# Republican or Democrat or other?



## drunkmac (Jul 14, 2004)

Just post it. No big long stories about how you and Nixon were best pals in the 70s or whatever, just wanted to see who was who 




Registered Democrat.


----------



## Perseus (Jul 14, 2004)

Registered Independent. Political views: Moderate.  Some superficial folks consider this "indifferent." By no means am I indifferent.


----------



## kendall (Jul 14, 2004)

nixon and i were best pals in the 70s.  we used to golf a lot and i helped him make a lot of confetti one after noon for his nieces birthday party out of a lot of old documents he had lying around the office.

despite our friendship, i never considered going republican.  im still to this day a proud card carrying member of the whig party.


----------



## mdnky (Jul 14, 2004)

Registered Independent...I vote for the one who'll do the best job, regardless of his party affiliation.


----------



## Satcomer (Jul 15, 2004)

Republican - Moderate and wishing Elizabeth Dole had won the nomination last time around (remember she tried).


----------



## Harvestr (Jul 15, 2004)

Republican because I think logically and therefore understand that a war on terrorism doesn't just mean a war on Afgahnistan or Bin Laden.


----------



## adambyte (Jul 15, 2004)

Registered democrat. 

Though plenty of Democrats piss me off, and I like John McCain to some extent.


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 15, 2004)

Shouldn't this be a poll?

Democrat.


----------



## chevy (Jul 15, 2004)

I don't know much about american politics... but it looks like "logical" is used instead of "simple". Maybe not everything is that "logical" or "simple". I have no clue what this means for internal US politics. I just understand that sometimes the "simple" or "logical" ideas do not apply everywhere, and for sure not in countries with a long history (I mean more than a few hundred years) and a complex organization of their society.


----------



## chevy (Jul 15, 2004)

You asked for a poll, here it is ! (nothing official, of course !!!, don't take it too serious: we will not chose the next US president here, most of you will have another opportunity to tell who you want)


----------



## Satcomer (Jul 15, 2004)

A pool Chevy?  Do you use a solar cover on it, i dislike cold water swimming.


----------



## chevy (Jul 15, 2004)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 15, 2004)

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean.



He's commenting on your misspelling 'poll' as 'pool'.


----------



## chevy (Jul 15, 2004)

ok, sorry for that ! nice observation !


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 15, 2004)

I voted choice 3, D with some R.

I favor many ideas thought of as liberal, such as: 
-Keep the Bible out of our lawbooks
-Provide some (though not unlimited) safety net for our citizens who suffer terrible setbacks through no fault of their own
-Protect the environment even if it bites into profits - there are always new ways to make money, but only one biosphere.
-Equal rights for every gender, race, and sexual orientation
-Our country should behave as a citizen of the world, not as the neighborhood bully

But there are some conservative ideas I like too
-Smaller government 
-Fiscal responsibility
-In some cases, the death penalty is justified.
-Personal responsibility; ie fewer laws whose only function is to protect people from their own stupidity; fewer ways for killers, rapists etc. to escape punishment.
-I never thought of this as a Republican idea until recently, but go figure: Human Space Exploration.  Strongly in favor of that.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 15, 2004)

Harvestr said:
			
		

> Republican because I think logically and therefore understand that a war on terrorism doesn't just mean a war on Afgahnistan or Bin Laden.


Yep. I agree... It means following the "logical" argument that the Iraqi's must be to blame. After all... How else would they have been able to acquire so much oil.


----------



## adambyte (Jul 17, 2004)

Aww, Tommy, don't be so harsh...  Just because the poor sap thinks there is a link between Saddam and terrorists doesn't make him or her a bad person... we just need to enlighten these people; let them realize that the reasons terrorists are _in_ Iraq is *only because we invaded in the first place.*

I don't claim that Democrats have a monopoly on "logic," or anything like that, but once you realize who's who in the world, and you realize that hatered only breeds more hatred, I think you're at least a little closer to enlightenment.


----------



## mi5moav (Jul 17, 2004)

Being from a different country I couldn't vote but I would have to lean toward many of your democratic ideals. Though we do favor much harsher criminal penalties and would like to see cruel and unusual punishment brought back to the states. Embarasement and public humility cut back on crimes quite a bit. All I care about is please don't take my pineapple sweet away from me.


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

Go Christians!


----------



## Harvestr (Jul 17, 2004)

adambyte, maybe you don't understand that a War on Terrorism is a war agasinst TERRORISTS!

Hatred breeds more hatred? What do you propose we do then, fight terrorists with flowers and song? I bet you are an appeaser. If you are, then history proves your way of dealing with killers doesn't work. It never has and never will. I'm all for peaceful negotiations, but if those do not work and the other side decides it is going to continue to spread despotism across its country and spread terrorism as well, then military action is necessary. Sad but true is this reality of our world, yet it isn't going to change. A link between Sadam and 9/11? You are right, it might not exist, but do you honestly think he has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism at all. Come on dude, don't be that naive/stupid. If you honestly think he didn't have anything at all, then that is sad. We know for a fact that he used chemical weapons on his own people in the past. We know he hates us and he is a rich dictator that has commited terroristic acts in the past. So, he is on the list of targets in the War on Terrorism. Save up your tears for the next war. Yes ye of little intelect, there will be more wars. Unless you want to risk your life on the actions of terrorists within our shores, I say you just sit back and enjoy the comforts and security provide to you by the efforts of Bush and other like minded people who understand that evil exists and it will grow unless you stamp it out.


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

Go Harvestr! 

I'm the Conservative Cheer-Leader! HA!


----------



## Cat (Jul 17, 2004)

> A link between Sadam and 9/11? You are right, it might not exist, but do you honestly think he has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism at all. Come on dude, don't be that naive/stupid. If you honestly think he didn't have anything at all, then that is sad.


 Sadam's Iraq was a *secular* military dictature, Saddam actively opposed religious fundamentalism as it threatened his power.



> We know for a fact that he used chemical weapons on his own people in the past.


 He used chemical weapons on a curd village, which he didn't exactly considered to be "his own people". the curds were revolting and didn't exactly consider Saddam their leader. So the "his own people" isn't quite right. Moreover what you could have rather claimed is that he used chemical weapons in his war against Iran. This war, by the way, was supported and partially paid for by the USA. 



> We know he hates us and he is a rich dictator that has commited terroristic acts in the past.


 Have you ever honestly asked yourself why Saddam and many others hate the USA? Has ever the idea that they could have reasons (good or bad) to hate you? Did you ever consider addressing those possible reasons with diplomacy instead of using military pressure? Saddam might have been personally rich, but Iraq was (and still is) bankrupt. It couldn't have invaded a child's sandbox if it had wanted to.



> So, he is on the list of targets in the War on Terrorism. Save up your tears for the next war. Yes ye of little intelect, there will be more wars.


When does the War on Hunger start? Or the War on Poverty?



> Unless you want to risk your life on the actions of terrorists within our shores, I say you just sit back and enjoy the comforts and security provide to you by the efforts of Bush and other like minded people who understand that evil exists and it will grow unless you stamp it out.


Actually Afghanistan still has no democracy or freedom, Iraq is still not secure, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, the 9-11 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia  against which nothing is being done and Bin Laden is still on the loose ... tell me, how has all that made the USA or the rest of the world more secure?

Your war on terrorism fights symptoms, not causes.


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 17, 2004)

ok, this is exactly the sort of thing I was worried would happen here.   

As more than one commentator has said, it's become virtually impossible to have a civil discussion about politics in this country.  I can't see any way the previous post can be regarded as anything other than a personal attack...?

EDIT: while I was typing, several more posts occurred.   I was referring to Harvestr's .

I "vote" we abandon this thread; if you want to have a political pie-fight, there are many more appropriate places than macosx.com -- even the cafe section.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 17, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> Go Christians!





			
				ScottW said:
			
		

> I'm the Conservative Cheer-Leader! HA!


Since there are 0 votes for "Pure R" and "ideas can change people", I guess we should assume that yours is a vote for "religion is more important that politics".

 Since no one here thinks that ideas can change people, then I don't see the point in arguing. Obviously this is like an inkblot test. Some of you see Terror in every blot. Some of us see only blots of ink. 

 I know for a fact the "intellegence" the public is seeing is highly vetted and what's under the "Classified" inked out sections won't be known until generations from now.

  I wonder how long until we have the computer-age digital version of the Nixon tapes?


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 17, 2004)

Political tangent...

   Is there any way of determining which of our elected officials use Mac's vs. PC's?

   If so, maybe we can all unite in support of our Mac using leaders?




  Edit: Oh... I see that brianleahy just created a thread on this very topic! Perfect timing!

 Edit #2: Double funny.. brian just posted the response below as I was editing this one! lol


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 17, 2004)

TommyWillB said:
			
		

> Political tangent...
> 
> Is there any way of determining which of our elected officials use Mac's vs. PC's?
> 
> If so, maybe we can all unite in support of our Mac using leaders?



Funny you should mention that:
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44945


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Face it, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not... God is in control. Seriously.

There is no reason to question why the central point of the entire world is around Israel. Heck, no other place in the world (which makes news) has a place that two religious organizations claim as their own... that God has given them.

The Jews believe that Israel is their God given land and the temple mount is Holy. The muslims believe that the temple mount is theirs and Jerusalem is their land. Hence, the dome of the rock and what not.

Now, some of you might just see this as a long standing bickering going on... but take if from a different perspective...

Suppose that Israel is God's given land for the Jews. Suppose, for the sake of this conversation, the Jews serve the one true God, the only God, the God the created the heavens and the earth, the same God that created you.

Now, the muslims serve, not the one true God, but another god... and let's say, for the sake of this conversation that is Satan.

Now, for the sake of this conversation... let's analyze what is going on here. God gives a land to His people. It is also the exact location that Jesus will return and setup His Kingdom... yep, in Israel. Now... considering spiritual warfare... let's consider that Satan is attempting to thwart the coming Kingdom of God (as though he really could). Build a building on the site, create havoc for the Jews.. make the Jews question their own God.

Wow... you say.. Scott, that makes for a fantastic story. Thanks, but no thanks.

Now, for the sake of this conversation, humor me now... that this *IS* what is going on. That the turmoil in Iraq, in Iran, in Syria, and all around that area of the world... is in constant turmoil? Why... cause of this spiritual warfare. It goes on not just in Israel, but in every country, against every person including those on this forum.

Since you are humoring me in this view point and in this "story" let's take into account what the Bible predicts about coming times... that the war of Armageddon has what? All forces of the world heading toward Israel, to destroy it. Could the USA be part of this? Maybe? Maybe not. What about the EU? Of course... many see (although just human abilities here) that the President of the new EU (maybe not the current one) is the person who will make peace with Israel. The Bible says that prior to this world ending war, that a 7 year peace treaty will be signed for peace for Israel. Hmmm... someone who could use peace right now is Israel. 

Interestingly... the Bible says the person who signs this accord with Israel, is the anti-Christ. The number of his name is 666. Although still surrounded in mystery on what that really is... but did you know that the number of the bill or amendment or whatever of the EU that creates the Presidential position of the EU is 666. That is not a joke.

I'm not say it will be a EU President, that is just a theory, but what the Bible says, has always been true and will continue to be true.

So, whether you think all this is for a war, whether or not you think that leaders of countries are selected by people, whether or not you think that the war on poverty is going to solve world issues... think again.

An interesting book review I heard recently that you the USA has three possible methods to solve the war on terrorism (secular view BTW)...

1) Firewall off the USA from all outsiders. Not really possible.

2) Go after and kill all the terrorist. Not possible because more are being created daily than could be killed.

3) Go in and setup democracy and bring OUR world, our way of life, technology, freedoms and what not and introduce it to the middle east. (this is what the USA chose on options)

The terrorists want to impose their view of the world... and keep technology out of the hands of the people. Look at Iraq under Saddam. What little technology did they have to communicate or know what was going on outside the country. 

By introducing our method of life and our technology... the people taste it and don't want to go back. If we can push THe REAL WORLD into the middle east faster than the terrorist can push their way of life onto those countries and into the rest of the world... that is the way you win the war on terror.

But, no matter the view, no matter even my view... God is in control and ALL THINGS work toward the Glory of God... even those things we might deem bad.

Scott


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 17, 2004)

Great, politics AND religion now.   Plus duelling condescension. 

I got my fill of this in the Darwin/Evolution thread earlier this year, and that one was conducted with an unprecedented degree of mutual respect and civility.   This thread's history can't compare.

Count me out.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jul 17, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> ...whether you like it or not... God is in control. Seriously.
> 
> There is no reason to question...
> 
> ...


Sheesh...

  I thought you said you were a "cheer leader". Not a very cheery view you've got my friend.

 Doom,gloom, fire and brimstone cometh... Why even bother having opinions about cool Mac's when clearly they are the work of the atheiset devil Steve Jobs? Why even think at all since all things are already decided and there are "no questions"?


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

Doom and Gloom? Quite the contrary.  In fact, I know where I will be when my life passes on this earth. So... I do have something to look forward too.

Although you are free to make your own decisions, God fore-knew the decisions you would make... even before you where created. Being a just God, creating a man who will not follow you, is the ultimate in free choice. You have the choice to serve or not to serve, to believe or not to believe. God gives you the gift of everlasting life through Christ, all you have to do is believe. Best gift I have ever received or will ever. 

It doesn't matter your past, your current situation... how bad you have been or how good you think you are... all can receive.

Scott


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 17, 2004)

There is no logical way to reconcile that God both knew in advance every choice each of us would make AND that He gave us free will.

Any creature whose every move can be predicted in advance has no free will; only, perhaps, the illusion of it.


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

Brian, I thought you took your ball and bat and went home? Glad you could stay.

You need to think about this differently...

You are driving down the road and you come to a red light. Your options are to turn left or right. Your turn left. You freely made the decision to turn left.

God, being all knowing... KNEW that you would make a decision to turn left instead of turning right. Just because He knew it doesn't mean you didn't have free choice in the matter. He didn't predestine you to turn left, you turned left on your own. Simple because he knew that information doesn't mean we don't have free will.

Another example..

Although this is a very POOR example because we humans can't predict very well... but consider a severe thunderstorm. We can see it on radar, we know the approx direction it is going and when it will cross a certain area of a county. Simply because  we know the general direction of the storm and it's direction... doesn't mean the storm still doesn't have the ability to go in it's own direction.

Of course... God knows where the storm will be, what it will do and how many rain drops fell... even before time began. So the storm example is not a really good anology, but clearly shows that pre-knowledge doesn't necessarily mean control of.


----------



## Harvestr (Jul 17, 2004)

Cat, I know why Sadam hates us, and why others hate us and it is not our fault. Sure, the orginal disagreement may be based off something we did, but the reaction is unjustified no matter how you look at it. If you honestly think we DESERVE 9/11 and other such actions, then I feel very sorry for you. Many nations piss one another off, but you don't see them jumping on planes and taking out each others citizens with them. Hell, if the U.S. and Russia acted like these terrorists, we would have nuced each other to hell in the 1980s and we would be blowing up building in France right now.

Your "US is the real evil" is typical leftist rhetoric that I could have taken right out of Sean Hannity's book, Deliver Us from Evil. You are ignorant to the fact that no matter what we do, others will hate us. If a country has a problem with us, then lets negotiate and come to an agreement. Yet if they avoid that course of action and instead attack us and kill us, then all diplomacy is out the window.

You also have forgotten about the 15 years that we used diplomacy in Iraq. UN weapons inspectors that were not given access to certain areas of Iraq, buildings that were off limits, resolutions that he broke, etc., etc. We put up with that for 15 years. Why do you think such a course was going to suddenly change for the better. You think 16 years is the gestation period for the birth of civility from a known terrorist regiem? I think anyone who backs their thinking with a good amount of logic would agree that his time should have been up a long time ago.

Your theory of appeasement and containment has never worked, EVER! Try looking at Chamberlain vs. Churchill for a good example. Then we have Carter weaken the hell out of the US, Reagan builds us up. Clinton tears it down, Bush is building it back up. Yes, Clinton tore it down for all you Clinton fans. Y2k and the tech boom along with the boom of day trading is what created our prosperity back then, not Bill the shlongmeister Clintonista. USS Cole, US Embassy bombed, and the first attack on the trade centers, all under Clinton. What did he do? NOTHING! He sent our guys into get slaughtered by sending too few, in Somalia and other areas. None of that got blamed on him, yet Bush comes along and stands up for your right to defend ourselves and you all get bent out of shape. It is understandable though. I mean afterall, most of you small brained liberals have forgotten about 9/11. Ann Coalter is right - "for liberals, history starts this morning."

Bush will win in November and all you liberals can enjoy the further decay of your lost, no good, dying, rotting, never has been never will be anything but crap party known as the Demorcraps.


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

Harvestr said:
			
		

> Cat, I know why Sadam hates us, and why others hate us and it is not our fault. Sure, the orginal disagreement may be based off something we did, but the reaction is unjustified no matter how you look at it. If you honestly think we DESERVE 9/11 and other such actions, then I feel very sorry for you. Many nations piss one another off, but you don't see them jumping on planes and taking out each others citizens with them. Hell, if the U.S. and Russia acted like these terrorists, we would have nuced each other to hell in the 1980s and we would be blowing up building in France right now.
> 
> Your "US is the real evil" is typical leftist rhetoric that I could have taken right out of Sean Hannity's book, Deliver Us from Evil. You are ignorant to the fact that no matter what we do, others will hate us. If a country has a problem with us, then lets negotiate and come to an agreement. Yet if they avoid that course of action and instead attack us and kill us, then all diplomacy is out the window.
> 
> ...


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 17, 2004)

> I thought you took your ball and bat and went home?


I should have; I SO should have.  I have way too much to do today to spend it all here.

Most people might say that the most devastating thing to religious faith would be to prove the non-existence of God.   I would disagree: I think it would be far more devastating to prove that there IS a God, but that he doesn't give a flying f*ck about humanity.  This, frankly, is about where I am at, in my heart of hearts.

Let's follow this line of reasoning, and tell me if you disagree at any point:

God gives us free will

However, it seems to me that you are saying that God knows enough about each of us that He can predict, in advance, with total certainty - what decisions we will make based on free will.


God created each one of us, as well as each of our parents, and each of the people that will influence our lives.
God, being omniscient, also knows about every external circumstance that can possibly affect our lives.
Hence, it would appear to follow that nothing that happens to us, nor anything that any of us would ever do could conceivably surprise God.

Most religions hold that God rewards us for doing certain things, and punishes us for doing others

Therefore, God knows before we are born whether we'll be going to heaven or hell, at which point he COULD elect NOT to create us, or could create us differently if he so wished, or else (being omnipotent) could alter the circumstances of our lives so that we would unerringly make the decisions that would land us in heaven.

I thus conclude that, if all of the foregoing is true, if anyone ever goes to hell, it means God really couldn't care less what happens to us.

EDIT: Furthermore, unless you believe in reincarnation, the entire point of heaven and hell are kinda fuzzy; your destiny is set in advance, and once you're dead, you're done.  It's not like you'll have some subliminal memory of fire & brimstone to keep you on the straight & narrow next time.


----------



## Harvestr (Jul 17, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

>



Thx

I just know that I am not going to risk my own life and the life of all Americans on whether or not we can make a terrorist like us. If they want to treaten us with random attacks that kill our people and that we have little defense against, then it is our duty as Zell Miller says (one of the few high rank liberals that has a brain) "to take the fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us." That is our duty and if you don't understand that, it is your job to get out of our way.


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> God gives us free will
> 
> However, it seems to me that you are saying that God knows enough about each of us that He can predict, in advance, with total certainty - what decisions we will make based on free will.
> 
> ...



Salvation is based on faith alone, not based upon words or deeds. There is no amount of money you can give to the church, there are not x number days you have to attend church to be saved. You are only saved based upon faith. The Bible clear says the path to heaven is narrow, but the path to destruction is wide. You can only get into heave based upon your faith.

THAT SAID... as a Christian we are rewarded with crowns when we go to heaven, based upon our works. This doesn't effect our ability to get through the gates, just what "rewards" we get in heaven. Of course, being the good servants that we are... instead of keeping those crowns, we turn around and give them back to Jesus, who paid the ultimate price so that we can have eternal life in heaven.



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Therefore, God knows before we are born whether we'll be going to heaven or hell, at which point he COULD elect NOT to create us, or could create us differently if he so wished, or else (being omnipotent) could alter the circumstances of our lives so that we would unerringly make the decisions that would land us in heaven.
> 
> I thus conclude that, if all of the foregoing is true, if anyone ever goes to hell, it means God really couldn't care less what happens to us.



Brian, in your example above, you do away with free will, and you create just exactly the type of person you don't want to be... no free will. If God strictly created based upon future outcome, then you have what you seem to disagree think God is now... with predestination. So your above example conflicts with your previous thoughts/statements.

That said.. God does care about what happens to us. Why did 4000 years of the creation of many, did God send His only Son, Jesus to not only live in the same body we do, but to die on a cross (willingly, he was God he didn't need too) as the ultimate blood sacrifice for yours and I sins. To me, that is ultimate love. How many people would honestly give there life to save yours? Very few.



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> EDIT: Furthermore, unless you believe in reincarnation, the entire point of heaven and hell are kinda fuzzy; your destiny is set in advance, and once you're dead, you're done.  It's not like you'll have some subliminal memory of fire & brimstone to keep you on the straight & narrow next time.



Again, your destiny issue is in conflict. I hope you are able to resolve this issue in your head. Anyhow... since we have the choice to either believe or not to believe... that alone (nothing else) decides on your outcome... heaven or hell. There are no levels... just two places.

What most people don't realize... is that their soul is eternal. Your soul will never die, it will continue to live on for eternity... either burning in hell (and yes, you will know that you made the decision not to believe) or going to heaven... and which you can enjoy eternity with your creator.

Scott


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 17, 2004)

Now now, let's stay on track here.   I understand faith, and works, and so on.   I don't actually happen to _believe_ in any of it, but I have no expectation or intention of trying to convert you to my way of thinking.   If you're sincerely interested in 'my way of thinking', I can point you to my blog, in which I have discussed it all at considerable length.   ( http://homepage.mac.com/brianleahy/iblog/C1679595315/E1322795891/index.html )

But anyway, the only reason I even entered this discussion - against my better judgment - is that you, yourself, seem to have created a contradiction within the scope of your posts here on the board.  You may not put any stock in MY arguments, but in this case I am only trying to point out what seems a clear conflict between two of YOUR OWN arguments.

So then: what is free will?  It seems to me that, for our purposes here, free will is the ability of a human to do things that may not conform to God's will.  If you'd like to sharpen this point a bit, please do.

Next, consider this exerpt from your very own post: 





> though you are free to make your own decisions, God fore-knew the decisions you would make... even before you where created.



First: does this include whether or not you're going to have Faith?

Second: I would like to hear your answer as to exactly how this differs from predestination - or as the scientific community calls it, determinism.  This is the notion that, given sufficient knowledge of the prevailing conditions prior to an event, the outcome of the event can be predicted with total certainty.  If human behavior is deterministic, then God, possessing ALL knowledge, should logically be able to predict every single event, including those resulting from the exercise of free will.

Still, being able to predict something is, I will concede, not the same as controlling it.  Yet if you believe that God creates human souls, it seems to  me not unlike writing a computer program: you aren't actually 'controlling' it in real-time while it's running, but you did design it from the outset to behave a certain way, so that it's behavior is highly predictable.   If a program does something unexpected, we don't call it 'free will' -- we call it a bug.   

Of course, you can certainly INTENTIONALLY write a program to behave in an unpredictable way, but if you do that, it'd be awfully petty of you to want to "punish" the program for NOT doing what you wanted.

And while I'm thinking of it, it seems to me that if we accept the heaven & hell concept, does it really make sense to say that the gift of 'free will' is really a greater "act of love" than a guaranteed ticket to heaven would be?  If I'm spending eternity burning and screaming, am I going to be thinking: "Well, at least God loved me enough to let me cook my own goose this way..."  Free will for 70 to 80 years vs. the chance of an eternity of torment.   Hmmm.

But I digress.   To return to an earlier post of yours:  





> God is in control and ALL THINGS work toward the Glory of God... even those things we might deem bad.



Do I even have to point out the problem here?  Read your quote there, and tell me how that squares with free will.

Finally, if ALL THINGS work toward the Glory of God-- then that means sin is a myth, and that it's actually _impossible_ to defy God's will -- He's always two steps ahead of you.  This being so, every single person is doing God's work whether they realize it or not, and so all deserve a reward.

Either we are transparent to God, or we aren't.   Which is it?


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> So then: what is free will?  It seems to me that, for our purposes here, free will is the ability of a human to do things that may not conform to God's will.  If you'd like to sharpen this point a bit, please do.



Hmm.. sounds like what I have been saying. So, yea, it's fine.



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Next, consider this excerpt from your very own post:
> 
> "though you are free to make your own decisions, God fore-knew the decisions you would make... even before you where created."
> 
> First: does this include whether or not you're going to have Faith?



Yep.



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Second: I would like to hear your answer as to exactly how this differs from predestination - or as the scientific community calls it, determinism.  This is the notion that, given sufficient knowledge of the prevailing conditions prior to an event, the outcome of the event can be predicted with total certainty.  If human behavior is deterministic, then *God, possessing ALL knowledge, should logically be able to predict every single event, including those resulting from the exercise of free will.*



Yep, God can.




			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Still, being able to predict something is, I will concede, not the same as controlling it.  Yet if you believe that God creates human souls, it seems to  me not unlike writing a computer program: you aren't actually 'controlling' it in real-time while it's running, but you did design it from the outset to behave a certain way, so that it's behavior is highly predictable.   If a program does something unexpected, we don't call it 'free will' -- we call it a bug.
> 
> Of course, you can certainly INTENTIONALLY write a program to behave in an unpredictable way, but if you do that, it'd be awfully petty of you to want to "punish" the program for NOT doing what you wanted.



If you can compare every cell in your body to a computer program, then I guess that is your own problem. Although Im not always great at analogies (admittedly so) this one doesn't help you out. You need a better one. I won't spend time with that one. 



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> And while I'm thinking of it, it seems to me that if we accept the heaven & hell concept, does it really make sense to say that the gift of 'free will' is really a greater "act of love" than a guaranteed ticket to heaven would be?  If I'm spending eternity burning and screaming, am I going to be thinking: "Well, at least God loved me enough to let me cook my own goose this way..."  Free will for 70 to 80 years vs. the chance of an eternity of torment.  Hmmm.[/QUOTE[
> 
> You just might think that I suppose. I shouldn't want to take the chance to test out that theory. Of course, my ticket to heaven is already established, it is impossible for me to not g now.
> 
> ...


----------



## ScottW (Jul 17, 2004)

On a side note:

God first created the angels. God's top dog in the angelic world was Lucifer. Apparently he is very beautiful. Lucifer was like God's best bud (of sorts) and was responsible for many high level things in the angelic world. He came up with this brain child idea that angels have no free will and turned against God and 1/3 of all the angels followed suit. So God band them from heaven. For those who may not know, Lucifer is Satan, demons are fallen angels.

So... I like to think of this world as a big court case. God is proving to Lucifer that not only the angels have free will, but we as humans do as well. This boils down the first thing that Lucifer tells Adam & Even in the Garden.

Here it goes:



> 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
> 2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
> 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
> 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.



Interestingly, satan uses a "half-truth" in his attempt to get Eve to eat the fruit of the tree. "You will not surely die." Eve, nor Adam died that day, physically. But spiritually they did die. They also died later in life, physically. If they hadn't eaten, then they would have lived forever.

I think guesstimates are that it was less than 24 hours after Adam/Eve where created that they ate of the tree. Go FREE WILL.


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 17, 2004)

I'm going to do my best not to get personal here, but honestly I don't see how you continue to miss my point.  Try to see the gestalt here.

There is an old philosophical question that goes "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"   The answer is - the question is a non-sequitur: if the universe contains any  immovable objects, it cannot contain any irresistible forces, and vice-versa.

I've tried to do show that you have produced something comparable: The following things add up to the same kind of un-resolvable paradox:  (A) humans have free will (B) god foresees our lives in their entirety before we are born.

Please try to consider this question outside of a dogmatic framework:   If my every behavior, including my faith or lack thereof, COULD be known (even theoretically, even by God) before I was born, then what possible responsibility can I bear for that behavior?    If He could already know it, what conclusion is there, but that I am actually a slave to my initial conditions?  (And who created those initial conditions?)

This is very similar to the mathematical concept of true randomness.   In order (for example) for a series of numbers to actually be _genuinely_ random, there must be NO information -- anywhere in the universe -- that could allow anyone, anywhere to predict that series under any circumstances.  

By this definition, _actual_ randomness is incredibly rare, perhaps nonexistent.  Computers' random number generators actually CAN be predicted, if you know two things: the algorithm and the seed value.  They achieve pseudo-randomness by keeping this information obscure.  They are not TRULY random though, because that information *could* become known, and a prediction would then be possible.

By the same reasoning, in order for a human's actions to be truly his own, it CANNOT be the case that there is sufficient information somewhere in the universe (and that includes the Mind Of God) that those actions could be exactly predicted.

Please, don't just say 'Yep, both things are true' -- they can't be.  Tell me how you can possibly see the two as compatible.   It has nothing to do with God's generosity, or love, or sin or faith or virtue or anything like that; it's like saying that 1+1=9 --- it simply DOESN'T ADD UP.

I know of no other way to illustrate more precisely to the point I am trying to make.   I'm not asking a question about scripture; anyone (even I) can open a Bible and read out the party line.   There's a logical problem here; can you address it logically?


----------



## ScottW (Jul 18, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> I'm going to do my best not to get personal here, but honestly I don't see how you continue to miss my point.  Try to see the gestalt here.
> 
> There is an old philosophical question that goes "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"   The answer is - the question is a non-sequitur: if the universe contains any  immovable objects, it cannot contain any irresistible forces, and vice-versa.
> 
> I've tried to do show that you have produced something comparable: The following things add up to the same kind of un-resolvable paradox:  (A) humans have free will (B) god foresees our lives in their entirety before we are born.



Well Brian, I will the same way. How much more do I need to explain it for you to get my point.

If you knew ahead of time the choices someone else was going to make, even before they made them... how does that take away the free will and decision power of the person who makes those choices. You are not setting the choices for them, they chose them theirself, you just knew it ahead of time.

If we both setup on top of a hill and watched cars come into a intersection, and I said... I bet that car turns right at the light... and they do, I had no power in their decision to turn right, they still did it on their own. Since they are freewill people, they can go in any direction they want to go in.







			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Please try to consider this question outside of a dogmatic framework:   If my every behavior, including my faith or lack thereof, COULD be known (even theoretically, even by God) before I was born, then what possible responsibility can I bear for that behavior?    If He could already know it, what conclusion is there, but that I am actually a slave to my initial conditions?  (And who created those initial conditions?)



Please try to consider a framework outside of where you are today. Again, just because God KNEW our freewill choices before we even made them does not mean that God chose them for us or we are somehow inslaved to make those decisions down the road. Don't think of it is YOU personally made those choices BEFORE you were created... and God knew those... think of it as.. you don't have a clue what your are going to face tomorrow and the decisions you will make... but because God can see through time, he knows the decision you will make.

It's like a Back to the Future movie... the guy gets that book with game scores in it. The fact that he KNEW the outcome of the games doesn't mean he had anything to do with the score, or that the score and the players decisions or abilities where somehow limited by the fact he had a book with the score in it. They game was no pre-destined, he was just looking at something from the past.




			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> This is very similar to the mathematical concept of true randomness.   In order (for example) for a series of numbers to actually be _genuinely_ random, there must be NO information -- anywhere in the universe -- that could allow anyone, anywhere to predict that series under any circumstances.
> 
> By this definition, _actual_ randomness is incredibly rare, perhaps nonexistent.  Computers' random number generators actually CAN be predicted, if you know two things: the algorithm and the seed value.  They achieve pseudo-randomness by keeping this information obscure.  They are not TRULY random though, because that information *could* become known, and a prediction would then be possible.
> 
> By the same reasoning, in order for a human's actions to be truly his own, it CANNOT be the case that there is sufficient information somewhere in the universe (and that includes the Mind Of God) that those actions could be exactly predicted.



I think if you understand my Back to the Future example, it would clear up this confusion.



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Please, don't just say 'Yep, both things are true' -- they can't be.  Tell me how you can possibly see the two as compatible.   It has nothing to do with God's generosity, or love, or sin or faith or virtue or anything like that; it's like saying that 1+1=9 --- it simply DOESN'T ADD UP.
> 
> I know of no other way to illustrate more precisely to the point I am trying to make.   I'm not asking a question about scripture; anyone (even I) can open a Bible and read out the party line.   There's a logical problem here; can you address it logically?



I already have. Not sure how much logical I can get.

Scott


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 18, 2004)

> You are not setting the choices for them, they chose them theirself, you just knew it ahead of time.



Let's say I'm building a road along a cliff, and rather than put up expensive guard rails, I decide to just put up a sign saying "WARNING: BEWARE OF CLIFF!"

If I make the sign big, bright and impossible to miss,  you might reasonably say that I made a good effort to make the road safe.

But the whole scenario changes IF I KNOW THE FUTURE.   If I have a crystal ball, and I can look into the future and see that people WILL miss or ignore the sign and go flying off into the abyss, then it becomes my fault again: I knew the sign was inadequate, but I did nothing!

Of course, because I am mortal and of limited resources, I could say "There's no budget to build guard rails; people need to take responsibility for their own safety."   

However, if I am immortal and omnipotent, then THAT excuse falls by the wayside.  I have infinite resources.  I could conjure guardrails without a mere thought, and even make them indestructible.  I could, for that matter, eliminate the cliff entirely, making it a gentle, sloping hillside.

But if I still DON'T do any of that, and I still see in my crystal ball that people will absolutely, positively plunge to their deaths while driving on my road, what does that say about me?   Really, WHAT does it say about me?

I think it says that I have other priorities higher than keeping people on my road.  

God, then, has other priorities higher than the salvation of mankind -- his 'love' for us has its limits.


----------



## bobbo (Jul 20, 2004)

liberal democrat i guess, though with more moderate views towards abortion. i'm not old enough to vote, therefore, a registered nothing.


----------



## chevy (Jul 24, 2004)

Harvestr, the fact that adambyte has another opinion doesn't automatically qualify him for being naive/stupid. Maybe he has (like you do have) very good reasons, that are not naive/stupid reasons, to think different. The discussion would be more instructive and interesting if you both try to understand each orther's reasons for your thinking.

I don't think you will finally agree (a world where everybody would agree must be boring), but you may both become smarter by better understanding antother point of view.


----------



## chevy (Jul 24, 2004)

and don't forget to check this link... http://www.macosx.com/forums/showpost.php?p=319800&postcount=1


----------



## Giaguara (Jul 25, 2004)

i think the d / r or left / right thinking is old fashioned. i can't just choose one. neither is what i think.

something more green. but i don't agree with greens either. 

i don't like republican thinking, i like it less than the democrat thinking.

i don't like 'forced' social security stuff. so, ideally all social security would have an option to be part of or not. so if you don't plan on having kids, i think it would be right to opt out for some taxes that are paid back for people with kids. and if you want to be a rockstart or for whatever reason die before you are 30, you might want to opt out from paying your own pension.


----------



## gollum84 (Jul 25, 2004)

I vote for whoever will be the better guy, be it democrat or republican.  All I care about is if someone knows how to read and if they can speak clearly, without pausing and stuttering all the time.


----------



## chevy (Jul 26, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> i think the d / r or left / right thinking is old fashioned. i can't just choose one. neither is what i think.
> 
> something more green. but i don't agree with greens either.
> 
> ...



I think that part of the social security must be forced: because anyhow there is a time where you have to pay for the ones who did not plan their own future... and we know the weakest tend not to plan their future because they have other short term issues. Now this should remain to a minimal level (no need for TV or car in each home !).

I also think that educating children should be paid by everybody (maybe even more by the ones who have no children) because children are the future of mankind. And we better have an educated future.

When I was younger, I liked green ideas... but I've seen that too often green parties tends to have a very red inside, sometime more extreme than any supposed left party. So I still think that ecology is part of the important aspects of social life, but I don't think that ecology is more important than the life of people or than economy... it's just part of life and part of economy.


----------



## drunkmac (Jul 26, 2004)

I love how I started this thread and asked for JUST a statement of what you are/what you follow...


----------



## brianleahy (Jul 26, 2004)

I knew the moment I saw the subject line that it'd never stick by that restriction.

Also though, in fairness, when you added the poll you invited people to "Please Comment"


----------



## diablojota (Jul 26, 2004)

I chose "R with some acceptance for a limited number of D ideas (please comment) ".

Reason is, I believe in the Republican view on Business, welfare, etc.  I don't like the Republican stance on Abortion (main problem) and environmental issues.  But it really comes to who sings the closest tune to what I believe.  However, most of the time it is voting on the lesser of two evils...


----------



## chevy (Jul 26, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Sadam's Iraq was a *secular* military dictature, Saddam actively opposed religious fundamentalism as it threatened his power.
> 
> He used chemical weapons on a curd village, which he didn't exactly considered to be "his own people". the curds were revolting and didn't exactly consider Saddam their leader. So the "his own people" isn't quite right. Moreover what you could have rather claimed is that he used chemical weapons in his war against Iran. This war, by the way, was supported and partially paid for by the USA.
> 
> ...



It looks like it is too complex for some of the guys around here.


----------



## Salvo (Jul 30, 2004)

Greens, Independant, Australian Democrats, Labor, National, "Liberal".
We have a Preferential Polling System here in Australia, where if your first preference doesn't get in, your Vote goes to your next preference, and so on, so even if you do vote Independent, you're not Throwing your Vote away.

The Greens are obviously Environmentalists.

Independents generally care about local issues. An Independent Electorate usually gets the most Benefit in a close election, since the Independent may hold a Balance of Power. Therefore the Government usually offers huge Benefits to the community in order to get the Independent Parliamentarians Support.

The Australian Democrats used to act as a Voice of Reason between the two Parties, ensuring that the Left and Right wing Elements were balanced out in the Parliament. Then they sold out on the GST and lost all credibility. Still better than A major Party.

The ALP have always been very Left-Wing, but in the last decade have shifted towards the Right. A new Left-ish Leader ("Mark Latham" called the Parliament a "Conga-line of Suckholes", and also called our Prime Minister an "Arse Licker" during one of Johnny's visits to see George Dubya) should bring them back to their roots. They recently signed on Peter Garrett (of Midnight Oil) so that should give them an Environmental Slant too.

The National Party are in Coalition with the "Liberal" Party. They are insignificant since they are the minority part of a coalition.

The "Liberal" Party are the Conservative Right. They gave us the GST, and are pushing for the Free Trade Agreement with the US, which is a very Bad thing Indeed. Little Johnny Howard (who is actually 6'6", but behaves with a diminutive air) is a sniveling little Turd, the Perfect Politician, but Pathetic Leader. Downer is the Kid that got picked on too much in School, and Abbott and Costello (yes, they're their real names) are both in the running for the "Biggest A***hole in Politics" Award.


If I was in the US, I would Vote Democrat without a Doubt. I understand that they want to implement a Preferential Ballot, which IMO is more democratic than a Two Party State. It provides a much wider choice. They're also unlikey to F*ck over the Populous.


----------



## baggss (Jul 31, 2004)

I voted Republican with some Democratic leanings, but I'm not even going to explain why.  This thread is WAY to whacked out...you folks need to get some SERIOUS help here...


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 2, 2004)

Yeah, just to chime in, I voted "Pure Republican", and I can't remember if you could vote for more than one choice (if you could, I should have voted for some others).

Anyway, my point is that the poll is flawed, in that there are too many choices.  For instance, I could have voted for 1) Pure Republican 2) Religion is more important 3) People are more important and 4) Ideas can change people.  You can certainly be a solid republican (like me) and still consider friendship to a solid democrat more important than damaging argument over policital policy (alluding to the vague "people are more important" option).  I believe those last 3 choices are designed for elitists who consider themselves "above the fray of politics" or something like that.  Unfortunately, that's not the way it works on a ballot.  You vote for a specific party, or you don't vote.


----------



## chevy (Aug 2, 2004)

1) Voting means making a choice... you cannot have all the goods and none of the bads, you have to choose the mixture you prefer, or that you dislike the less.
2) In some countries, there are more than 2 parties to choose from.
3) In some elections one vote for people, not for parties.


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 2, 2004)

chevy said:
			
		

> 1) Voting means making a choice... you cannot have all the goods and none of the bads, you have to choose the mixture you prefer, or that you dislike the less.


Na, I believe if that if you like neither of the candidates, you shouldn't endorse either (I am pointing the finger at those who *only* want Bush out of office and don't really like Kerry).  If I disliked all candidates on the ballot, I'd write somebody I liked in as a protest, or not vote at all, as a protest.





			
				chevy said:
			
		

> 2) In some countries, there are more than 2 parties to choose from.


I don't have a problem with this idea, but in this case the poll is referring to American politics, not some other country.





			
				chevy said:
			
		

> 3) In some elections one vote for people, not for parties.


I don't understand what you're saying here.

Question to those who voted "People are more important than politics"... what was your thought process?  Was your choice influenced by pride?  Are you "above the fray"?


----------



## baggss (Aug 2, 2004)

chevy said:
			
		

> 3) In some elections one vote for people, not for parties.



That is Very true!  I am a registered Republican but generally do not vote the strait party line.


----------



## Cat (Aug 3, 2004)

> 2) In some countries, there are more than 2 parties to choose from.


Not just that, but is some countries the government is formed *gasp!* by a coalition of parties!


----------



## fryke (Aug 3, 2004)

Hmm... So many subjects in one thread. Had to move it to the Café, as it's not exactly a Mac-theme...

There are also quite a number of numbered lists, so I'll add my own here. 

1.) Free will above everything. If my life would not include free will, I'd deny life.

2.) I think it's a pity that the Republicans haven't elected a _different_ person. George W. Bush has not done much good to the world, the USA's image in the world or the USA.

3.) I think the US Democrats are too much on the 'right' side. Seems like everyone still thinks that 'left' means communism in the USA.

4.) Of _course_ 'humans' are more important than 'politics'. However, these 'politics' in discussion here affect many, many people and even peoples.

5.) I hope that Kerry wins. And I hope the USA will turn 'better' with him in charge. I'm not sure he will manage. But the USA of today are a liability for the rest of the free world. And he can speak difficult words without having to pause and smile everytime.


----------



## chevy (Aug 3, 2004)

> Quote, originally posted by MDLarson:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) Not voting for someone who can be elected is also a choice. You chose to be responsible for anything the majority of voters will do.

2) I agree with your remark.

3) This was also referring for other types of votations/elections. I live in a country in which we have up to 4 votations/elections per year, and here we sometimes elect parties and sometimes elect people. We can even vote for some types of laws (without putting in danger the people we elected).


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 3, 2004)

chevy said:
			
		

> 1) Not voting for someone who can be elected is also a choice. You chose to be responsible for anything the majority of voters will do.


Yeah, I agree with that.    That was the 2nd option I mentioned.


----------



## baggss (Aug 3, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Not just that, but is some countries the government is formed *gasp!* by a coalition of parties!



Which always seem to fall apart at random or in times of crisis...


----------



## Cat (Aug 4, 2004)

... So? 
If a government falls apart during a crisis, this means that its policies didn't have the support of the majority of elected representatives. It should fall. The dutch government fell twice recently, there have been more Italian governments than years since its constitution, but still Italy is one of the G8 (even ranked above IIRC England, which has one of the most stable histories of governments) and the netherlands is now temporary president of the EU. There's absolutely no problem with that.
Governments falling over from time to time mean that they are accountable for what they do. You do good, you get re-elected, you do bad, you get voted out. This is what freedom and democracy mean. 

Several US politicians would not have survived the recent scandals if it would have taken place in Europe. Wim Kok's government fell over what happened in Sebrenica. Don't you think the US minister of Defence should resign because of Abu Ghraib? If you don't then you probably think he isn't accountable. Well, governments which fall over from time to time demonstrate that they are accountable. Governments which do not resign or fall and which are not held accountable when they do not function well in most cases are dictatures or totalitarian regimes.


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 4, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Don't you think the US minister of Defence should resign because of Abu Ghraib? If you don't then you probably think he isn't accountable.


I understand that facts to be that the military was *already investigating* Abu Ghraib before the media got a hold of the story.  If that's not accountability, then I don't know what is.  Donald Rumsfeld was / is doing a good job.


----------



## diablojota (Aug 4, 2004)

I don't think Rumsfeld is accountable for what happened at Abu Ghraib.  The commanding officer over the division is.  Rumsfeld had no idea of what was going on until a month or so before it broke on the news, and was already having the matter investigated.  Rumsfeld controls the operation as a whole, not the trivial details.  That is the responsibility of those who report to him.  It's just like any company.


----------



## Cat (Aug 4, 2004)

Well, when fraud or shady accounting practices are discovered in a minor daughter of a big multinational, nevertheless the stock goes down and if the situation is bad the CEO of the big multinational may have to resign. 
With governments it is the same. Rumsfeld did not personally torture any prisoners, but he is ultimately quite near the top of the command chain which led the USArmy to Iraq. The US, as occupying power, are responsible for the well-being of the Iraqi's, including prisoners of war. Torturing and humiliating them or even killing them is not simply imputable to those who physically did those crimes, but also to their commanding officers (befehl ist befehl). The chain goes on, however, up and up.
Why did the local commanders issue orders to soften the prisoners up for interrogation? Who made pressure from above to get information? This is not conspiracy theory, but honest investigation into what chain of commands brought to the executing of the orders in such a terrible way. Who is to be held accountable? If Rumsfeld had been a man of honor, he would have resigned spontaneously, taking the shame on himself, shielding the soldiers and the Army from the mud slinging of the press. You say he didn't know, but not knowing is not an excuse ("wir haben es nicht gewusst", as the Germans said about the holocaust). If he didn't know, he may not be guilty of having exerted too much pressure, but precisely of not knowing what is going on. He OUGHT to have known. If MDLarson is right, and it was already being investigated, he DID know. Moreover, IIRC he violently denied that there was any case of torture, he did oppose the use of the word torture, while sodomising someone with a chemical lamp comes quite close to torture IMO ... or are these "trivial details"?

EDIT: Try to read this and then tell me who should be held accountable an whether or not someone should step down.


----------



## WinWord10 (Aug 17, 2004)

No political preference whatsoever. I'll vote for whoever I judge to be the best candidate, regardless of their party. 

I live in New Jersey right now and I'm disgusted by some of the things that have been going on in the McGreevey administration, so I'm siding with the Republicans right now in that he should step down immediately. I'm also very much against the Iraq war and support Kerry as the next president.


----------

