Marocc

How so? Do you know anything about religion? You keep responding with remarks that are supposed to be funny and to dismiss attempts to further discuss what you've said. Sure, you think you know whether God exists or not. That's not the topic of religion as a whole — such discussion often goes further than what you think you know and that further discussion might be useless to you. India? China? Russia? Not that I'm interested in competing about it. Are you saying I'm violent? Because of my beliefs? Isn't that hurting in and of itself? Isn't that abuse in and of itself?

No — those are insecure and judgmental people. Moral people know which group is more evil or admit they do not know.

It not always if you know what you're talking about. You don't, so you have little to take and little to give to the discussion. For the same reason French "patriot"'s topics don't get anywhere.

Can't argue about faith based beliefs, but can argue about philosophical ejaculations taken out of context?

Not so clever if it's your job to look for that stupid to read once. I think we're all pretty stupid.

الْحَكَمُ AL-HAKAM The Judge, The Giver of Justice Maybe you mistake it as bad because you know you will be subject to it and the consequences to you personally seem negative. "The One and Only true Judge and always delivers justice in every situation. He is the One whose judgments and decrees are never over-turned and He Who makes the final decision of the nature of all matters. He is the One who arbitrates all disputes." https://99namesofallah.name/

In a confusing way. Trinitarian logic makes all humans immortal. God gave man nipples so the genetic code would be simpler?

You have a desire to love everyone and a problem loving everyone? Who said there was no universe? From the psychological viewpoint, if you permit, you think you are a liar and ridiculous. Words can hurt, you know — So who's paying you for this grand project?

Do away with it then. It's nice though to make sure children in the world have enough food for them to survive at least, but some people are too selfish to give a little bit of that extra money away.

That comes from other people's money. So whether you like it or not, you're already giving money to those who have less of it. Many people who save significant amounts of money, do so because their income is so great that they can save money simply by refraining from luxuries. While if you have to struggle each month to pay your bills, clothing and food, you're unlikely — and it would perhaps be dumb to do so — to save that little money left each month; you might as well buy shoes that don't have holes in the bottoms. also, not all charity goes to able bodied people who have 'failed' to do as 'excellently' in life as you. E.g. Invalids, children, victims of circumstance, the seriously ill and those who fall through the holes in your social safety net. No one is suggesting you give all your money or all your savings away.

Intention, amount and your actual needs. Because they need some of it and you don't need that part. a) What about the rest of them? b) it is better to give the needy if they, to you, don't seem to work hard enough, than to refrain from giving to someone who really needs it, because of your unnecessary suspicions. c) if they haven't, they still need help at that moment. You can encourage them and/or make it easier for them to care for themselves (including fixing their desperate situation). d) how do you decide who has "never bothered to do anything........."? e) some people may seem to you like they don't try or work hard or they appear lazy and unwilling to work, and yet they might have a good reason for both their situation and their attitude.

No one has anything solely due to their own efforts. You have gotten so much in your life already that you don't 'deserve'. Do you even deserve to be alive right now? Did you do something to deserve that more than the next person who died yesterday? Are you just too good to die? It is not a problem to leave your property to your heirs. It is a problem to hoard money. Money should be spent as one gathers it, more or less, and a good portion of the money should be given to those who need it.

I've never lived on the streets. Never been picked up from there, but I know it's difficult. You have that friend who has told you of that one case, according to which you decided that one individual was a hopeless case, no? I want to find out exactly what support and help was offered (not just, happened to exist at the time if the individual goes looking for it) to them in order to decide whether your reaction is reasonable or merely prejudiced.

So they were definitely offered. What about health care and social support?

"Seasonal flu kills 291,000 to 646,000 people worldwide each year, according to a new estimate that's higher than the previous one of 250,000 to 500,000 deaths a year." https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=208914 Why not? It's already almost 100,000. That times 7 doesn't seem like a feat to the virus in my eyes.

I was referring to the example you gave. You say the individual X was given a place to stay and a small income, but it is not clear what kind of support X received in practice. Are you implying X was definitely offered the chance to educate themselves, to aim for a particular profession and to receive medical care despite them not having much money?

No, that's capitalism.

At this point Christians are actually way more against Trump than during the last election.

Not much if the wealthy are generous. Wouldn't that be a security problem? That's poor planning. They should be at seperate places. Small source of income? Is that, a job? people who have nothing and whose mental well-being may be poor, should receive support in building themselves a life. They should be able to receive treatment for illnesses, pursue education and to choose a career they want and are able to pursue.

It can be both at the same time. You won't deny it nor will you admit it. So I take it, you are ashamed to admit that you put more responsibility on others than you do on yourself.

They say this could become a seasonal flu. Maybe we will find out.

Are you talking about the death rate, infection fatality rate, or the case fatality rate? "In epidemiology, a case fatality rate (CFR) — sometimes called case fatality risk — is the proportion of deaths from a certain disease compared to the total number of people diagnosed with the disease for a certain period of time. A CFR is conventionally expressed as a percentage and represents a measure of disease severity.[1] CFRs are most often used for diseases with discrete, limited time courses, such as outbreaks of acute infections. A CFR can only be considered final when all the cases have been resolved (either died or recovered). The preliminary CFR, for example, during the course of an outbreak with a high daily increase and long resolution time would be substantially lower than the final CFR. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate The term infection fatality rate (IFR) also applies to infectious disease outbreaks, and is closely related to the CFR, but attempts to additionally account for all asymptomatic and undiagnosed infections.[7] The IFR differs from the CFR in that it aims to estimate the fatality rate in all those with infection: the detected disease (cases) and those with an undetected disease (asymptomatic and not tested group).[8] (Individuals who are infected, but always remain asymptomatic, are said to have "inapparent" — or silent, or subclinical, or occult — infections.) The IFR will always be lower than the CFR as long as all deaths are accurately attributed to either the infected or the non-infected class."

What protocols? We don't know that yet. It looks like it may well kill more than the flu. Though, let's remeber it isn't here to replace the regular flu — we will have both. Covid-19 might also have come to stay.

Which one exactly? You. Sure did say: Maybe you meant you can offer to help people become successful in meditation and self discipline? It had. Nothing to do with career and educational opportunities or money? You also said: I find it hard to believe that even someone as hypocritical as you would after this say that you don't have the aforementioned responsibilities. Yet, you forgot to add them to your list of responsibilities. How do you teach that to them? Do you tell them perhaps that it's okay to be racist and it's okay to discriminate and it's okay to backbite and slander if it pleases you, just as long as you recognize that the Canadian law is there to make sure everyone has the same (vague) opportunities? Which it is unable to do..

Is the same age group which mostly goes to church.