Goddess

This is the crux of it. Christians especially somehow have gotten the idea that they have been given the same authority on earth as Jesus was given. Jesus was the Son of God. He was given the authority to judge humans, the authority to condemn humans because he was a perfect human - something not even Betsy can claim to be. No individual Christian was given that same authority - yet they take it for themselves and think nothing of it. There were only 2 instructions given to followers - 1. Love God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength. 2. Love your neighbour. That was it. That was all. They were given no power to judge others. They were given no power to condemn others. They were given no power to force change on others. Yet, here they are - judging, condemning and forcing others to accept their OWN interpretations. They had better been REEEEEEAAAALLLLL clear on what God disapproves of then. Or they are in violation of the second commandment Jesus gave - love for others. Like sapper, I have no problem with religious nutters spouting their own interpretations of what God disapproves of. In all the time Jesus was supposedly on earth - he said nothing about homosexuality. He did, however, say a lot about judging and condemning others harshly. A true Christian would go by what Jesus actually SAID and DID and no further. To judge on condemn fellow humans based on what you THINK Jesus really meant or what you SUSPECT he was inferring on a matter, well, that doesn't seem to be what Jesus instructions for his followers were. His strongest condemnations in the Bible were for the harsh, exacting and rule-making religious leaders. I don't think Betsy thinks about any of this, though. She has given herself the same authority as the Son of God AND with the harsh, condemning and judging ofthe Pharisees - a dangerous position to put oneself in, if you are a true believer.

No, it doesn't. If I say "I like bananas and apples" - would you assume that I hated grapes and pears because I excluded them? Surely you are smarter than that.

He was talking to heterosexuals who wanted to get rid of their older wives, so he framed his answer for them. If he was talking to homosexuals, he would have framed his answer for them. The fact is - Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. So his followers should not, either. This is how people start coming up with nonsense rules and harmful religious regulations - they start reading more into Bible verses and begin going beyond what Jesus said.

Don't worry about me. Worry about the jihadis in your religion.

Which part of "He was answering a question about divorce and not making a statement on homosexuality" did you not understand? You can quote it back to me 100 times and bold the man and woman part, highlight it red, use giant fonts and snarky smilies - it doesn't change the context. He was not talking about whether homosexuality was acceptable or not. You cannot use the answer to one question to make assumptions about something totally different that was not a part of the discussion. What you are saying is: The Pharisees, who wanted to get rid of their older wives to marry younger ones, were looking for Jesus to confirm that they could do so. He answered that question and that question only. His answer about divorce was not "Homosexuality is wrong." You're being absurd.

Jesus was not talking about sexual orientation there. He was answering a question that was asked by the hypocritical Pharisees regarding the grounds for divorce. He quoted the scripture in Genesis to show that divorce was not to be taken lightly. Given the awful treatment of divorced and used women in his day, his purpose in quoting the passage in Genesis was to defend women. The passage you quoted has nothing to do with homosexuality. Context is everything.

What did Jesus say about it?

......says the person who SCREAMS!!!!!! in almost every post, bolds and colors and GIANT FONTS and snarky emojis everywhere.

So if you disagree that Western countries have a degree of freedoms, which countries DO?

I read this article today. There's a few errors and holes, but since this virus twists and turns, it's worth a consideration. http://web.archive.org/web/20200405061401/https://medium.com/@agaiziunas/covid-19-had-us-all-fooled-but-now-we-might-have-finally-found-its-secret-91182386efcb

Usually in a case where parties want different things, an agreement comes about because each side compromises something and comes to a workable solution where both parties feel they are "mostly" getting what they want.

Oh please. Person X may WANT to be an artist but if they have zero artistic ability, it won't matter how many opportunities or how much money you throw at them - they will never be an artist earning an income. Person X may WANT to be a doctor, but if they do not have the intelligence to be one, they will never pass the courses no matter what. Person X may be a person who for years has fried their brain on drugs. It doesn't matter how many opportunities or how much money you throw at them, they will never be able to achieve much beyond their own individual abilities, which they have diminished by their own poor choices. What you are implying has nothing to do with equality and you know it. Offering a person who is homeless by choice or a person who has fried their brain on drugs an opportunity to go to med school or gifting them their own art gallery is not "equality". If the point of this thread here is to say that Western countries do not have freedom, then at least choose some realistic points. Stop beating around the bush and just say what you mean.

This is anecdotal but I have a friend who works with the homeless community. One of the frustrating parts of her job has been working with an individual to get them off the street, set them up with a place to live and a small source of income, only to find a few months later - they go back to the streets and panhandling. For some - that is all they know, that is what they are comfortable with. For others, it is their choice to live that way. Again, it boils down to individual choice of what they want to do with opportunities, and not the lack of opportunity or that they are being intentionally held back.

Agreed. Not seeing a lot of JT criticism. Kenney gave his address to Albertans last night and while it was rough and not a pretty picture, I felt like he at least went up there and gave you the hard facts and truths, instead of going in circles and avoiding questions giving false promises like Trudeau. During this entire crisis that was the only real address to the people that was actually informing, as rough as it was.

Maybe be upfront about that in your title, then. If you want to start a thread to condemn the Western value of "equality", then just be honest about it. Because people are replying to it as a discussion of "equality" and you are responding to replies with condemnation of Western values and false personal attacks.

Ah, there it is. I was wondering what this thread was really about. It's not about "equality" at all. It's a condemnation of Western values.

That would be up to individual couples, I imagine. There are lots of infertile couples who cannot have children - just like homosexual couples, they can choose to adopt if procreating is a priority for them. I'm finished childbearing. A relationship without procreating is a priority for me. Life isn't "one size fits all". Judging homosexuality only on the ability to procreate is......archaic. And discriminatory. Lots of relationships do not involve procreation.

There's more to life than just procreating. And more to relationships than just procreating, too.

This virus has already mutated twice in 2 weeks - so we are dealing with 2 strains now - Strain S and Strain L. It will make a vaccine even more difficult to develop.

This was shared today by my smart NP friend. By way of a physician friend in the USA who shared and I also wanted to share. By Dr Erica Kaye... I am hearing frequent expressions of disbelief about the seriousness of COVID19 (novel coronavirus). On social media and in real life, it seems like lots of people think that the pandemic is a “hoax” or a “political game” or “media-driven fear mongering.” I am a physician and not an epidemiologist, and these are my own opinions informed by close review of rapidly evolving primary data sources. I am a pragmatist. I believe data. In general, panic is rarely necessary or productive. Preparedness, on the other hand, is essential. We don’t yet know what the impact of COVID19 will be on our population. As we gather more information over the coming weeks, it’s possible that we will discover that the situation in the U.S. is well controlled. We may find that our healthcare system is more than adequate to handle acute increases in patient volumes. I understand why people are frustrated with media reports of the pandemic. Stockpiling supplies will probably not be helpful. Misinformed anxiety can be harmful to individuals and communities. But as we collect more information over the next few weeks, it is equally unsafe for people to casually discount the gravity of this situation. At this moment, we have increasing reports from other countries suggesting that COVID19 is causing harm beyond the average flu season; we don’t have data yet to reassure us that these trends will be different in the U.S. Clear-headed assessment of the available primary data consolidated by the WHO, in conjunction with first-hand stories from our colleagues on the ground, should be sufficient to incentivize our communities to be proactive instead of reactive. I participate in multiple private online forums of physicians who are working to share real-time information about prevention and treatment of COVID19. Over the last 48 hours, we are seeing extremely worrisome first-hand reports from physician colleagues in Italy. They do not have sufficient ventilators for all of the patients who require mechanical respiratory support. They are facing excruciating decisions about which lives to attempt to save. Many critically ill patients are older than 60; however, there also are previously healthy 30 and 40 year olds on ventilators and dying. They are unable to staff hospitals due to substantial numbers of infected healthcare personnel. The first cases of COVID19 were reported in Italy at the beginning of February, and the sentinel cases that are believed to have triggered widespread contagion occurred around February 21. This means that regions of the country went from a handful of cases to a volume that exceeded the capacity of their healthcare infrastructure in approximately 2.5 to 5 weeks. We need to be mindful of this information, and we need to do our best to learn from the experiences of our colleagues in other countries. I’ve also seen many people commenting that the pandemic is a political weapon. I think it is important to acknowledge that politics are involved, particularly in the context of delayed testing and censorship of information for public consumption. Last week, a mandate was passed requiring that formal messaging from epidemiology and infectious disease experts at the CDC go through the White House before being released to the public. Leadership is calling the virus a “hoax,” and misinformation is circulating. In this time of public anxiety, it is essential that we strive to elevate and center the voices of scientists, researchers, epidemiologists, and healthcare providers, all of whom are advocating for our country to consider proactive approaches to mitigate the potential impact of the virus. Unfortunately, at the moment, it is very difficult to assess the situation in the U.S. Genomic sequencing of viral strains in Washington state suggest that COVID19 is already endemic (i.e., spreading within communities). Yet we have very few official cases of novel coronavirus documented in the U.S. – simply because we are not conducting widespread or systematic testing for it. Weeks ago, the U.S. declined to use the COVID19 testing kits that the WHO offered. These are the same kits that have been used successfully to test hundreds of thousands of people across Europe and Asia. Instead, the U.S. opted create its own kits and then disseminated kits with faulty controls. We have still not recovered from these oversights. It remains extremely difficult for healthcare providers to obtain COVID19 tests for patients in most regions of the U.S. One week ago, the CDC removed data on “total numbers tested” from its website, so we can no longer track how far behind U.S. testing is, compared to other countries. As recently as today, I continue to hear reports that local health departments do not have capacity to provide tests for patients with classic symptoms and high-risk travel histories. Despite promises that COVID19 testing would become readily accessible by yesterday, physicians across all of my networks continue to report inability to access tests. Why does this matter? Because identification of cases of COVID19 is a strategy for slowing the spread. It is also important to better understand the denominator in the U.S., so that we can make better predictions regarding morbidity and mortality rates for our population. Currently, we are relying on rapidly accumulating data from multiple countries 4-8 weeks ahead of the U.S., which suggest that the morbidity and mortality of COVID19 exceeds that of the worst flu season. Data on COVID19 properties (e.g., incubation rate, unchecked R0, etc) suggest that it is on track to infect 40-70% of world’s population by December, and we don’t yet know how many will die as a result. Current estimates suggest that 1 out of every 50 people infected may die (although these numbers may change as denominators increase). In comparison, the seasonal flu infects a significantly lower percentage of the world’s population, and flu generally kills 1 out of every 2000 people it infects. These numbers will likely continue to evolve; at the moment, however, expert epidemiologists are projecting a “best case scenario” of ~5x worse than flu and a “worst case scenario” of 50x worse. At this time, infectious disease experts believe that the U.S. has missed the opportunity for containment by multiple weeks. To be fair, it may have never been possible to contain, even with excellent surveillance strategies. But there is still an opportunity to “flatten the curve.” This means that, even if we cannot decrease the number of people who get infected, we can try to slow down the rate of spread of infection. This matters profoundly, because if large numbers of sick patients show up at our local healthcare systems at the same time, it will significantly strain the system in a way that can be difficult for healthcare providers to handle. And this can have a direct impact on patient outcomes: data from China suggest a 0.5% mortality in the setting of strict quarantine and adequate resources, and a 3-5% mortality in the context of depleted resources. It also is not just about having enough ventilators to support patients with COVID19. It is about having enough resources and staff to take care of patients with heart attacks, strokes, acute appendicitis, and other urgent medical needs. If our local hospital systems become overwhelmed, then we are likely to see patients die from treatable pathophysiology, simply because the volume of patients exceeds the hospital’s capacity. Conversely – if we decrease the rate of infection across the community, then we have an opportunity to lessen the burden on limited hospital resources and staff. The way to do this is through social distancing. This means that, as much as possible, everyone tries his or her best to avoid large public gatherings where a single infected individual could easily spread the virus to dozens of other people. Social distancing requires an attitude of altruism. Sure, you might think: “approximately 80% of people who get this virus basically have a mild cold. Everyone is being ridiculous, and I’m not going to disrupt my life over this.” But we have increasing crowd-shared data from other countries that up to 20% of people who present for testing may require hospitalization, 5-10% may require ICU level support, and 2-4% of people may die. Some of these critically ill patients are young and previously healthy. Extrapolating from these data, my own risk of dying as a relatively healthy woman in my late 30s appears to be approximately 1/300 or 1/400, depending on the source (although possibly higher in the setting of direct patient care exposures). I don’t know about you, but I think these odds justify proactive efforts. Even if you are not elderly, you should take it seriously. And even if you mistrust the COVID19 mortality rate – if the volume of patients seeking medical care exceeds the capacity of healthcare system, then you and your family are at risk. If you have a loved one who might need medical attention for any reason in the next 8-12 weeks, you should care deeply about flattening the curve. Skip the big party. Avoid the shopping mall. Reschedule doctor visits unless you are ill and need medical attention. Limit travel unless it is essential. I wrote this summary in an effort to help synthesize available data. My goal is not to scare people – statistically, most people who read this will be perfectly fine. I hope that we will see a slowing of cases in the coming weeks as the weather warms. Maybe the patterns that we are seeing in Europe and more recently out of Washington state will be outliers. But I also think that our country's response thus far has been largely reactive, as opposed to proactive. Everyone is awaiting centralized instructions with regulations for social distancing – and I anticipate that government-mandated closures of large gatherings will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. But I worry that these directives may arrive several weeks too late to meaningfully flatten the curve and lessen the impact on the healthcare system. As people gather information over the next few weeks to ascertain how this pandemic unfolds in our communities, I think it is important for each of us to be proactive in as many ways as possible. I believe that we need to start prioritizing social distancing sooner rather than later. Whenever safe and possible, please consider avoiding large celebrations. Please consider postponing social, in-person gatherings or converting to online forums in the coming days and weeks. Please help your first responders and healthcare workers, who will likely be on the front lines soon. Encourage your friends and family to practice social distancing and to strictly follow quarantines if/when enacted. Please help your community flatten the curve.

Let common sense rule. Some ideas, beliefs and behaviours should be refused. For example: Serial killers and pedophiles have very different ideas, beliefs and behaviours than I do. It's okay to be intolerant of some ideas, beliefs and behaviours. In some cases, it's necessary.

Turns out the person in question IS in favour of decapitation - if Allah says so and we all know....Allah says so.

How are you enjoying the word salad today?

That's sad. I would think, as a Muslim, Islamic extremism/propaganda would be of some importance to you.

Two of our staff were supposed to go to a large conference in Miami that started today, and it was cancelled as of yesterday, due to concerns about covid-19.