<And no matter his views, I like Obama the man. I think he's cool, calm, collected, and smart. >>

tga is in the process of redefining "smart/liberal" the way Abdel is in the process of redefining "free speech."

Sure he's "collected" large quantities of money, owning slaves, stomping on the poor, destroying families, lying. He'll really ring the register after leaving office. The underclass industrial complex pays quite well!

Yeah, I guess it was "cool" to hang with Pentagon bombers, in white hating churches. (cant really call it "smart")

I guess it was "cool" to "calmly" lead the Democrat KKK party, who lynched blacks and was against the black vote. (again, I wouldn't call it "smart")

However, it was "smart" to lie about
Obamacare. Voters would have been angry
if he spoke the truth.

It was "smart" to let large quantities of blacks die in Chicago, them Democrats need their victims.

It was smart to let them die as president. Just imagine Hillary's chances with less victims.

It was real smart to have your party trashed in two mid-terms, hand Republicans power, hand a Presidency to Trump.

It was real smart to let the Middle East crash and burn. (among pretend intellects like tga, Obama always has, "Bush did it")

...and it sure was cool to see a president tongue tied over, "Islamic terrorists."

...and what can you say after this:

<Obama on Hillary:

No One More Qualified, Not Me, Not Bill, For Presidency>

Smart, smart, smart, smart,
sssssssssssssssmart!!!!!
Obama seems to be "stuck" on smart!

<Doesn't make me a liberal, anymore than liking George Clooney would make me a liberal.>

GC didn't commit the lies, and atrocities of your party and president.

If you read my post about liberalism being a lie. GC fills his pockets with money, and "lives" like one of them conservatives you hate. "Liberalism" to him is only yap, yap, yap, so he can sleep in his mansion, while the kids of Chicago die.

<When asked about his association with the Clintons, what did he say?

<I get along with people>>

Trump turned the question around by making it about himself.

Did you miss "Crooked Hillary?"

<See how that works? No harm in trying it! You won't melt.>

No I wont melt, but based on the track record of loyal Democrats, poverty, incarceration, death, and a slum with my name on it, become much more likely.

This should be known as, "pulling a Bartle."

They always get as dumb as they need to be.

All we can say for sure is, large quantities of domestic death, incarceration, illegitimacy, high crime, poverty, and trillions of taxpayer dollars in the toilet, is classified as "working" among liberal liars.

Strawman.

<To me, getting rid of UI makes about as much sense as outlawing comp & collision insurance.>

Strawman. Or else the word "longer" in my original post didn't take.

<It is not "paying someone to be out of work". If it were, we would pay it to people who never had jobs in the first place.>

Yeah, we sort of agree there.

< But we don't - we pay it to people who work for a living and who want to keep their jobs, and who want new jobs when they lose the old one.>

I have a friend who for 30 years has routinely quits jobs immediately after working long enough to start drawing unemployment. He's not alone.

< That is why most states make UI recipients document and prove that they are actively seeking work.>

For what that is worth, yeah.

<To describe UI as <paying people to be out of work> is spin.>

Meh, a little, but it's accurate.

<It's like saying "comp & collision" insurance pays people to have car wrecks.>

It's like saying if you pay for a year's worth of car insurance the government will pay for another 6 months. That was the point of the "longer" in my original post. Here it is again:

It is kind of abrasive. However, you quote Einstein, so I see you are appealing to the physicist in me. I will have to mull it over now.>

Soon we will have 2017.

Strawman. >

No, I wasn't saying "this is your argument". I was laying out <my> reasons for supporting UI. I used the phrase "entire life" for the purpose of covering any and every time period under discussion.

<<To me, getting rid of UI makes about as much sense as outlawing comp & collision insurance.>

Strawman. Or else the word "longer" in my original post didn't take. >

No, I addressed <longer> in my post. here it is again:

<<<>>Typically in America it is paid for a six month duration. In special circumstances, such as the Great Recession, it is extended.>

Maybe there are some people in America (who might even be "liberals"!) who are arguing for longer UI simply for the sake of making it longer. I don't know. The only "longer" I know of is what we did here in America for the Great Recession - UI was extended temporarily.

Yes, and I found this part to have a lot of merit:

<...it is true that not all issues can be broken down into binary choices, but concepts can be stacked categorically, increasing in broadness, until a binary set of positions can be juxtaposed and asked about. >

It made me think of Calculus, with which we can calculate the length of a curve. How? By dividing the curve into infinitesimally small bits, at which point they become straight "lines", for which the length calculation is trivial.

No matter how sharp the curve, once the line segments are infinitesimal in length they are all straight.

<I spend a lot of time reflecting on complex issues until they can rightly, honestly and accurately be understood in opposing, broad concepts.>

I see human character as a broad spectrum. Take, for example, <OCF's> friend who works only long enough to qualify for UI, then quits.

Compared to a worker who has been at the same job for decades, you might say Ohio's friend is a worthless deadbeat. But he at least has worked <some>, contributed <some> to society in a constructive manner.

Compare him now with the Ohio State stabber, who has literally done nothing productive for this country. No job, no degree, and only a violent crime spree to cause a person to take notice of his existence.

In between the ends of the spectrum, a hard-working career man at one end and a worthless POS on the other, there is Ohio's friend, plus many other people at points in between the two extremes.

If we were to break down UI on a person-by-person basis, we might find some people who deserve more UI payments than they get, some people who deserve fewer payments, and some people who should have their goods sold out from under them to pay for UI, and then get punched in the face for daring to ask for UI.

But if you suggest that I only have this opinion because I haven't thought about the issue long enough, you might be right. I am not saying you are right, I am saying life is short and on some issues I might not have devoted all the thought time that they deserve.

Compare him now with the Ohio State stabber, who has literally done nothing productive for this country.>

Didn't know they confirmed him Democrat.

<No job, no degree>

Of course, work & degrees aint necessarily "productive."

Just look at Clinton/Obama.

<productive>

No wonder you call him "always boring."

(since it looks like he wants to get the latest Moves Prediction Contest underway)

<Big Pawn: ... It's not just the kids that are having their time wasted with these things. It's the church at large. Most people go to church for years and years and nothing changes in their lives. They are still angry, still resentful, still have messed up families, messed up kids, messed up relationships, unable to forgive certain people for certain things, unable to find peace and joy and so on.

People are not finding their minds renewed at church. They just go and do their time on Sunday. They learn to quote bible verses left and right, but they experience no real change. Pastors and other church leaders just get up and preach every Sunday and do not shepherd the people on a level that matters. It's all feel good stuff aimed at keeping congregations of mostly women coming back each week.

Almost 100% of those attending church ought to be heading for a total change of life and total change of understanding. This is not happening on any level at all.

Sure, Jesus gave sermons but he also engage people on a personal level and helped them gain insight and understanding by asking them question. In a way, Jesus led people in a sort of Socratic way. He employed a bit of the Socratic Method and caused people to <think> and reflect. This is almost entirely absent in church today.>

I very much agree with that.

That's why church attendance has dropped off so much in recent years.

People now go mainly as a habit, or from some sense of "obligation".

The homilies (sermons) are terrible.

At mass there is of course the Eucharist, and community, and prayers etc, but it's hard to see any "renewal of minds".

Christ died for all (2 Corinthians 5:15)

Calvinist references to Matthew 26:28 interpret "many" too narrowly.

In some respects, it seems many Evangelicals today have moved away from John Calvin's original beliefs, for example...

<[W]hile Calvin stopped short of the Catholic, or even the Lutheran, understanding of the Eucharist, he still retained a doctrine of the Real Presence. He taught that the Eucharist provides a “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord” and he rejected the notion that communicants receive “the Spirit only, omitting flesh and blood.”>

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/20...

http://www.theopedia.com/calvinism

In an article titled "Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist", Steve Jones says that Calvinism rests on the "Total Inability" (first point) and if that point is given, then the rest of it follows logically.

<Total Inability

As stated earlier, the other points rise and fall with Total Inability. They are its logical corollary. In fact, one of the attractive aspects of Calvinism is its remarkable consistency. Each point buttresses the others. That makes it fairly easy to defend. This is especially true if one grants the very first point of Total Inability. The Calvinist knows the battle is nearly won once he establishes this crucial tenet concerning man's nature.>

Steve Jones, former Calvinist, prefers Particular Redemption over the more often used Limited Atonement. He explained that <Calvinists say Jesus made a vicarious atonement for the elect and the elect only.>

There is also this idea that Jesus didn't come to die on the cross for people that <He knows> will not receive the gospel and will choose to reject God. God knew before creation who would be elected and who wouldn't be. He gave us free will but knows what we will do and therefore who He wants to be counted as The Elect.

<optimal>, in this sense it's very interesting to note that if Calvinism is true, then our Christian rebirth, the renewing of our spirit and mind (which is necessary for salvation re Jesus & Nicodemus) happens before we even know it. It's what causes us in the first place to seek God.

Back to the predestination topic, <There are many texts which speak of God's choice of His people. Here lies the strength of Calvinism. God chose Israel, irrespective of merit or status (Deut. 7:7,8). He chose Jacob over Esau before either "had done anything good or bad" (Rom. 9:11-13).

The answer given by the respected scripture scholar was "No, although it's easy to assume that when reading his letters."

That's the mistake Calvinists make, they assume too much from a few individual verses.

Predestination is a term used to identify God’s plan of salvation, not some lottery as to who's in and who's out.

It is inconceivable that God would create anybody with the pre-ordained intention of sending them to Hell.

Each person may or may not accept God's free offer of Grace.

If we didn't have free will then we wouldn't be truly human, but simply robots acting out a pre-determined script.

What would be the point of that?

Calvinists postulate that if God has predestined someone to eternal life, it is impossible that they should fall away, however God’s initiative does not exclude man’s free response, but actually requires it.

God's love is not something forced upon a person, but offered as a free gift.

John 3:16-17 refers to the whole world.

See also John 4:42 & 8:12

By contrast, the prayer of John 17 is specifically for Jesus' disciples - then and now - who will face persecution in the world.

And why is total depravity being reworded as total inability?

Total Depravity still allows for people to make good choices, including the choice to accept God's free gift of grace offered to all.

Is there anything over which God is not sovereign? And if there is, then how can He be truly God?

All Christians agree on that, but it seems Calvinists take it to mean that since the offer of eternal life emanates from God, then it must be irresistible, for to resist the irresistible will of God, would be to deny God's all-encompassing sovereignty.

So that must mean that those who reject the grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ have not been called to eternal life, for how could they otherwise refuse God?

At least that's my limited understanding of Calvinism -- correct me if I'm wrong.

However, Calvinists overlook the fact that God purposely gave us free will to accept or reject His offer, for although God could compel anyone to accept His offer, it is His will that the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ should be freely accepted or rejected.

Again, I'm far from being a Calvinist theologian: but as I read the Scriptures, both free will and predestination are facts. How they can both be true, and not contradict each other, is more than I know.

Free will: In two chapters of Ezekiel, 18 and 33, God argues that the wicked man who leaves off being wicked and goes on to obey God's commandments will be saved; but the good man who turns to wickedness will die. And St. Peter tells us that God is <not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance>.

Predestination: Paul's whole first chapter of Ephesians teaches that God <hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world... having predestinated us unto the adoption of children...according to the good pleasure of his will>. Romans 9 is also about predestination, <that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth>, etc. God will save whom He will save, and harden whom He will harden.

Paul admits he is unable to understand or explain the apparent contradiction: <O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!>

What that means to me is that my salvation is assured, it is God's work through Jesus Christ, and not my own--but that while I live, I have a duty to do the best I can. We aren't saved, after all, so that we may sin with impunity. God made that very clear to Ezekiel!

Whether this is strict and proper Calvinism, I don't rightly know and I don't greatly care. The writings of any theologian are subordinate to Scripture, and are best used not as the final word on any subject, but to help us over the rough spots. There are quite a few of those in the Bible.

Calvinism for 200, Alex.

The answer is:

<hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world...>

"Where did God choose man to be adopted?"

That's correct. Go again.

Calvinism for 400.

The answer is:

<having predestinated us unto the adoption of children...according to the good pleasure of his will>.

"What relationship did God predestine for man?"

Correct. Go again.

Predestination for 600.

The answer is:

<that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.>

"Why does God now choose to accept the Gentiles into covenant when they didn't have an ancestor like Abraham do something for God to reward?"

Correct. Go again.

Predestination for 800.

The answer is:

<"all who were appointed for eternal life believed>

What thing does everyone who is appointed for eternal life have to do to be saved?

Yes, but it's important to clarify that the Pelagian heresy taught that people could attain salvation by good works without the need of God's Grace. That's totally different from the belief that people have free will and may say yes or no to the offer of God's Grace.

<Again, I'm far from being a Calvinist theologian: but as I read the Scriptures, both free will and predestination are facts. How they can both be true, and not contradict each other, is more than I know.>

That's a good point. Christianity does contain some apparent contradictions; free will and predestination, God is three and God is one, Jesus is true God and true Man; they are all part of the Divine Mystery which is beyond human comprehension.

Your biblical references pointing towards both free will and predestination highlight the flaw of 'Sola Scriptura' and the importance of Church doctrine.

<What that means to me is that my salvation is assured, it is God's work through Jesus Christ, and not my own--but that while I live, I have a duty to do the best I can. We aren't saved, after all, so that we may sin with impunity. God made that very clear to Ezekiel!>

Another good point. Our salvation is evident by always saying 'yes' to God, but what if someone says 'no' to God? Did they exercise free will in that decision or was it because God decided they weren't predestined and therefore had no choice? If that's the case then how can they be blamed for their sinning? How is it their fault?

I understand that we are saved by the Grace of God and not by our own merits, but is that Grace open to all people or not?

<OhioChessFan> I guess Jeopardy is an American game show but I'm not familiar with it, so I don't get the idea of giving the answer before the question? However if the point is to highlight four biblical verses to support predestination, then it's not hard to come up with a different set of passages...

"And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

- Joshua 24:15

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me."

- Revelation 3:20

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

- John 1:12-13

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

- Romans 10:9-10

"And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

- Mark 8:34

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

- John 3:16

Fantastic discussion going on here, guys. I want to chime in but first I have an update to announce concerning the moral argument.

<abdel> has been disputing the moral argument with me for about 3 years. Today, he finally agrees although his pride will probably keep him from admitting it. He hates me and will not allow me to <win> the debate.

A quick recap.

The moral argument:

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist (OMV).

2. OMV exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

After much debating a couple years ago, <Abdel> conceded that premise 2 is TRUE. He conceded that OMV do indeed exist. Therefore our we only had the first premise with which to contend. If <abdel> agrees with the first premise then the conclusion follows necessarily since the argument is valid and deductive.

First premise:

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.

<Abdel'> attempt to refute this premise was to say that the origin, the foundation, the ontology of moral values could be explained by evolution. We were conditioned over many years by evolution to understand some things as moral or immoral. The problem with this is that if moral values exist like this then they really only exist as ideas and instincts and as such do not exist objectively.

We could disagree about what is right and wrong and both opinions are valid. This is relative morality.

For moral values to exist objectively they need to exist independent of human thought, existing somewhere <out there>.

What can account for the existence of OMV? What could be the transcendental foundation that is necessary in order to ground moral values apart from the minds of man? Where, if OMV exist, do they come from in the very first place?

Theism best explains this as moral values are a part of God's nature. He is the transcendental foundation that grounds moral values such that they exist outside of mankind, objectively.

Atheism gives no ontological account of moral values. If God does not exist then we know that moral values exist merely as ideas and in that case, we must give an account of them based on human development, but such "moral values" do not exist objectively. They would just be ideas relative to one another with no objective metaphysical status whatsoever.

This makes clear the meaning of the word "objective" when we talk about existence.

None the less, <abdel> kept trying to say that moral values that exist arise out of evolution exist objectively! He was unaware of what he was saying. He didn't realize that this is not the controversial point in the argument and that theistic and atheistic philosophers alike agree on this issue. Moral values that arise from evolution sans God are not objective and binding.

He didn't realize that, if evolution is true, it only explains how we come to know about moral values and does not offer an explanation of their metaphysical status. Evolution would be the answer to, "How do we come to know moral values?". I explained that evolution, given that it is true even, doesn't explain the ontology, the existence of moral values. I gave an example.

I told <abdel> that, let's say for arguments sake, that evolution is true and because of it, our eyes have become sophisticated sensory perceptors allow us to see the Sun. Let's ask about the ontology of the Sun now. Does the Sun exist objectively or is it just something that exists in our minds eye?

We know that the Sun exists objectively, regardless of what we humans think of it. Whether we see it or not, the Sun exists. It doesn't matter that evolution has made it possible to see the Sun. Evolution only explains, "How do we come to know about the Sun?" (evolution has developed the eye and brain such that we perceive and know the Sun is there). Evolution does not explain the Sun's ontology!

This eventually got through to <abdel> and today he finally made an important move!

He said, <I'm talking about moral values created by God and instilled in us by biological means such as the mirror neurons under discussion.

How are such values "relative"?>

In particular, <I'm talking about moral values created by God>.

So am I.

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.

Now, we have satisfied the first premise but <abdel> doesn't like realizing where he is in this debate and wants to move away from the question of moral ontology to moral epistemology.

<instilled in us by biological means such as the mirror neurons under discussion>

This has nothing to do with where moral values come from but rather what happens next after moral values are created or acknowledged. This bit does not address moral ontology and that is <all> that the moral argument addresses. In this part, <abdel> is talking about where the moral values go and how humans become aware of them <after> they are created or after we acknowledge their objective existence.

<Abdel> is desperate to not let me <win> this debate, so he insists that what happens after <God created> moral values is part of the answer but it's not. It simply isn't part of the question, <where did they come from?>

Both <abdel> and I agree that they come from God:

<I'm talking about moral values created by God>.

Indeed, so am I.

The logic is sound:

1. If -A then -B
2. B
3. Therefore A