion with which a conservative would disagree.

The problem with failing to uphold our our own laws is that it gives those in power carte blanche to apply laws only when it suits them. I, personally, am grateful that the judiciary retains enough freedom and independence to find against the government - which they did In Khadr's case and the woman with the niqab, and In BC with the teacher's union. In many countries the judiciary is simply there for the government's convenience rather than upholding the law for all citizens. Have you, or anyone, ever answered my question about how a young female Muslim can be brainwashed/forced by her family into wearing a hijab, but a young boy can't be brainwashed/forced into extremist views by his family? Or why girls under 18 are forced into child marriages but boys under 18 can't be forced to be child soldiers?

Sure, why not? I am reasonably certain both my Christian and Muslim friends dislike/disapprove of homosexuality, but I don't see them actively opposing things such as school curriculums designed to promote acceptance of LGBTQ youth, as part of a strategy to reduce bullying and prevent suicide or demonstrating against the legalization of gay marriage, or even trying to persuade others that their religiously-based views on homosexuality is what should prevail in Canadian culture.

A white co-worker is from SA. Violence and the strained relationships between blacks and whites was a significant factor in their choice to leave.

Yup, I think individuals should be responsible for their own actions and have said so many times. I am misunderstood because I usually say so in the context of a discussion about Muslims, as a group with few exceptions, being essentially barbaric killers who oppress women and kill homosexuals. Every time there is a news story about a Muslim behaving badly, its trotted out as proof that this is standard behavior for Muslims. News stories about Muslims behaving exactly as we'd like is dismissed as being unusual and not "Muslim". Can you imagine if Christians or Jews were portrayed that way? Jewish, Christianity and Islam all share essentially the same beliefs: male-dominated, homophobic and "one-true-wayism", requiring believers to exclude others from salvation and often to convert others through evangelism or, for extremists, by force. The best that can be said about Christianity is that secularism has ameliorated much of it's ugliness in the Western world. In Africa and the Middle East, Christans have more in common with Muslims in terms of their cultural attitudes towards homosexuality and male-female relations than they do with Christians in the Western world.

Only those that supplant judgement and hatred for acceptance and love. I have said before that faith makes some people better, but others it makes worse. If a person's faith means they think they have the right to impose what they believe on others, through violent or political means, I am ok reviling them. If one's faith is about inviting others to join, through their actions and words, then no reviling from me. From their postings here, I would place Betsy and Altai in group 1 and Blackbird in group 2. Of course, they may be very different in real life, so this is merely how the expression of their beliefs on this forum comes across to me.

Is it a choice if the wrong choice is eternal torture/death? I think that's coercion, not choice. But yeah, believers gonna believe.

Is God male AND female? It was when I read the bible and saw how contradictory it was, and how cruel God was, that I became a non-believer.

Not to mention that this attitude inspires the killing of homosexuals, here and around the world. God clearly did create homosexuality, since animals practice it as well as humans. Clearly, if God is responsible for all creation then he is also responsible for homosexual behavior among animals and people. Why would a loving God damn some of his human creatures by making them homosexual and then decreeing it unacceptable? I don't believe such a God would, but I fully believe humans would be happy to use God and religion to control behavior. Early Christianity had a ritual that bound people of the same sex into a church sanctioned union. Some scholars believe this was akin to same-sex marriage, while others maintain it was non-sexual. Given that in its infancy Christianity was strongly influenced by Roman practices and homosexuality was an accepted aspect of Roman life, it does seem likely that this type of union was to accommodate homosexual couples.

habit of making Canada a laughingstock around the world. - Hyperbole. His policies are dangerous and expensive. Opinion and inaccurate. His policies turned out not to be a hell of a lot different than Harper's once he was in office; his rhetoric is merely different. damaging our international relations with quite a few countries - More hyperbole; this visit to India may have been poorly done but overall Canada's relations with other countries remain largely unchanged under the Liberals, although our reputation has improved. As for Scheer this religious policy crap is just that, made up hogwash - maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But his voting record suggests to me that religion plays a pretty big role in the kinds of policies he'd support and/or implement. Rather than regurgitating Liberal Conservative fear provoking lies it would be better to actually listen to the man and learn what the truth actually is.

Have to have quality candidates, too. If I don't want to vote Liberal next time around, then what are my choices? The more I learn about Scheer, the more wary I am of his religious bias and his right-wing Christian support base. Singh is also an observant Sikh, an issue for me although I'd have to know more about Sikhism and how he practices before absolutely deciding against him based on his religious beliefs. But he's also inexperienced and thus far, is surrounded by inexperience, and I'd prefer someone with a bit more behind him politically. At this point, as much as I may not appreciate JT as an ongoing PM, I am not sure the other two choices are viable for me. Selfies, socks and 'ahs, umms' while speaking might be annoying, but I would be even more annoyed to have policy decided based on religious grounds or to have even a 'progressive' Trump-like inexperienced person in power. And, how would someone 'earn' the right to vote? A weekend course? A lifetime of political involvement? Paying money?

Ah, a change of story! At the time you merely said that if a resume didn't have a Canadian name, you wouldn't call them. No mention at the time of extenuating circumstances or it being a one-off, merely repition of yout intention to ensure you hired people who fit your culture and you screened via names on the resume. On topic: again, the assumption here seems to be that "only" a white person can meet standards based on merit. If a non-white person is hired, its only because a more qualified white person was passed over. Its a stupid argument, really.

I am not sure why the OP would object to this, since he has posted that he will not even consider hiring anyone with an immigrant, non-European name and claims to be doing so in order to find people who fit into his workplace "culture". If the OP defends his right to do so, then it seems hypocritical to then suggest that Dalhousie does not also have the right to select only candidates who will fit into their workplace "culture" of diversity. Or is the right to refuse candidates based on "culture" only available to exclude "racially visible minorities"?

If people can use scripture to support what they believe, even if it directly contradicts someone else's scripture-based belief, then the Bible does not prove anything, it merely provides validation for people's preferences. I consider this a feature of the Bible, not a bug. This feature has allowed (most) Christians to advance beyond medieval beliefs and practices.