The story so far:


Quote:

Briney GeekCrew Administrator ***** Holy Xenu! Posts: 1113 Gender: male       Re: Random Stupidity Reply #1249 - Today at 1:52pm Quote Yea that was pretty bad. To start a debate: A woman is abused. Divorce? or not? The guy turned sour over time. Can she remarry? Or the guy/girl you're with is just NOT your type and you rushed into it. Thoughts? Back to top       Jason Briney is an ultra premium amazing tasting high octane formulation designed to rev up the day or kick start the night. From the streets of Los Angelos to the Nightlife of New York, Jason Briney is a classic symbol of individuality and represents the spirit of personal expression. Email View Profile Personal Message WWW   IP Logged b0b GeekCrew Administrator ***** The revolution will not be televised. Posts: 3258 Gender: male       Re: Random Stupidity Reply #1250 - Today at 2:12pm Quote Quote from Briney on Today at 1:52pm: To start a debate: A woman is abused. Divorce? or not? The guy turned sour over time. Can she remarry? Here's the correct way to handle the problem.  The woman's father needs to shoot her husband, thereby making her a widow.  Then, she's free to remarry. Sorry, was that Pharisaical of me? Quote: Or the guy/girl you're with is just NOT your type and you rushed into it. Too bad, so sad.  You made a lifelong commitment, and you're obligated to see it through to the bloody end. God isn't going to give you a pass on your marital vows simply because you've decided your spouse "isn't your type." -b0b (...doesn't have all the answers.) Back to top       Email View Profile Personal Message WWW Meta4icality LeetyMcLeetster   IP Logged Briney GeekCrew Administrator ***** Holy Xenu! Posts: 1113 Gender: male       Re: Random Stupidity Reply #1251 - Today at 2:31pm Quote Where does forgiveness come into play? The fact that people will look down on those that have remarried boggles my mind. We have all sinned. What about those that messed up, weren't paying attention to what God wanted, and just married someone that wasn't right for them? Then they get out of their backsliding state and realize their spouse is totally wrong for them, and not Godly at all. They should be paired with someone that brings down their faith the rest of their lives? Of course not.   We need to be forgiving and loving Christians. Its not a situation of absolutes anymore or we would all be absolutely going to hell anyway. Jesus died for us and by His blood we are forgiven for all of our sins, including adultery in the form of divorce. In my opinion, get right with God, repent, and get on with your life, with God and the Word as your guide. Back to top

Im so confused! But also happy to have a debate thread!

Wow, I'm surprised this isn't called the "Random Debate Thread!"  Originality is good!

-b0b
(...THIS IS.... MY POST!)

Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't look down on those that have divorced.  That's not our place.  Even if it was our place, we should forgive them and move on.

However, that doesn't change the fact that divorce in most situations is a sin.  That's a completely different topic.  The Bible specifically says we shouldn't commit a sin simply because we know we'll be forgiven for it.

If you're in a "bad" marriage that is "dragging down your faith," I think God would want you to do everything in your power to make things right.  If you ditch your spouse simply because they don't know Christ as their savior, you're abandoning them in their greatest time of need.  I personally can't imagine a greater or more influential witness than a godly spouse!

Getting out of a marriage simply because your spouse isn't "godly" enough is a cop-out.  Anybody that backs out of their marriage vows outside of a very narrow set of biblically-defined parameters is bailing on one of their greatest promises.

-b0b
(...realizes his opinion runs contrary to popular sentiment.)

Quote:

A woman is abused. Divorce? or not? The guy turned sour over time. Can she remarry?

If he's a non-believer then the Bible says you can divorce.  However if he is a Christian than I would suggest that woman get out of the house PDQ an pray hard.  You should never put yourself or your kids in danger, whether you are male or female.  However, because of the pact you made not with man but with God, you must either wait until one of three things happens.  He dies, he cheats on you, or he repents.


Quote:

Or the guy/girl you're with is just NOT your type and you rushed into it.

It doesn't matter if you rushed into it or not.  The Bible says that even if you have sex before marriage it's best to get married right away so that you do not live in sin.

1Co 7:8  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

If we are to be Christians and children of God then we must trust His Word, the Bible.  Divorce is only offered under two instances.  Sexual infidelity and one spouse being a non-Christian.



Quote:

Where does forgiveness come into play? The fact that people will look down on those that have remarried boggles my mind. We have all sinned.

This is true.  We should not judge people for all have sinned.  And no one should ever look down on anyone.  I should never look down on a man who has murdered and become a Christian for I am as guilty as he is in the judgment of God.  However I do want to make it clear that if you are a Christian and you do not try and help your fellow brothers and sisters turn away from sin than you do not truly love them.  So if someone came to me asking if they should remarry and they tell me that their husband/wife hasn't remarried, cheated on him/her sexually, or is a Christian I would tell them not to get remarried because it violates God's Wishes.



Quote:

What about those that messed up, weren't paying attention to what God wanted, and just married someone that wasn't right for them? Then they get out of their backsliding state and realize their spouse is totally wrong for them, and not Godly at all. They should be paired with someone that brings down their faith the rest of their lives? Of course not.

If they were all Christians back when the first "messed up" then I would say you're wrong.  They should be paired with someone who they choose.

Gal 6:7  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

If you make a mistake you must live with that mistake.  If you lie in a court of law you will be arrested because you broke your word that you'd tell the truth.  There is no do overs there, no reset button.

I may not understand that part of your statement so if I'm misunderstanding it please tell me and clarify.  


Quote:

We need to be forgiving and loving Christians. Its not a situation of absolutes anymore or we would all be absolutely going to hell anyway. Jesus died for us and by His blood we are forgiven for all of our sins, including adultery in the form of divorce. In my opinion, get right with God, repent, and get on with your life, with God and the Word as your guide.

I agree with your first sentence.  However I'm not quite sure I can agree or understand your second.

Are you saying that there are no absolutes?  If that is true than what does it matter if I don't do anything God says because I'm saved.

Joh 14:23  Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24  He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Joh 14:25  These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
Joh 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

A sign of salvation is leaving your old life behind and becoming that new creation in Christ.  The way for this to show itself is to do what God says.

Let's use a different subject than divorce.  Let's say I tell you I'm a Christian and I go to church and am involved in a whole slew of stuff in the church and I'm even an elder.  Now let's say that for the past 3 years I've killed 7 people.  I'm not following what God says but I keep telling you that I'm a Christian.  From my actions it doesn't sound like I'm on based on John 14.

Now let me put this up to clarify.  Divorced people can be Christian...even if they don't do it right.  If you are truly saved and you get divorced the wrong way it's not a damnable offense.  Even believers still sin.  However if you negate God's commandments for either your personal beliefs or because you think salvation is a free ride to sinning (and divorce done incorrectly IS a sin) then you are going against God and against what He gave freely to you when He selected you to be a child of God.

*ADDED*


Quote:

If you're in a "bad" marriage that is "dragging down your faith," I think God would want you to do everything in your power to make things right.  If you ditch your spouse simply because they don't know Christ as their savior, you're abandoning them in their greatest time of need.  I personally can't imagine a greater or more influential witness than a godly spouse!

You made me think of something here, Bob.  If we are suppose to set our sites on being like Christ as much as possible then shouldn't that show us why divorce is wrong in this "bad marriage" deal.  That would mean every time we sin against God, He would "divorce" us from salvation.  I for one am glad God doesn't do that so I can be secure in my salvation.  If your spouse isn't as "spiritually sound as you" that's a perfect way to grow closer together...by growing closer to God.

X

Just to clarify I was saying that Adam condemned us all to hell, and that is not absolute anymore because we can be forgiven if we accept and confess Jesus as our savior. Sorry for confusion.

Also, this should be a moot point to Christians, because we should be paying attention to God's wishes here. He wants a personal relationship with us and to guide us. If we stick to the Word, and our conscience (made pure by becoming saved because the Holy Spirit is in us) we as Christians wont have this problem. We will marry the correct person for us, and have a pure and sanctified marriage.

I was just speaking for those that have gotten themselves into abusive relationships, etc.

MediaMaster wrote on Nov 6^th, 2007 at 3:25pm:

If we stick to the Word, and our conscience (made pure by becoming saved because the Holy Spirit is in us) we as Christians wont have this problem. We will marry the correct person for us, and have a pure and sanctified marriage.

That's the stuff!

We can talk about hypothetical situations until our tongues bleed, but it ultimately comes down to what you just said.

-b0b
(...nods nods nods.)

I for one am against giving women the right to vote.  Scientists have proven their brains are half the size of a mans....Figured I would post this since if bob come to a conclusion I figured the debate was over.



That's how science works!

Global warming? Real or just the natural cycles of the earth? Do so called carbon emissions effect the climate?

Ya know I could list all the things wrong with the theory of GW...but there's a great movie called GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE that is just perfect.  I have it if anyone wants it, although it's a file that's about 700 megs and I don't think the FTP is up anymore.  I know it's on some bit torrent sites:

http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1350552/402744/ (only if you're a demonoid account holder)

so that'd prob. be your best bet.

If not I can always file transfer it over to people.  There's this great prob called Hamachi that Briney, Eric, and I have been using to set up mini LANs over the net that also helps in file transfers...a bit slow but not too bad.

X

Global Climate change is real.  In my humble opinion I believe that all the climate change is from the amount of concrete on the earth's surface now.  Its probably way off but that's my theory.

If heat transfer were that simple, the ocean would have boiled off long ago.

-b0b
(...must be missing something.)

Oh man...I thought Stick was joking!  Concrete?

X

I think we're overlooking the obvious answer.  Global Warming is very real, and it's caused by Briney's computer.

-b0b
(...wonders what would happen without the Super Cooler?)

Quote:

UN official warns of ignoring warming By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer Mon Nov 12, 5:18 PM ET VALENCIA, Spain - The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating. It is the fourth and last report issued this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace prize. Environmentalists and authors of the report expected tense discussions on what to include and leave out of the document, which is a synthesis of thousands of scientific papers. A summary of about 25 pages will be negotiated line-by-line this week, then adopted by consensus. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning panel, said scientists were determined to "adhere to standards of quality" in the report. It was indirect barb at the government representatives, who have been accused by environmentalists of watering down and excluding vital information from the summaries of earlier reports to fit their domestic agendas. The document to be issued Saturday sums up the scientific consensus on how rapidly the Earth is warming and the effects already observed; the impact it could have for billions of people; and what steps can be taken to keep the planet's temperature from rising to disastrous levels. The IPCC already has established that the climate has begun to change because of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans, said de Boer, director of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Everyone will feel its effects, but global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will "threaten the very survival" of some people, he said. "Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible" and a direct attack on the world's poorest people, De Boer said. The report will provide the factual underpinning for a crucial meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia. That conference will begin exploring a new global strategy to curb greenhouse gas emissions after the 2012 expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the landmark agreement that assigned binding reduction targets to 36 countries. According to an early draft obtained by The Associated Press, the report will be the first to include a brief chapter on "robust findings and key uncertainties," in which the authors pick out what they believe are the most relevant certainties and doubts about climate change. There was no guarantee the chapter would be accepted, however. One of the report's 40 co-authors, Bert Metz, said in an interview last week that he expected the section on uncertainties to be an issue of contention. Among the uncertainties cited in the early draft: the lack of data from key areas of the world, conflicting studies on the effects of cloud cover and carbon soaked up by oceans, and projections on how planners in developing countries will factor climate change into their decisions. The IPCC has already been criticized for the selectivity and language of the policy summaries, which have been softened on several points because of objections by countries including the United States, China and some big oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia. On Monday, WWF International, one of several environmental groups invited to observe the process, said "governments cut vital facts and important information" during the negotiations. Without naming them, the WWF accused governments of "politically inspired trimming" of facts from the summaries, which it said diluted the urgency to make deep cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. De Boer said getting governments to sign off on the summaries is a critical element of the IPCC's value.

Here is the start of the UN's push for a global tax for supposed "carbon emissions".  You mark my words here and today...all this is for a global tax on normal people like us.  You just watch.

X

We should just start taxing concrete.  That will fix the problem.

-b0b
(...runs.)

WHO CALLED IT?!  LOOK AT MY TEXT HISTORY AND YOU'LL SEE I CALLED THIS!


Quote:

Global Carbon Tax Urged at UN Climate Conference BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference.  A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.” “Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled “A Global CO2 Tax.” Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.” The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.” The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report. Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.” 'Diminish future prosperity'   However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile." The scientists wrote, “The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK) ‘Redistribution of wealth’   The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday. “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK) Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. (LINK) In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide."  Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a “socialist scheme.” (LINK) 'A bureaucrat's dream' MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK) In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said in 1990, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." (LINK)

//And we're one step closer to the edge//And I'm about to break! - Linkin Park

X

Yeah, this is bullshit.  And I hate that more states are thinking of doing emissions testing.  I say we nuke California before it corrupts more of the country.

Quote:

Schwank said at least “$10-$40 billion dollars per year” could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

Of course we'll pay more.  Not because we pollute more, but because we're the wealthiest and the most powerful.  What non-American would vote against this plan?

If "polluters pay," why aren't they focused on second world countries?  Latin American countries are far more polluting per capita than America will ever be.

The UN can blow me.



Quote:

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Let me guess, "Multilateral Adaptation Fund" is synonymous with "the pockets of bureaucrats," right?  Whatever portion of the fund isn't outright stolen will be spent on retardedly futile environmental projects or pumped into dirt poor countries that will simply squander it.

The UN has one heck of a track record when it comes to financial mismanagement.

-b0b
(...fumes.)

I just hope that if/when this thing becomes "law" it's one of those things you have to send in like income "tax".  I'd like to see the UN try and break down my door to get me to pay my $5!

X

X wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 1:46pm:

I'd like to see the UN try and break down my door to get me to pay my $5!

Give it a few years.

-b0b
(...25 at the most.)

Shoot I'm still ticked that I have to pay 25 cents to support the UN (that's what they take out of everyone's checks to pay for the land and maintenance and all that fancy wine and dine stuff they do there)

X

Quote:

"Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor.  Some persons find this claim obviously true: taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose.  Others find the claim absurd. But even these, if they object to forced labor, would oppose forcing unemployed hippies to work for the benefit of the needy.  And they would also object to forcing each person to work five extra hours each week for the benefit of the needy.  But a system that takes five hours’ wages in taxes does not seem to them like one that forces someone to work five hours, since it offers the person forced a wider range of choice in activities than does taxation in kind with the particular labor specified.  (But we can imagine a gradation of systems of forced labor, from one that specifies a particular activity, to one that gives a choice among two activities, to...; and so on up.)  Furthermore, people envisage a system with something like a proportional tax on everything above the amount necessary for basic needs.  Some think this does not force someone to work extra hours, since there is no fixed number of extra hours he is forced to work, and since he can avoid the tax entirely by earning only enough to cover his basic needs.  This is a very uncharacteristic view of forcing for those who also think people are forced to do something whenever the alternatives they face are considerably worse. However, neither view is correct.  The fact that others intentionally intervene, in violation of a side constraint against aggression, to threaten force to limit the alternatives, in this case to paying taxes or (presumably the worse alternative) bare subsistence, makes the taxation system one of forced labor and distinguishes it from other cases of limited choices which are not forcings." -Robert Nozick

I just thought I would throw out this little morsel for you guys to chew on.  As you guys know, I'm a supporter of the Fair Tax, but the comments I've posted above raise some real questions.

If you were the King of the United States and could impose any kind of tax system you wanted, what kind of system would you enforce?  How would it affect the ultra-rich?  The destitute?  What kinds of changes would the federal/state/local governments have to undergo due to your new tax system?

-b0b
(...ponders.)

Well the problem with our tax system (and a bit of your scenario) is what should the size of our federal government be.  If this were a monarchy all power would reside with me and I would be the decider of all things...however I think you were using the kingship more as the "if you had the power" type so I won't go there.

Now if you believe the federal government should take care of everyone's stubbed toe and every other little problem...then your best system of taxing would be a fair type tax.  That would mean taking the same % of money away from everyone poor, middle class, and rich so that you "redistribute wealth" or as it is called in economics...communism at worse, socialism at "best".

Now if you think the federal government has a horrible track record and notice that every time they get involved they make things worse then you need a different plan.  I figure...why not go back to that pesky problem of having a Constitution to tell us what to do.  We can also look at what we did before 1913 and Congress gave up control of coining money to private bankers who you can't find anything about.

If that's the case then you want to severely limit the size of government so they wouldn't need to tax you a lot.  In fact, if you were to leave most of the taxing power and money at a more local level then you would have a more prosperous nation and one where local needs are met better.

With the system today it's the trickle down system.  The funny thing is that the water in the trickle starts with the bottom end...the people.  The government says "oh no we need more money for stuff we have no business in.  The tax the people.  The money gets to the feds, they take their cut.  Then the money gets to the special interests, they take their cut.  It goes to the states which forces them to adopt federal plans for the money which consolidates power, and they take their cut.  Then it reaches the local level and by the time it reaches there you wind up with less money than if the local or state level, who know the areas needed affecting a whole lot better, would have taxed you.

So that still leaves how should the fed govt, who I have severely limited, would raise money for the small amount of money it needs.  I think what would be best is that the have a budget hemmed out before they collect one cent.  Then they publicly release it so we know what they're spending our money on.  Then they collect taxes based on a fair tax system.  That way the rich pay their equal share as the poor pay it.  I don't think too many people would complain about the big chunk they take and you wouldn't need a lot of tax rebates or deductions (at least on the federal level).

Also with 300 million people in America, say if you taxed everyone $100 then that'd be more than enough, I think to run the government.  And if you say, "oh airplanes cost $300 million per...there's no way they could afford it".  Well then you don't understand what business taxes do.  They pay for the military.  You also don't realize when we send in our taxes every April (or whenever) we are really just paying interest of the national debt.  Of course that would be taken care of by kicking out the federal reserve, giving money control back to Congress, and I think having a gold standard under our money.

Now I know Bob says we needed to get off the gold standard but I don't care if you back our money with bottle caps...we need something to control how much money we can print.

Anywho...that's a big rant already so I will zip it up now and let others have their say and/or respond.

X

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion


http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY08.gif

Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

Not policing the world would cut most of that 51% and limiting the size of government would cut maybe half of the other 49%.

So let's say that bringing all troops home and just maintaining the size we have now. Would be 25% of the total military.  That's 307 billion.

Then let's take half of non-military.  That's 580 billion.

Total That's only 887 billion.  That's being really shaky on what I would want to get rid of.  However, that coming from that "fiscal conservative" Bush...I'm a pauper compared to King George.

X