The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Mask mandates and social distancing is required per Leviticus 13:45-46.  There is also other verses about hand washing.

You have entirely too much time on your hands lol

I'm an atheist, so the bible doesn't mean shit to me.  The US Constitution, however, means a great deal to me. 

Since when is COVID a skin disease?

It is a disease spread by airborne droplets.  Any honest reading of the bible requires wearing a mask, social distancing, quarantining when infected and notifying anyone you have been in contact with when you learn of a diagnosis.

Not the nonsense spread by the antimaskers.

Are you a Christian?

Depends on your definition of Christian. If you define Christian as someone who agrees with the teaching of Jesus,  (Love thy neighbor, feed the hungry, don't cast stones, etc.) and believes the world would be a better place if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus then yes.

If you define Christian as some who believes Mary didn't have sex then no. 

Such a Spider like answer. Does he give you lessons?  You turned a simple yes or no question into a mouth full of Greek salad. It's obvious why this thread was created. But I guess that wouldn't be casting stones at people you disagree with? LMFAO 🤣🤣🤣

I agree, if Mary actually existed (which is debatable), she fucks.

The entire idea of a married woman who gets pregnant - but not from her husband - and claims "No, I'm still a virgin my dear, this must be a Magic Pregnancy" is so laughable that literally no fully-functioning adult would believe it.*  It's the most epic tale of cucking in history.

But I guess if it's 2000-year-old third-hand hearsay from a bunch of "witnesses" who didn't themselves hear about it until decades after it happened, It Must Be True!

*Seriously, consider this: think of the most trustworthy and honorable woman you know.  Now imagine - in a situation where she had access to men - that she claimed that she was pregnant without any other person's involvement.  You would tell her to stop insulting you with these shameless and transparent lies.

Thank you for the compliment.  Spider is way more articulate on his worse day than I am on my best so I greatly appreciate the compliment.  I am not surprised you wanted a one word answer, rather one that actually answerer the question with nuance.

Nuance my ass, no you just simply avoided the question. You're either claim Christianity as your religion or you don't. Hell, many different religions teach the things you listed, they are not unique to Christianity.

You still haven't addressed the actual point of this thread.

The point of this thread is the bible actually encourages, not discourages mask wearing and social distancing. 

So you say you don't believe in casting stones in a thread you started to cast stones? Gotcha 👌👌

I'll pray that you all find happiness in your lives because some of you come off as the most miserable people I've ever encountered.

If this crew is some of the most miserable people you ever encounter, you'll have lived a blessed and troublefree life!  :D

One doesn't have to do with the other.

I'm just saying... I've met many people in my life who were a lot more miserable than anyone on this board (given that psychopath Tommy is long gone).

You are confusing teaching with casting stones.   

Join us for daily for liberal bible studies at The Dolphins Make Me Cry, sign up to day. Hahahahaha

Or is he?

He's Jewish and trying to get us Christians/Catholics with Old Testament law that Jesus came to put a stop to.

That is a myth, Jesus never said anything against the actual 5 books of Moses, what he opposed was the interpretation of some the laws and many of the practices of the time. 

Maybe you should actually read up on the teaching of Jesus. 

Of course it would challenge some of your mythology about him.  He talked about treating the stranger in your land with kindness.  He talked about feeding the hungry.  Healing the sick.  Clothing the naked.  Peace and equality.  He was less of a capitalist than Karl Marx.  To say he was "anti-police" would be a great understatement. 

Yet, somehow he has become a poster child for being anti-immigrant, nationalism, opposing the poor, opposing affordable healthcare. social Darwinism and justifying institutional racism.   T

He also gave people free will to choose.   When you treat people with kindness and want to help the poor out of the kindness of your heart, it's charity.  The government forcing you to do it is socialism.   

What if the government gave you a "choice," but threatened you with many years of unimaginably hellish torture if you didn't choose to do what they say?
Is that charity, socialism, or something worse than either?

I would put a bullet in the government official that said that to me first, then worry about them later.  The founding fathers of this country put the second amendment in the constitution for a reason... so that if the government ever became tyrannical like you just described, citizens could defend themselves and shut down said government and start a new one.

IMO, anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to do things like that should be shot as well.

Jesus was a socialist.  Saying you will go to hell rather than heaven if you don't help the poor is at least as coercive as taxation.

Does God exist?

incorrect

Well then what is correct?

Are you sure?    Because if I were you, I wouldn't be so sure.

https://www.nraila.org/what-is-the-second-amendment-and-how-is-it-defined/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

It "feels" like its wrong. Society today values feelings over actual laws or constitutional rights.

Don't know.  I don't need to believe in God to believe in the teaching of Jesus, MLK and Gandi.

Considering He taught that he was God and THE way to get to God then you'd have to believe in God to believe His teachings. I realize you want to pick and choose what teachings you want to use but it doesn't really work that way. Either you believe or you don't which you clearly don't.

You don't know if God exists? Or you don't know if you believe God exists? Also, those teachings aren't unique to God, Jesus, or the Bible. Given that fact, why are you framing this whole thread in a Christian and biblical context? Seems to me it's more to ridicule, judge, and bully people into your way of thinking.

But this is exactly how the Christian God works.

You are given "free will" to make a choice, but if you make the wrong choice, you are punished with millions upon millions of years of unimaginable torture in Hell.  So if you consider that a valid choice, then the government giving you the "choice" to pay slightly more in taxes*, be jailed for a couple of years, or stop living in this country is significantly more reasonable than the choice to "voluntarily" give charity or spend the next billion years in the lake of fire.

*In reality, you don't pay any "extra taxes" when the government gives money to the poor, for exactly the same reason that you and I didn't pay more taxes when Dubya invaded Iraq, nor did we pay less taxes when Biden withdrew from Afghanistan.  The amount of taxes we pay is completely independent from the expenditures the US government makes (because we can print our own money).

The NRA's opinion is, shall we say, slightly biased.

In your second link, there is no indication whatsoever that the 2nd Amendment is intended to facilitate armed overthrow of the government.  Which makes sense, because no system of law includes a provision for a violent insurrection, as that would be unsustainable.

Consider the ramifications of your claim.  If the Second Amendment were actually intended to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government, then if law enforcement came to arrest you and you shot & killed them to avoid being arrested, you would be able to claim the Second Amendment as your legal defense!

If an LEO didn't have a valid reason to arrest me and I could prove it, I would have EVERY RIGHT to shoot him dead because at that point, he is attempting to take me against my will and that gives me the right to insurrection.

I heard a news story about a Home Depot security guard doing something like that.  He got shot, but he lived. 

So does everyone, though.  Nobody follows the bible directly...and you kinda can't, because it contradicts itself.  There are tons of people in all religions that pick and choose the parts of the dogma that work for them and discard the parts that don't.

This is absolutely untrue.  You don't get to decide on the fly when law enforcement has a "valid" reason to arrest you, and there is no "right to insurrection" in our system of law.

This system you describe would make law enforcement effectively impossible.  Consider: a police officer attempts to arrest me as a suspect for a robbery, which I know I didn't commit.  So I shoot her dead.  Then, in my later trial for the cop's murder (unclear as to who is arresting me for that, but whatever), I prove that I didn't commit the robbery she was trying to arrest me for, so I was justified in "invoking my right to insurrection" and killing her for an unlawful arrest.  Tough break for her and her family!

The ACTUAL system of legal redress for when law enforcement arrests you without cause is for you to take them to court and win damages, not for you to shoot them dead in the street.

Every extra dollar the government prints makes each dollar in circulation worth less. Thereby debasing and eroding the buying power of the money held by the public. So while it may not technically be called "extra taxes", it has the same effect. Either way the government is getting the money and we are losing it.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If you take a quote out of context and place it against another quote out of context then you aren't making a point. Examples from 2000 - 3000 years ago don't always mean the same as today. Old Testament and New Testament documents are different in what story is being told. Old is meant to reveal sin in man through the Laws of Moses, the need for a savior, and the prediction of that savior. The New Testament  is meant to reveal the freedom in Christ and how to live as someone who has accepted Christ. 66 books/letters by 40 different authors that reveal one story.

No, "government fiscal policy reduces the buying power of my money" is not the same effect as "the government is taxing me more."

For example, when the government lowers taxes, that puts more money into the economy.  That increases inflation, which reduces your buying power... which according to you, is "the same effect" as raising your taxes.  The idea that lowering taxes and raising taxes are the same effect doesn't make sense.

Seems like some people want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.

But maybe I'm wrong.  In which verse(s) does the Bible explain how the Old Testament is "meant" to be taken?

LOL ... it's the story line. Try reading it.

Simplest way to explain it off the top of my head.
Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ... We now live under the law of Christ, not beneath the law of Moses. We follow because we believe and NOT because it's Law.

And where does the Bible say that?  The verse you cited specifically states that Jesus did NOT come to abolish the law.

Again, seems like you pick and choose what you want to obey.

You're just arguing semantics with yourself. It's basic supply and demand. Does government printing more money negatively affect the buying power of that money, yes or no?

You always like to start shouting "Yes or no????" when you get caught.

You claimed that reduced buying power is "the same effect" as paying more taxes, which is false.  Now, if you would like to change the topic of discussion to the impact of inflation on income & wealth, I'm happy to do so; I don't need to play your silly "STAY ON TOPIC" game to avoid inconvenient questions.

But let's get one thing straight before we continue: the amount of taxes you or I pay has absolutely no direct relationship to federal spending on social welfare programs, for exactly the same reason that Biden taking the US military out of Afghanistan did not mean we saw a tax reduction.

Got caught? LMFAO, yeah I got caught calling you out on your bullshit propaganda. Most people can answer a simple yes or no question that gets straight to the point, but you refuse to answer questions that point out your own nonsense. As has been noted by several members here, you always twist, spin, and deflect everything to your point of view. There's a reason why you usually reply with a bunch of silly spaghetti vomit that goes in circles and won't answer a simple yes or no question. Most people here already know that reason whether they will admit it or not.

Of course it's the same effect. In the case of taxation, the government has more money and the public has less through confiscation. And in the case of increasing the money supply, the government has more money and the public has less through devaluation. The end result is the same.

The amount of money the federal government spends has an affect on how much money I have and/or how much my money is worth. Whether it's through printing more money and debasing the currency or confiscating my money through taxes. The outcome is exactly the same.

100% wrong.

The easiest counterexample is debt; say, a fixed-rate mortgage.  When inflation devalues the currency, my payment to the bank doesn't increase with it.  It stays at exactly the amount agreed to when I signed it.  This is nothing at all like increased taxes that leave me with less income to spend.

You don't know what you're talking about.

No that's a bad example. That's because you already purchased the home and executed the mortgage months or years earlier at a set price before the inflation hit. The bank is getting their agreed upon interest rate at the time they loaned you the money. Just like the seller of the house got their agree upon price at closing.

An appropriate example would be to buy a house and execute a mortgage before inflation. And then do the same thing after inflation. Not only would the house cost you more. The cost of the loan would also cost you more.

You can only cite loans payments which are legally protected within the document at the time they are executed. Which if before inflation hit would be no different than buying a new TV before inflation hit. But after inflation hits, it takes more of your devalued dollars to buy the house and the TV.

Also, this is the important part------------------> what happens to the cost of virtually everything else besides the loan you signed back when Tupac was alive? Also, what happens to interest rates? Also, what happens when you have to pay substantially higher costs for food, electricity, gas, and all other essential items? Are you sure you're going to be able to pay your "exact amount" that you agreed to when you signed your mortgage?

A devalued dollar is less spending power, which in effect equals less money. I think it's you that don't what you're talking about.

You're almost there!  Let's see if we can get you the rest of the way.

So since I agreed (in 1996?) on the home purchase price & the mortgage interest rate, as well as the principal+interest repayment schedule, at that point, inflation only helps me pay my mortgage more easily!  That's literally the relationship between inflation and debt: good for debtors, bad for creditors.  (And if you're really smart, you can figure out what deflation means for debtors.)

But you know what I DIDN'T have a final, unchanging agreement on in 1996?  Taxes.  So while the impact of inflation can be good or bad (good for a mortgage or student loan, bad for buying groceries or plane tickets), paying higher taxes (that change over time) simply means less money in my pocket.  That is not the same effect as inflation.  Not even close.

The same thing that has happened to wages in the same time frame: they increase!

If you want to argue that inflation is bad... fine, whatever.  That topic is clearly far too complex for us to have a productive discussion (though the arguments you are offering against inflation make it sound like you think deflation is a good thing).

My point is that inflation (and deflation) are not even remotely similar to a tax increase (or decrease) in a society that prints its own money.  An increase in federal taxation has a direct and measurable negative impact to income, but inflation has many complex impacts on costs, some of which are good for the consumer and some of which are bad.

OK guy, if you say so 👌👌👌

Grammatical error. I forgot the " but I did italicize his quote before the ... so you could have caught that if you were looking closely.