Paul said that if the christian is wrong about his/her beliefs that they are the lowest of all people. I don't believe a christian has to 100% sure of everything they believe. I believe absolutely everything in existence is calculated risk.

its hard to call something that is completely predictable to have free will. I do understand that.

I don't however at this point in my life believe that anything whatsoever is strictly random. I do believe that things are pseudo random just as a computer can produce statistically based pseudo random numbers. Ofcourse their results are unknown but that doesn't make it random in the purest sense.

Scientific determinism is a concept that arose in the early 1800s partly due to Newton's work.

As i stated to someone else i see the universe as giant billiards table and our dna as well as our environment completely decide what we will do. I might have inferior dna and a good environment and someone else might have superior dna and a bad environment.

i see the universe as a really big pool table or billiards table. I believe our dna plays a part in our actions and also our environment plays a part in our actions (nurture versus nature)

yeah, i'm hoping our predictability is taken into account by my christian god. Just as Paul had his doubts about his faith, so do many of us.

rofl

How is this not a troll post. If i posted something like this i guarantee it would be removed.

What I've yet to figure out is why so many (a) religious believers, (b) idealists, and (c) continental philosophy fans are drawn to the board. Those three categories seem to cover about 95% of the people who post here. (And they're all like the Joker to my Batman) — Terrapin Station

i believe the exact opposite. You are my Joker to my Batman.

I feel the same about this post. Have an open mind.

its possible.

i disagreed with the original way you stated it. I think some people don't know how to define ethical behavior.

I disagree.

If a person converted to the correct religion, and then only had 10 days to live, i would argue you would be quite impressed with that religion's particular set of beliefs. Thus you would be impressed with religion or a set of beliefs.
— christian2017
I suppose when you wrote these two sentences, you had something in mind that made sense, which sense you thought you were expressing. Unfortunately that sense didn't make it to your text. I have no idea what you mean or what your point is, here. Try again?

The longer people live the more likely they will make minor mistakes and major mistakes. Some people are called d-bags when they make minor mistakes. Some people see minor mistakes as major mistakes.

Is that more clear?

ok. This is the typical tactic on this site used by just about everybody including myself. Playing dumb.

To state what is said earlier better:

People are prone to failure. Time has a huge impact on how many mistakes a person mistakes. It appears you agreed with this. The christian and the non christian will do wrong to some measure in accordance with how long they are on this earth.

If a person converted to the correct religion, and then only had 10 days to live, i would argue you would be quite impressed with that religion's particular set of beliefs. Thus you would be impressed with religion or a set of beliefs.

Most people including myself, if given a little extended period of time on this earth will make serious mistakes or do wicked things.

Do you think atheists conduct themselves any better according to what you consider to be right and wrong?

true.

winnow and glean? As in decipher what is true and not true from what they say?

or

work where you can find work?

In general i think working diligently daily is better for family than working hard everyday (suffering).


I assume that we agree somewhat?

Nonsense, In any democracy or representative government all citizens are going to be somewhat effected by other people in the society. I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Do you know how democracy works?
— christian2017
Sure. Majority rule, right? — Harry Hindu

Well to expect the government to conform 100% to your beliefs is unreasonable. The important thing is that the laws that are in place provide a level playing field for all individuals to make a living. Zoning laws very often hinder a free market.

When pastors say "work harder, spend less, and give more to the church that isn't advice. In any given situation, working harder or overclocking the cpu or pumping more blood to your brain will produce temporary better results. Trying harder or working harder isn't really advice that people haven't heard before. If you want to people to respect your incites, you need more creative solutions then just working harder.

How do you feel about restrictive zoning laws? Feel free to ignore my other posts for various reasons.
— christian2017
I feel that local communities should be deciding how their land is used for the local community. — Harry Hindu

A free market is a two way street. Local laws (just like federal laws) can also impose unnecessarily on the poor. Less government and more freedoms can also benefit the poor sometimes. Fiscal conservatism if done in a fair way can also benefit the poor.

_________________________________________________________________________

As to the rest of what you said, i feel you deliberately tried to make it as though you didn't understand what is said. There is nothing unethical about a law if it doesn't impose on the tax payer. I'm sure you would agree some environmental laws are ethical. You can't just assume in every case that a new law is unethical. Sub Blue laws put no burden on the tax payer.

cool

I'm making a comment about the nature of many people in my area as well as country. Considering most people in my area have high paying jobs working for the military industrial complex, although they may complain about taxes, i don't feel they have the right to get violent over the issue.

Perhaps i didn't state what i was saying correctly and there we had the disagreement.

When you say approach, do you mean my last post? What in particular is the most deplorable and we can start from there. If you say the whole thing there won't be much of a discussion unless we systematically went from line to line.

Or were you referring to something else?

Considering money is in some way a legal fiction (Noah Harrari), i'm not entirely sure its wrong to create slightly more government jobs with extra printed money, and thus give the economy a boost. Wants the economy gets a boost, perhaps it would be a catalyst to create an economy like the one we had in the 90s.

However i do feel its necessary to find ways to help the poor without raising taxes or printing money, because some people in America are willing to get violent over their beliefs.

pretty much.

Yeah. I don't know if you agree with the following but there is a difference between having a day off after 8 days and the next week or so working 14 days in a row. Having a set schedule (every 10 days as you said) is important for the psychology of a person. Being at the whim of all of your employers in terms of days off really messes with a poor person's emotional health. Government workers get saturday and sundays off every week, i'm not sure why a poor person can't consistently get every 10th day off. I like to do it in multiples of 7 because (14, 21, 28) it would be less cumbersome considering that is what government workers are on (7 days).

Perhaps this is what you were getting at. I just wanted to clarify the need for consistency.

How do you feel about restrictive zoning laws? Feel free to ignore my other posts for various reasons.

Most laws (even laws that don't impose on the tax payer) are complicated, if there is a way to increase comfort of a worker without imposing on the tax payer then that is what the government should do. Modern governments are going to be somewhat complicated whether people want to accept it or not. We shouldn't just assume everything has to be so simple. Simplistic thought very often leads to stupid decisions. Or we can just continue to assume the poor have a bad work ethic. Globalism, international investors and automation have had a very negative effect on the lives of Americans.

Even a libertarian would have to understand some minor concessions would have to be made to their basic philosophy in order to keep their taxes low. Any member of a democracy or reprensentative democracy would have to accept this fact.
— christian2017
Nonsense. The way you keep taxes low is keeping the government small - which is a fundamental tenant of libertarianism, not a concession a libertarian would have to make. — Harry Hindu

Nonsense, In any democracy or representative government all citizens are going to be somewhat effected by other people in the society. I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Do you know how democracy works?

Believe it or not roads mainly help people who cars, but that being said roads should still be paid for by the government. Im not sure there is any point in argueing with you because you seem content with just assuming the poor are just lazy. Politicians can come up with creative ideas without imposing on the tax payer.

Considering the future for most of our youth is a career working for Uber, i'm not sure i can come up with a good argument against you. The ancient Amorites and ancient Israelites were allowed to sacrifice their children to other gods because its better to die young and go to heaven then to grow up and work for Uber as your career and be predisposed to reject the living God. Have a good day sir.

based on what i currently know about the nature of money and currency, i'm not sure its wrong for the government to some how financially help the poor. The problem is those in society who are willing to get most violent due to the notion that the government is stealing from the tax payer, there might be other options. When i was in high school economics was taught that the more money changes hands the more money and products is produced over the long run. So basically if the government printed a little more money to provide slightly more government jobs, that would also have a slightly synergistic effect on the economy in terms of the amount goods, services and even money that is produced. Actually in my local area most people who actually have any real income are employed by the government. For the rest of us we mostly work in retail and food service.

the liberal politician that i told also happens to be my local delegate.

I proposed this concept to two active politicians in my area (one conservative and one liberal) and they both for whatever reason told me it was a good idea. My local delegate doesn't meet until January and their session is only 2 or 3 months.

unfortunately its my term. That being said, is your problem with the name of the concept or is your problem with the concept?

well traditionally blue laws are associated with a 7 day cycle in American history. The sub part implies that the cycle would involve less days off then there would be in a 7 day cycle. If that person had a 14 day cycle they are experiencing a 50% drop over a course in time of having a day off. The sub implies less than typical or in this case less than "blue law" or sub blue law.

Absolutely. God bless you sir! If it does any good i'll pray for that lady too.

of all the useless posts i've answered in the past couple months, i'll answer this one in a couple of hours. I feel you are clearly playing ignorant on the OP. I really don't feel you could be that short sighted to not see what the OP is talking about. Talk to you in a couple of hours.

Have you ever met someone who has consistently over a substantial period of time worked 2 or 3 jobs in order to stay afloat or remain what many in society would deem financially responsible? If you don't understand these situations then there is not much i could say to convince you of the need for sub blue laws. Its certainly not about religion, its a basic need for just about everybody's emotional health as well as it helps build strong family's. Strong family's are important even to those who don't believe in religion.

Even a libertarian would have to understand some minor concessions would have to be made to their basic philosophy in order to keep their taxes low. Any member of a democracy or reprensentative democracy would have to accept this fact.

As for the fiscally conservative thing you are right, but that being said, i can promise you the number one issue for most libertarians in my area is fiscal conservatism.

i do think people need to look past "poor people are lazy" as the reason for a bad economy. The poor person who works 5 8 hour days, the poor person who works 6 8 hour days and the poor person who consisently goes way beyond 7 straight days of work (usually no consistency in days off and alot of fluctuation from week to week). These 3 people have drastically different experiences. I think to expect a poor person to work 5 or 6 8 hour days to bring some sort of social responsibilty badge to their existence is highly plausible. That being said, many people who don't consistently work 7 or more days a week, do not understand the drastic difference between working one less day then the lenghth of the week and on the other end working the full length of the week and thus usually not having a day off. I've met people who worked 300 days in a row due to this. With drastically reduced zoning laws, the conservative can check off the box that he/she is not being overtaxed and at the same time the poor person (living in her modestly furnished shed) can not constantly hate whatever god or gods that happen to be out there due to the unjust laws that used to be in our society. As you are probably aware, to have a free market really is a two way street.