|
Tink says:
=============== The fact that he showed them a higher law, and exercised soverign charity toward the woman is another issue. He did not deny the right of the civil law to exercise capital punishment, which would support the equal right of the civil law today to also exercise capital punisment. This would be in conflict with the liberal stand against capital punisment, and support the conservative position today, which gets to the heart of your contention regarding the issue of capital law today. ================= I'm trying to follow you're reasoning here, but I think you got it twisted. Let me try to untangle and you'll correct me if I got it wrong. He did not deny the civil law, you say. I'm no expert, so I'll take your word for that. But, clearly, from your interpretation, he thought the civil law was nuts. As you say, "he showed them a higher law." I have to think that you believe his advocacy of the "higher law" was the right thing. Which, now that I've untangled it all, leads me to conclude that you think the "higher law" is the better law. And, of course, that's the essence of my question. Faced with a public policy option, "What would Jesus do?" Answer: "Enact policy that is congruent with the higher law." Remember, we're not talking about obeying or not obeying civil law. we're talking about making civil law that is consistent with "What Jesus would do." So my question to you, Tink, is: "would you vote for a politician who would enact civil laws that are consistent with the higher law or one who would contravene the higher law?" As a Christian, I think you have an obligation to do the former. In the case of capital punishment, you have not convinced me that Jesus would advocate the imposition of the death penalty. If you think he would, let me hear your arguments. frtzw906 |
Tink says:
=================== Where is the liberal claim to exclusive right to being charitable. And would that mean the opposite of conservatives. And so we quickly come to a deadend, by approching from a religious viewpoint, you cannot make clear distinctions that would separate the issues into distinct and debatable packages. =================== Fair enough. Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Let's not try to define "charitable". Let's keep it at the level of specific public policy options (and the politicians that advocate them). Faced with a public policy option, I maintain that you, if you're the Christian you claim to be, need to ask of that option: "What would jesus do?" And then, you need to vote for the politician who can best implement that option. frtzw906 |
TnT says:
============== Contextually, the men brought the woman to Jesus because they were trying to trap Jesus into denying the authority of the civil law in order to have grounds to arrest Him. ================== Clearly no laws against entrapment, eh? What about probable cause? Nasty guys, those Romans (I guessing they were Romans). frtzw906 |
in article , rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM: snip... You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. ====================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman? I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ===================== No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment. liarman. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. +================= No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in Canada have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about a lie you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't want to discuss your continued willful ignorance? What happened is you blathered on about the people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak? ======================== ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you, liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it. Yeah, you were. ===================== No fool, I wasn't. It was one site out of several I posted. And it was the only time I brought it up. Right. You were the one that brought it up. You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment in the story about people in Newfoundland. They aren't waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I told you so. Then you tried to say that I was stating that no one in Canada waits for anything, which is not what I said at all. You are a scumbag. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was about only one site, and one example. You said that I claimed no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I never said that. I said that the people in your example were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and they were not. As it states in the very article you cited, they were all receiving constant care. You owe me an apology. |
in article , rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I'm not lying about anything. ===================== Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. You are being extremely dishonest. You owe me an apology, but you are too big of a coward to admit that you are wrong. You are a scumbag. |
in article , rick at
wrote on 3/3/05 4:31 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM: snip.. You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ====================== Nope. that's not what you said Yes it is. I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ======================== Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for treatment as you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your dishonesty is further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag. ============================ Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. They are waiting for a specific specialized test. They are not waiting for treatment. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, your claim that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment is false. You owe me an apology. But you are too week and too much of coward to do what you know if right. |
Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Or are you saying that it is in fact impossible, based on the separation of the spiritual realm, and the world where we now dwell, and that we are just blowing smoke if we claim such an event has ever, It's fairly simple, in fact. The page you linked to is interesting, as it demonstrates my point. There is no description of God there. There is the ambiguous reference to making man in His likeness and image, but, as I was taught in grade school, that _may_ only be a reference to our mental capacities and ability to choose, not that our physical form is the same. No direct reference in the Bible indicates that we have the same general physical form. Those that are said to have seen God did not describe Him. If we are to try to prove God's existence in the physical world, we have to be aware of His presence in the physical world as a physical being. The Bible does not offer any evidence of what to expect. Nor does it show that He is always around in physical form but, rather, suggests that He chooses to reveal Himself only on occasion. Since we don't know what to look for noe when to look, we are at a serious disadvantage. The spiritual world cannot be touched or felt. We have no device to detect it. People who claim to be in touch with the spiritual world (spiritualists) are considered frauds. Belief in spiritualism, within the Roman Catholic Church for example, is wrong. This is not the same thing as getting in touch with the spiritual world by, say, praying. That, however, is a one-way street. Any possible results of praying are covered under the vague "mysterious ways" and cannot be used reliably as an experimental result. If you want to move into another religion and discuss worldly gods, then the situation changes. However, the Judeo-Christian God is presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with. On 2/20, you said, "I have _never_ said that God does not exist. I have never said that belief in God is a sign of a lack of intelligence." Does this mean that you do believe in God? And is this God the same God that you are referring to now the same God, as mentioned and quoted in this statement, "the Judeo-Christian God is presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with"? Please excuse the nitpicking right now, for this is very interesting and thought provoking, but I am wanting to be certain that I understand what you are saying, and what your basis is for these statements. I am wanting also to clarify that you are not talking about some other religion and their gods, which would have no logical connection to the present conversation of the Judeo-Christian God and whether He has appeared as God in this past or present world. I don't think you are making any such reference, but I would like to be absolutely sure, so that it would not confuse the converstion and flow of logic as the discussion progresses. or will ever occur? I cannot claim to know the future. I leave that to fools like weiser. Mike I also do not know the future, but I do look forward to continuing this converstion in the future. You made a number of points that I will look forward to understanding more clearly. TnT |
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: =============== The fact that he showed them a higher law, and exercised soverign charity toward the woman is another issue. He did not deny the right of the civil law to exercise capital punishment, which would support the equal right of the civil law today to also exercise capital punisment. This would be in conflict with the liberal stand against capital punisment, and support the conservative position today, which gets to the heart of your contention regarding the issue of capital law today. ================= I'm trying to follow you're reasoning here, but I think you got it twisted. Let me try to untangle and you'll correct me if I got it wrong. He did not deny the civil law, you say. I'm no expert, so I'll take your word for that. But, clearly, from your interpretation, he thought the civil law was nuts. As you say, "he showed them a higher law." I have to think that you believe his advocacy of the "higher law" was the right thing. Which, now that I've untangled it all, leads me to conclude that you think the "higher law" is the better law. And, of course, that's the essence of my question. Faced with a public policy option, "What would Jesus do?" Answer: "Enact policy that is congruent with the higher law." Remember, we're not talking about obeying or not obeying civil law. we're talking about making civil law that is consistent with "What Jesus would do." So my question to you, Tink, is: "would you vote for a politician who would enact civil laws that are consistent with the higher law or one who would contravene the higher law?" As a Christian, I think you have an obligation to do the former. In the case of capital punishment, you have not convinced me that Jesus would advocate the imposition of the death penalty. If you think he would, let me hear your arguments. frtzw906 Let me try to clarify with a less polarizing example. I as a good Christian, am driving down the road going to church, and I am running late. In as much as it is very embarassing to get to church late, and to have everyone turn and look at you as you walk in late, and I being in a powerful automobile, I am driving 5 mph over the speed limit. Now in my haste, I fail to notice one of our fine public servants setting in his police car, on the road side with a radar gun, checking the speed of passing motorist. Now this police officer having gotten chewed out by his sargent for not writing enough tickets recently, is in a bad mood. He sees me go flying by, and takes it upon himself to come chasing after me with all those embarassing light and sirens going. He finally catches up with me and pulls me over just as I turn into the church parking lot. How embarrassing! He gets out of his car and strolls up to my window, and asks for license and registration. I explain to him that I was in a hurry to get to this very church, and is all this "License and registration" thing necessary! I got here quicker, with the help of his escort, and now I will be able to be on time. He does not think that is very humorous, and he insists on my L&R. After a very long time, with people looking at me with the police officer and all his lights still going, he finally figures out how to fill out the form for writing a ticket. You would think it was the first one he ever wrote. When he got back to my window, and ask me to sign the ticket, I protested that I was only going 5 mph over the speed limit. Couldn't he just let me go this time? Especially since I was going to church, to study a higher law about God's Love. He having a bad day gave me a ticket, anyway. Now should I have to pay the ticket? If I explain to the officer, or the Judge, that I believe in a higher law, should the judge let me off from paying. The officer was within the scope of his authority, and of the civil law which says if a person is speeding, they get a ticket. The judge is enforcing the law when he fines you $100.00 for speeding. As far as they are concerned, I can take my higher law, and pound sand, after I pay my fine. They could have let me off, which would be benevolent, and charitable if they had, but nothing says they must. That would not mean that the civil law is bad if they had. The civil law was written to protect society in whatever way the society choose that it needs to be protected. That is not to say that there are not better laws, or even a higher law, just that the current civil law is the regulating authority. Can we change the authority, certainly, but in the meantime we live with the civil law which may include capital punishment depending on where we live! Now if our discussion about capital punishment is whether it is the best way to handle serious offenders of the civil law, that is a different question. It certainly is one way, and what Jesus did, was Jesus acknowledged it as a legal process of that particular civil authority. You ask what Jesus would do? Even in reference to His own death, being God, He could have intervened to save himself from the civil authorities that were going to crucify Him, and yet He submitted to the claim of their authority, and suffered capital punishment! TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: TnT says: ============== Contextually, the men brought the woman to Jesus because they were trying to trap Jesus into denying the authority of the civil law in order to have grounds to arrest Him. ================== Clearly no laws against entrapment, eh? What about probable cause? Nasty guys, those Romans (I guessing they were Romans). frtzw906 Well actually they were Jews, not Romans by birth but by conquest. And yes they were nasty and had some very difficult civil laws to obey, and not a whole lot of legal protection like we have today. And yet we are told in Romans 12 to obey the authorities. The early church was also told to obey as well, as nasty as they were! They even threw them to the lions for sport! I can be glad for modern civil law. TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: =================== Where is the liberal claim to exclusive right to being charitable. And would that mean the opposite of conservatives. And so we quickly come to a deadend, by approching from a religious viewpoint, you cannot make clear distinctions that would separate the issues into distinct and debatable packages. =================== Fair enough. Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Let's not try to define "charitable". Let's keep it at the level of specific public policy options (and the politicians that advocate them). Faced with a public policy option, I maintain that you, if you're the Christian you claim to be, need to ask of that option: "What would jesus do?" And then, you need to vote for the politician who can best implement that option. frtzw906 Fair enough, and yet many issues arise in your question. If I try to determine my action based on someone elses action, there is an assumption that I am intimately aware of that person. For example if I say "What would frtwz do?" and I don't really know frtwz, then I could not answer how he would respond to a given situation. So for you to ask, "What would Jesus do?" you assume that I know what Jesus would do. Now for you to use this approach to support a particular policy there is also the assumption that you know what Jesus would do in this particular situation, and that you would be able to determine that my answer to what would Jesus do is correct or incorrect. Otherwise I would be able to mislead you as to how Jesus would respond, and you would not know the difference. Now if I believe that I know what Jesus would do, and I vote for a particular politician that I say will implement that option, how can you then complain about my choice, if you on the other hand have no basis to question my understanding of what Jesus would do. You say you are not a religious person, that you do not believe in Jesus, that you don't know Mim in a personal and intimate way, then how can you know what He would do, or question what I say He would do. You can either get to know Him, or not depend on the answer to that question, "What would Jesus do? Or blindly follow what I say He would do! As far as myself, I ask the question all the time in many situations. For example the other day I told you about pulling people out of the traffic. First I determine that I did not think that Jesus would leave them setting out in the traffic. Then I offered them water, and finally I said I would witness to them. Now I heard the corporate grunt of horror at my last comment. You were probably OK with the tow and the water, but witness, this guy is looney. What you fail to understand is I did not say prosyletize. Witnessing can be something as benigh as saying that I was glad to help you, can I use my cell phone to call a tow service for you. In other words going the extra mile, be nice, smile and encourage them. I remember one particular situation where when I stopped to help two older women stalled in traffic. It was a very hot day, and the traffic was backed up for miles so they had to have geen setting there for a long time. Numerous 4x4s with macho men driving had gone by them without offering assistance. When I finally got to them, I saw them setting in their vehicle, Crying, with masscara running! They were not some cute little chic that the macho men probably would have been willing to help, but probably in their late 60s, maybe 70s. After I towed them, they were very thirsty, and worse yet needed to pee. So I fixed a tarp over their doors to afford them some privacy right there in traffic on the road side. I turned my back, and made a call for a tow truck on my cell phone. When I was done, and they were done, you have never met two more thankful people. I never said a word to them about Jesus or God, but I had witnessed to them. I think I did what Jesus would have done! TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM: snip ===================== No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment. liarman. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. +================= No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in Canada have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about a lie you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't want to discuss your continued willful ignorance? What happened is you blathered on about the people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak? ======================== ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you, liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it. Yeah, you were. ===================== No fool, I wasn't. It was one site out of several I posted. And it was the only time I brought it up. Right. You were the one that brought it up. ================== Yes, I did, once. You are the one that kept blaterhering about it because you didn't want to continue the discussion as it started, people dying. Why is that, liarman? Afraid of the truth, as usual? You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment in the story about people in Newfoundland. They aren't waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I told you so. Then you tried to say that I was stating that no one in Canada waits for anything, which is not what I said at all. You are a scumbag. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was about only one site, and one example. You said that I claimed no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. ===================== You did. Thatvwas the discussion fool, and you made that statement. Too bad for you that you are too stupid to know what you're saying most of the time, eh liarman? I never said that. I said that the people in your example were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and they were not. As it states in the very article you cited, they were all receiving constant care. You owe me an apology. ======================= No fool, where's yours? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I'm not lying about anything. ===================== Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. And you are still lying because you are using this as an excuse for staying away from the original topic, people dying in wait lines in the canadaian health system. Too bad that this diversion is all you have to discuss, eh liarman? You are being extremely dishonest. You owe me an apology, but you are too big of a coward to admit that you are wrong. You are a scumbag. ====================== No, fool, you keep describing yourself, why is that? You are the one that has never honestly discussed the issue at hand. Why is that, liarman? Already know that you are continuing to lie? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at snip I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ====================== Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start treatment, the system sayd he cannot because they must wait for the test that will tell him how to [proceed. You really are grasping at strwas here, liarman. But even that aside, why are you diverting the discussion away from the fact that people ARE dying while waiting for treatmant? Alread know that you've been proven a liar, liarman? They are waiting for a specific specialized test. They are not waiting for treatment. ================== You really are this stupid, aren't you? The doctotr wants to give treatment, the system says he must wait for the tests that will determine that treatment. He is waiting for treatment. You are as ignorant as always, liarman. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, your claim that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment is false. You owe me an apology. But you are too week and too much of coward to do what you know if right. ========================== Yes, you did. Too bad for you that all you have is this exsecise in futility, and lies. Where's your refutation that people are dying while waiting, liarman? |
Tink..... AAaaaaarrrrhhhhggggg!!!!
I don't kow why you keep doing this, but it makes no sense. You've gone to great lengths to present a scenario that has nothing to do with the question I asked. Let's keep it simple, OK? Let's accept that JC, and you, and I, and every citizen are subject to civil law. OK? That's a given. And even if we feel that the civil is stupid, it's a given. Further, it may not measure up to a "higher law", it is still a given. Are we agreed on that? OK, if we're OK with that, let's turn to the writing of laws, not the obeying of laws. Can we agree that that's why we elect politicians? That is, our politician "make" the law. Am I correct? OK, the question regarding "What would JC do?" has NOTHING to do with obeying the law. We ask "What would JC do?" when it comes to MAKING public policy. Once such example might be capital punishment. Think of JC as a congressman. Which way would JC vote on this issue. Please, Tink, let's not discuss whether or not you or JC would/should/can/must obey civil law. That has nothing to do with the point being discussed. frtzw906 |
Tink says:
============== Fair enough, and yet many issues arise in your question. If I try to determine my action based on someone elses action, there is an assumption that I am intimately aware of that person. For example if I say "What would frtwz do?" and I don't really know frtwz, then I could not answer how he would respond to a given situation. So for you to ask, "What would Jesus do?" you assume that I know what Jesus would do. ================ I haven't a clue what JC would do as I don't profess to be a Christian. Further, I don't CARE what JC would do, because I'm not a Christian. However, every Sunday morning, there are dozens of televangelists who claim to know what JC would say about a myriad of bizarre topics. I thought this was a power all you Christians have. Knowing JC's position on issues, that is. So Tink, if you don't know what JC would do, and you're not willing to hazard a guess, and you're not sure what JC's teaching are and how they relate to public policy, then I suppose that's the end of this thread. Thanks for your input. frtzw906 |
Tink says:
============= Now if I believe that I know what Jesus would do, and I vote for a particular politician that I say will implement that option, how can you then complain about my choice, if you on the other hand have no basis to question my understanding of what Jesus would do. =============== Because whatever you say, I trust you'll be able to support it with appropriate biblical passages, citing JC's position on these issues. If you can't do that, then we're unable to continue this thread. Thanks, frtzw906 |
Tink says:
=========== You say you are not a religious person, that you do not believe in Jesus, that you don't know Mim in a personal and intimate way, then how can you know what He would do, or question what I say He would do. ============ Because his teachings are universally known. I don't have to be a Christian to know how to read. So I'll know if you're trying to BS your way around the issue. frtzw90 |
Tink says:
=========== As far as myself, I ask the question all the time in many situations. For example the other day I told you about pulling people out of the traffic...... ============= There you go Tink, now you're getting into the sprit of the question. Now apply it to public policies like, for example, capital punishment. This may work after all. I'm going for cognitive dissonance here, Tink. frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink..... AAaaaaarrrrhhhhggggg!!!! I don't kow why you keep doing this, but it makes no sense. You've gone to great lengths to present a scenario that has nothing to do with the question I asked. Let's keep it simple, OK? Let's accept that JC, and you, and I, and every citizen are subject to civil law. OK? That's a given. And even if we feel that the civil is stupid, it's a given. Further, it may not measure up to a "higher law", it is still a given. Are we agreed on that? OK, if we're OK with that, let's turn to the writing of laws, not the obeying of laws. Can we agree that that's why we elect politicians? That is, our politician "make" the law. Am I correct? OK, the question regarding "What would JC do?" has NOTHING to do with obeying the law. We ask "What would JC do?" when it comes to MAKING public policy. Once such example might be capital punishment. Think of JC as a congressman. Which way would JC vote on this issue. Please, Tink, let's not discuss whether or not you or JC would/should/can/must obey civil law. That has nothing to do with the point being discussed. frtzw906 Fair enough, Jesus would most likely do now what He did then. He did not do what the religious/political leaders of his day thought He would/ could/ should do then. So I expect that we would be surprised today as well. Then, He recognized the need for civil laws in a society made up of less than perfect humans, and so I expect that he would support and vote for laws now, that would regulate the behavior of men now for the well being, peace, and safty of society at large, with laws that they could understand and enforce. This may or may not include capital punishment, depending on the social structure of that specific society. There was no attempt then to enforce the higher laws on society at large, and I do not expect that He would do differently now, at least not until we are willing to change the nature of society at large, acknowledge Him not as a politician, but as Lord, and we his subjects are changed as well at the core of our nature. That has not happened to date, should in the future, and at that time I would expect to see the enforcement of the higher law. By the way was that a foghorn I heard at the first of your last post? Hopefully the fog is clearing. Though if you had ask your real question in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly, without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff." But then sometimes we have to plow to find what we are really asking. I do not know that you want to be, where you find yourself, after the fog clears, that is another issue. :)TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============== Fair enough, and yet many issues arise in your question. If I try to determine my action based on someone elses action, there is an assumption that I am intimately aware of that person. For example if I say "What would frtwz do?" and I don't really know frtwz, then I could not answer how he would respond to a given situation. So for you to ask, "What would Jesus do?" you assume that I know what Jesus would do. ================ I haven't a clue what JC would do as I don't profess to be a Christian. Further, I don't CARE what JC would do, because I'm not a Christian. However, every Sunday morning, there are dozens of televangelists who claim to know what JC would say about a myriad of bizarre topics. I thought this was a power all you Christians have. Knowing JC's position on issues, that is. So Tink, if you don't know what JC would do, and you're not willing to hazard a guess, and you're not sure what JC's teaching are and how they relate to public policy, then I suppose that's the end of this thread. Thanks for your input. frtzw906 I would put the word "bizarre" in front of "televagelists", and "claim" as well! If they have convinced you that all Christians have this power, and know what Jesus would do, I have some Pacific coast property I want to sell you here in Colorado. We could even go paddling together in the ocean while you are here checking out the view. I could tell you what I think Jesus would do, based on my personal experience, but then I am surprised most of the time as well. TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: =========== You say you are not a religious person, that you do not believe in Jesus, that you don't know Mim in a personal and intimate way, then how can you know what He would do, or question what I say He would do. ============ Because his teachings are universally known. I don't have to be a Christian to know how to read. So I'll know if you're trying to BS your way around the issue. frtzw90 And I would know how well read you are. So far I am impressed and appreciate your frankness, and willingness to look into these things. That is one reason I opened the subject here or RBP. Any bizarre Televangelist can preach to his choir on a "Sunday morning" and get an Amen. I have found it much more enlightining to discuss with fellow travelers and paddlers our thoughts, hopes and desires, and if someone is full of ****, you tell them. I have had to consider things here in a kayak paddling group that I never heard in a Sunday school class, which makes me stretch my brain, but then exercise is good. Doesn't necessarily change the direction I am paddling, just how I use my paddle. TnT |
Tink says:
============ Though if you had ask your real question in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly, without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff. ============ Sorry, Tink, my question WAS clear to begin with and there was nothing you had to plow through. But it appears you either still don't get it, or you don't want to get it, or you're jerking me about, or you're not interested in pursuing the discussion. At this point, if we were in court, you'd be designated a hostile witness. Look: I'll try to be as simplistic about this as I can. Let's pretend that you and I are going to write a book called "JC Goes To Washington". It's about a young politician who runs as an independent and gets elected to the House of Representatives. Now, Tink, here's the hook in our book: every chapter will be about a different public policy issue. Of course there'll be a whole interesting assortment of characters -- trade unionists, industrialists, NRA lobbyists, a host of politicians button-holing our hero in the corridors of power etc. JC, our hero will listen to all sides of the issues (remember, one issue per chapter). Then, at the end of each chapter, he'll have to decide which way to vote. Of course he'll vote based on HIS teachings (a "higher law"). So, at the end of each chapter we'll know where JC stands on these issues. Is that so hard to magine Tink? Are you game? frtzw906 |
Tink says:
=============== I could tell you what I think Jesus would do, based on my personal experience, but then I am surprised most of the time as well. ============== I'm not interested in your personal experiences (not insofar as this topic is concerned, anyway). I'm interested in what JC is publically known to have advocated. Everyone knows where JC stands on issues. It is public knowledge, or have you not read the bible? If you don't know JC's stand on issues, how can he be your prophet? Don't you look to him for direction? If you don't know his stand, how do you know which direction he wants you to take? I was confused by Christian belief before, but, MAN, Tink, you've just made it even more confusing. You're telling me you follow JC without really knowing what he stands for!!!???? That is`truly bizarre! frtzw906 |
Tink says:
=============== to discuss with fellow travelers =============== just for fun, tink, look up the phrase "fellow travelers".... just for fun, find the origins, eh? frtzw906 |
"rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 3/3/05 4:30 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I'm not lying about anything. ===================== Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, and are waiting for a specific test, a test that they will receive more quickly if necessary. This is not proof that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. I never said that, and it's silly to suggest that I did. Everyone in every health care system has to wait. Stop being such a scumbag and apologize. Or are you too big of a coward? |
"rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at snip I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ====================== Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start treatment The doctor states that they are already receiving treatment, and that anyone who needs the scan earlier will get it. But whether you believe this means they are in treatment or not, this does nothing to support your statement that I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. The only statement of mine you have pointed out was my response to your comment about Newfoundland. I was not speaking about "all of Canada" or "anyone in Canada" I was disputing your claim that those people in the article were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you agree with me on that or not, you are being extremely dishonest, and a supreme scumbag by insisting that this somehow means I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. Stop being a scumbag and apologize. Or are you too big of a coward? |
On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike |
On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
Does this mean that you do believe in God? I am an agnostic. I have no basis for belief and no basis to deny. Sorry if that's a bit ambiguous, but that's where I rest. And is this God the same God that you are referring to now the same God, as mentioned and quoted in this statement, "the Judeo-Christian God is presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with"? The Judeo-Christian God is the one I am discussing, to the exclusion of others. There are so many gods out there, with different histories and forms that we have to narrow the field to one I am more or less familiar with. Mike |
On 3-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:
Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Just to confuse the issue further, there is such a thing as a liberal conservative. The Economist states that its political position is such. Unfortunately, the use of the terminology in the present US political environment makes the term a contradiction and most Americans would have trouble with it. Mike |
On 4-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
I think I did what Jesus would have done! And what any reasonable person would do. There are a lot of unreasonable people out there. The overall message I take out of the New Testament is to be a decent person. It's not hard and I don't understand how so many stridently conservative "Christians" can't muster that. Mike |
On 3-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:
Yes, they do. Shall I requote the part about how current information cannot determine whether or not the deaths are the result of waiting? That's a quote in the sources you supplied. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 3-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote: Yes, they do. Shall I requote the part about how current information cannot determine whether or not the deaths are the result of waiting? That's a quote in the sources you supplied. ==================== Go ahead, I believe that one was written by Americans. But again, it was but one site. Other sites, directly involved in medicine in Canada say that there have been, and continue to be deaths of people waiting for treatment. Guess you've decided to take an americans word over that of the canadian Medical Journal, eh? Nice to see you think Americans are more believable. Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ========================== LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman? Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, and are waiting for a specific test, a test that they will receive more quickly if necessary. ========================== Nope. Their treatment depended on getting the scans fool. This is not proof that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. I never said that, and it's silly to suggest that I did. Everyone in every health care system has to wait. ========================== Thanks for admitting that you originally lied, liarman. Stop being such a scumbag and apologize. Or are you too big of a coward? =============== Nope. you must be though. Where's yours, liarman? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at snip I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ====================== Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start treatment The doctor states that they are already receiving treatment, and that anyone who needs the scan earlier will get it. ====================== No, it does not. It specifically says that they do not know the condition of the boys one remaining kidney. The point that they can get emergincy scans is bogus, fool. When the boy deteriorates to the point where it's an emergency the treatnment that the doctor wanted to provide right away might be too late. You really are just desperate to continue his thread because you know you have been proven to have lied also about people not dying in wait lines. But whether you believe this means they are in treatment or not, this does nothing to support your statement that I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================ Yes, it does... Because that response was not directly at the point where this boy was being discussed. The whole post was about wait lists in Canada. You claimed no one was waiting. You are the one trying to take your statement out of the context of the discussion because you know you lied, and are continuing to lie, liarman. The only statement of mine you have pointed out was my response to your comment about Newfoundland. I was not speaking about "all of Canada" or "anyone in Canada" I was disputing your claim that those people in the article were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ====================== No, it wasn't, because that isn't when you made your claim, liarman... Whether you agree with me on that or not, you are being extremely dishonest, and a supreme scumbag by insisting that this somehow means I claimed no one in Canada waits for treatment. Stop being a scumbag and apologize. Or are you too big of a coward? ================ No, not at all, you must be though, where's yours, liarman? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. ============== Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment, ================= Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor wants the scans so he can determine what treatment is necessary. Why do you continur to lie so much? Genetic? and are waiting for a specific test, a test that they will receive more quickly if necessary. This is not proof that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. I never said that, and it's silly to suggest that I did. Everyone in every health care system has to wait. Stop being such a scumbag and apologize. Or are you too big of a coward? ==================== No, not at all, you must be though. Where's your apology, liarman? |
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message snip I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making a fool of yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to the post (long ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question allowed you to meet the burden of proof I requested. ============================== Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar regardless of how you make your claim. All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================= Yes, you did. No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. ========================== LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to keep things straight here, eh liarman? It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article itself says (since the doctor in the article mentions specifically that all the patients are under care, I don't know why you perseverate on it) the point is I was only responding your claim about that one article - I wasn't talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said no one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is what you claimed I said. You owe me an apology, but you are too big of a coward and scumbag to do it. |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at snip I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. As stated in the article: "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated andfollowed by other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency scan gets one," said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. ====================== Yes, and an emergency scan may be too late. What part of all this really is over your head? The doctor wants to start treatment The doctor states that they are already receiving treatment, and that anyone who needs the scan earlier will get it. ====================== No, it does not. "While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being investigated and followed by other medical means" What does that mean to you, fool? LOL. Besides, it doesn't matter if we disagree on that article. The fact is, that's all I was commenting on - your response to that article. And you know it. So stop being a dishonest scumbag and coward and apologize. |
Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... Michael Daly wrote: On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote: Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was something that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person or any other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know that "God" would be my first guess. Mike Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I suspect you would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first guess. Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if He confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom for this long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much I tried to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such an extent that I can't even do myself in!" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com