Key

My two cents on this might not actually be worth that much to some folks, but I'll put it in just to stir some more thought into the mix. I'm fairly conflicted on the death penalty. On one hand, the dispensary of justice for it is flawed, as evidence of possible innocents being wrongly convicted. On the other, why should a serial/mass murderer be allowed to live much longer than his/her victims, even if in prison? If one answer to the latter is, "to reflect on his/her crimes and discover remorse", than more often than not that would be a bet no gambler would be willing to take. It would be enough for them to be alive, and some actually might enjoy remembering their acts. Any criteria that may be established can be viewed as made with bias, no matter what it is. How can that be overcome in the interest of fairness and justice for all? The issue is a deep quagmire of muck, even before the issue of religious conviction is factored in. I only know that on a personal level, if a person kills a member of my family, and I know for certain who did it, I'd want them dead, too.

Might not have even occurred to either of them, as one wouldn't really care to do it, and the other may have never gotten around to it.

The decline has been for a few more reasons than the pesticide. Removal of habitats and climate change has also been a factor, among a few other points. I am happy nature has found a way of bouncing some back, though.

Could someone DM me a link? As I'm not labeling myself anything at the moment, I am quite open to discussions to learn more.

Yes. I'll only say, without "devolving this thread into a political diatribe", more so in the last three years than I can recall in the 50+ years of my life. That, alone, scares the crap out of me.

Uh, no. They passed a law there recently that states within that not only is abortion murder, but a miscarriage could come with a charge of manslaughter.

Gee, hope none of those miscarriages happen in Alabama where those poor unwitting women would be charged with manslaughter for it.

Two things about this comes to mind, Dan. One, how do we know the Laws were given by God to Moses were there witnesses not of his circle? After all, he was then in a seat of power, so to speak. Or maybe the laws were dictated to the people by his "aides", with his trusting assumption they were telling what he received? Second, I don't believe the Jews recognize the New Testament, with its attribution of authority given to Jesus. Thus, as "God's chosen people", they are still awaiting for a Messiah to come the first time. On this point, I could be mistaken, as I don't know anything about Judaism.

Just to highlight another theory that's out there: Dan, there are still many who don't think so at all. That the laws were written by men who then proclaimed it was "given" to them by God. In a time when it was blasphemy to question religious leaders on the subject of God with any doubt, which was generally punishable by death then, I don't think many would have argued against them. Could be another reason some rules seem to have been relaxed after Jesus, too, because someone placed their own agenda in it to keep the masses in line via appeasement.

Horrible. True extreme of what faith can do. Yes, it's madness. Such a shame that a faith would render its followers to be living back in the middle ages, before science could develop more effective medicine. Who really wants to live like that?

What you mention goes to the core of what fundamental Christians rely upon. "When you ask, believe that you have received it, then you shall have it." Therefore, if you didn't get it, either your belief wasn't strong enough, or God, in His wisdom, knew that you shouldn't have or didn't need it. So, your argument was counter to his belief, not because it was factual, but because it was against his faith. (Assuming, of course, this was the case.)

I beg to differ. As I've read or been involved in many, if not "most", threads here, I do not see what you claim to be seeing. A few threads have, but not "every" one.

Really was interested in watching this, but my attention span is shorter than the 47 minutes required. Could ya give the gist? Or have I heard it before...possibly here...often? 😉

These are statements made with such a broad stroke of your brush, Jonathan. While on the whole it may be a seeming truth, yet individually, not always so. You may as well say that bankers aren't always good with money. Some are, some aren't.

When leading by example, you are helping more than one person at a time. It just depends on how many are paying attention. Helping others is secondary, while leading by example is the start.

I kind of envy you guys. I work graveyard shift at a grocery store. My wife works as a caregiver during the day. It isn't often we get to share a day off to go on peaceful nature walks. But a form of meditation for each of us are our hobbies. She does crafts, and can be lost in it for hours. (She's very talented, btw.) I play guitar. I'm self taught since age of 7, but can't play anything anyone might recognize. LOL To be lost in the notes is very comforting to me, whether I'm playing a serenade for her, or just rocking out with wild abandon. Btw, I'm also hearing impaired, but for some reason tuning and playing are not a problem for me. Maybe it's the closeness of the sounds, eh. Occasionally, I turn off my aids and enjoy the quiet. My wife hates that sometimes.

I can't say that I really agree with this definition, either. I think, like the words God, spirit, or even soul, mean different things to different people. I tend to think of spirituality as more of a heightened sense of awareness, whether of self or intangible connections to others, yet can't pin down an exact definition, nor a perfect example to present, myself.

Sounds a lot like problems I've had with sites that I've removed cookies from. Cookies are often used for a site to recognize a returning viewer's or user's device. Could be it, but am no techie, so not certain.

Oh, I don't know the science of that. I'd have thought that it might be easier to accomplish through outer space, away from the pull of gravitational bodies.

To be fair, he did forewarn he was going to provide them, and gave you an invitation to stop reading the message at that point. Also, I do believe he was providing the passages for my benefit.

Oh, no. Could be V-ger looking for the creator! (Star Trek reference, in case you didn't know.)

Of course this would only work, with exception of atheist, if the aliens aren't a predatory species with no belief in religion. But if they are predatory, would it still be considered to be ideal as atheist?

But there is. He knows all outcomes, regardless of any interventions on His part. Yes, we make decisions, but He knows before, during and after what they may be and how they result. He exists through all time, afterall. The "free will" is ours, or at least the illusion of it. Our decisions are unknown only to us until we make them. To say our decisions are unknown to God, is to say He is truly not all knowing. Deductive reasoning does not make this statement as "overthinking it". If He truly does not want anyone to perish, as an all powerful God, no one would.

If God is, as He says, the Alpha and the Omega. (The beginning and the end.) Then He is a state of an infinity loop. Meaning He does know everything. Every action and result. So, in a virtual sense, all things are set in stone. And, as He is supposed to be all powerful, as nothing is supposed to be impossible with Him, He could intervene and change results He does not desire. Alas, as He is in an infinity loop, for Him nothing changes from His perspective, whereas for us everything does if He demonstrates His power. Which begs the question, "why should he care?"

But said this to a non-believer as if it were meaning enough to believe. This in itself is a gauntlet in the face. A challenge to show the opposite is just as true. And it was taken up in like fashion. For you to be surprised also shows you lacked their perspective, as well.