Pryor will have his Heisman, NC.OCBucksFan;1726426; said:
UM will be in disarray again.
Buckyle will have a baby.
Is there more in life?
Besides Jake's glorious nothingness that he won't actually get to enjoy? :p
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Buckeye513
- Start date
UM will be in disarray again.
Buckyle will have a baby.
Is there more in life?
Besides Jake's glorious nothingness that he won't actually get to enjoy? :p
A victory which you'll never experience, even if you're right.Jake;1726637; said:My "glorious nothingness" will be no different than yours. The difference is, I won't be surprised by it.
I can see why you'd spend so much time proselytizing while condemning proselytizing and wasted lives.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jake
Once a Buckeye, always a Buckeye
‘17 The Deuce Champ
Fantasy Baseball Champ
'18 The Deuce Champ
jwinslow;1726645; said:
If religion wasn't such a destructive force over the course of human history I wouldn't comment on it at all. Unfortunately, that's not been the case. Billions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted on superstitions, to the enrichment of few and at the expense of many. It's as bad as politics, and can scarcely be distinguished from it.
Upvote
0
You're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about Jake.Jake;1726860; said:
Ridiculing fools for living their lives differently than you, shoving your beliefs down their throats and insulting their intelligence and lifestyle if it is different than yours.
Upvote
0
Jake
Once a Buckeye, always a Buckeye
‘17 The Deuce Champ
Fantasy Baseball Champ
'18 The Deuce Champ
jwinslow;1726861; said:
How many billions of dollars have I cost the world? How many lives have I taken? My lack of faith isn't doing any such thing. Your perpetuation of the myths, on the other hand, continues to feed the religious machine with every dollar you put in the collection plate.
If this was just about people talking to imaginary friends, who cares, have at it. Unfortunately, it's a billion dollar enterprise with blood on its hands. My complaining about it is in no way "the exact same thing" no matter how much you want to equalize it.
Upvote
0
edit: for anyone popping popcorn, we're backing off
How can you know that nearly every believer's life was utterly wasted and not enriched?
That's just as dogmatic and prejudiced as a believer declaring that harshly in the opposite direction.
Ridiculing fools for living their lives differently than you, shoving your beliefs down their throats and insulting their intelligence and lifestyle if it is different than yours.
How can you know that nearly every believer's life was utterly wasted and not enriched?
That's just as dogmatic and prejudiced as a believer declaring that harshly in the opposite direction.
Neither of us have killed or wasted billions. I'm sure I've been insensitive at times in expressing my opinions about other world views. I don't have to be Hitler or the sum of all philosophical wrongdoings to go too far with my comments.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
Jake;1726864; said:
So is the American Fruit Company and Dole. Not the point. Hell, nationalism is just as bad a motivator, blood wise, as religion, and I do not see you advocating an end to Fourth of July celebrations.
Because you changed the subject.Jake;1726864; said:
You were accused of "Ridiculing fools for living their lives differently than you, shoving your beliefs down their throats and insulting their intelligence and lifestyle if it is different than yours. "
Your response is - apparently - "But I am right about what I am saying."
Which sort of proves his point.
Upvote
0
mathman
Sophmore
Jake;1726862; said:Question: would you hit it?
Come on, Jake. Of course the answer's yes. A whore in a nun's outfit is still a whore.
Is there a reason that you've been in this thread where you clearly don't belong? We get it: you hate religion. If we're right and you're wrong then you'll proudly burn in hell for eternity. If we're wrong and you're right then at least we can finally get peace from your mocking people for beliefs different from your own. Enough, already!
Upvote
0
mathman
Sophmore
The original question posed is really the same as asking, "Is there a biblical mandate for government-sponsored welfare?" And I just don't see it.
The "render unto Caesar" scripture can be used only to justify paying taxes as opposed to avoiding taxes. So Christians should pay any taxes levied.
Someone mentioned Jesus's feeding of the 5000 early on in this thread as an example of Christ initiating a welfare program. He really wasn't, though. He was performing a miracle: according to Matthew, Jesus fed 5000 men (not counting the women and children also fed) using only two loaves of bread and five fish. This miracle was akin to the poor woman whose one bottle of oil miraculously filled every liquid container in the house.
If we look at the Old Testament welfare system from the book of Ruth, we see a system that does not simply give assistance to the needy. The Israelites were to leave the corners of their fields unharvested. Ruth meets Boaz because she is harvesting the corners of his fields to feed her mother-in-law and herself.
My two biggest complaints concerning our welfare system are the incentives it produces and the lack of constitutional mandate.
As has been stated before, welfare creates no incentive for recipients to reclaim their independence. It creates (or used to, if they've changed the law) incentive for families to have more children, as the payments go up with each child born. Finally, it creates incentive for those who are barely surviving financially on their own to quit work and go on welfare. As Cinci implied on page 9 of this thread, knowing how much these incentives should matter is easier said than done. I think the incentives I've discussed really boil down to welfare's interaction with basic human nature.
The fact that the Constitution enumerates certain powers to the federal government and reserves all others to the states should make us wary of the constitutionality of federal assistance. If states want to have welfare programs, fine. They'd probably be better able to react to the needs of their citizens. But the federal government should not. Now, Sepia will probably be able to give a very good rundown of why welfare is constitutional (please, Sep, say more than "it's in the preamble"). I'm looking forward to reading it.
In short, 513, I am a Christian who is opposed to a federal welfare program based on economic, philosophical, and constitutional objections. I reject your premise that I oppose welfare in spite of my Christianity. Rather, I oppose welfare (in part) because of my Christianity.
The "render unto Caesar" scripture can be used only to justify paying taxes as opposed to avoiding taxes. So Christians should pay any taxes levied.
Someone mentioned Jesus's feeding of the 5000 early on in this thread as an example of Christ initiating a welfare program. He really wasn't, though. He was performing a miracle: according to Matthew, Jesus fed 5000 men (not counting the women and children also fed) using only two loaves of bread and five fish. This miracle was akin to the poor woman whose one bottle of oil miraculously filled every liquid container in the house.
If we look at the Old Testament welfare system from the book of Ruth, we see a system that does not simply give assistance to the needy. The Israelites were to leave the corners of their fields unharvested. Ruth meets Boaz because she is harvesting the corners of his fields to feed her mother-in-law and herself.
My two biggest complaints concerning our welfare system are the incentives it produces and the lack of constitutional mandate.
As has been stated before, welfare creates no incentive for recipients to reclaim their independence. It creates (or used to, if they've changed the law) incentive for families to have more children, as the payments go up with each child born. Finally, it creates incentive for those who are barely surviving financially on their own to quit work and go on welfare. As Cinci implied on page 9 of this thread, knowing how much these incentives should matter is easier said than done. I think the incentives I've discussed really boil down to welfare's interaction with basic human nature.
The fact that the Constitution enumerates certain powers to the federal government and reserves all others to the states should make us wary of the constitutionality of federal assistance. If states want to have welfare programs, fine. They'd probably be better able to react to the needs of their citizens. But the federal government should not. Now, Sepia will probably be able to give a very good rundown of why welfare is constitutional (please, Sep, say more than "it's in the preamble"). I'm looking forward to reading it.
In short, 513, I am a Christian who is opposed to a federal welfare program based on economic, philosophical, and constitutional objections. I reject your premise that I oppose welfare in spite of my Christianity. Rather, I oppose welfare (in part) because of my Christianity.
Upvote
0