Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 25,625)

Showing posts 512,481 - 512,500 of596,815
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534198
May 14, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
Hey Tide, how come you know so much about this stuff?
https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534199
May 14, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Physical vs Psychological addiction

Dr David Sack

Physical addiction occurs when a person repeatedly introduces a chemical into their body and, over time, the body becomes dependent upon the chemical.

http://www.promises.com/articles/addiction/ps...

Let me know if you need more information to "process"

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534200
May 14, 2013
 
Luke 24:37-40

But they were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

And he said unto them.Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your heart?

Behold my hand and my feet,that is is I myself:handle me and see:for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.

And when he had thus spoken he showed them his hands and his feet.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534201
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>you bringing up prayer for your leg to grow back, brings back memories about this lady, Joni Eareckson Tada. Her life is very inspirational, and I think you would appreciate her. Look her up. and if you're moved to, buy this book of hers
http://www.amazon.com/When-Weeps-Joni-Earecks...
That book will put life into perspective for you. It helped me to put the things I was complaining about in life, into perspective.
Thanks Tri but I wasn't complaining about anything. I was just making a point to Skom. The part about prayer for my leg to grow back was just a joke. My leg is gone. It's not coming back. I understood that as soon as the anesthesia wore off. I get by OK without it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534202
May 14, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Alice/River is among the good, isn't she?
Yep

Definitely on my Topix favorite people list

Her sense of humor and approach to life in general in rare in genera. Considering her age and the obstacles she has faced her perspective and light-hearted approach is all the more impressive

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534203
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> What a weak argument. It's the excluded middle or black and white fallacy. You will only consider two options, when there are certainly more.
So, lets look at that, no deity intervened, mankind stopped Hitler, Stalin helped(and Soviet forces lost from 8.7 million to as high as 20 million plus+ by estimates, and time eventually stopped Stalin.
No deity involved.
What does that have to do with my point?

If there was no free-will then individuals couldn't be responsible for their actions

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534204
May 14, 2013
 
Luke 23:34&38

Then said Jesus,Father forgive them for they know not what they do.And they parted his raiment and cast lots.

And a superscription also was written over him in letter of Greek and latin and Hebrew THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534205
May 14, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Alice/River is among the good, isn't she?
I'm always good Catcher :)

*crosses fingers behind back*

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534206
May 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I like putting objects on my chest when I lay down. I don't know why. I do it all the time though. NOT POOP! I want to be clear, that was a one time thing.
I like it when my cat lies on my chest. She's a very good liar.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534207
May 14, 2013
 
Skombolis wrote:
It is not a semantic argument. One can exist without the other due to time and abstinence of using the drug. Eventually the physical addiction can go away, leaving just the mental addiction. That is why one can exist without the other. Or one can become mentally addicted before reaching the physically addicted state. But prolonged use guarantees physical addiction. That is why it is so dangerous to have doctors who don't understand this and think addiction is only mental and the result of someone being mentally weak.
I don't think there are many doctors out there with a poor understanding in this area.

It is better to think of addiction and dependency as separate conditions, even if they are often interrelated.
Skombolis wrote:
It is a rationalization out of ignorance and denial to justify peddling long-term treatment of pain meds without any concern for what the result will be
You lost me. What?
Skombolis wrote:
But anybody who takes opiates for a prolonged period of time will eventually become physically addicted to them. That physical addiction is what causes physical withdrawal.
This is simply a fact
I've known that since I was like 12, except that I've always called it chemical dependence, because that label has far more explanatory power.

Addiction is an old word with a lot of baggage. If we're going to continue to use it effectively, we need to work it in with a modern understanding.

People are addicted to a lot of things for which they have no chemical dependency at all.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534208
May 14, 2013
 
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for all atheists, but I can say that for myself and many atheists, there is no expectation or belief that a deity is responsible for anything.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
You are missing the point

Obviously since you are an atheist i don't think you actually expect a deity to intervene

But you guys have been making criticisms based on if God did exist

And if He did exist, you guys are claiming that Him not intervening makes him evil or proves He isn't a loving God

Yet you wouldn't actually want Him to intervene unless he only intervened under the scenarios you would personally approve of. Otherwise you would be against Him intervening

You can't have it both ways

You wouldn't want God to intervene and force you to be what he wants you to be and strip you of choice and free-will. Yet you guys claim he should do that to others.

There is a much bigger picture in play than stopping a particular sin or bad event from happening. Doing that would strip man of his very identity, his very freedom of choice, his very personality and thought process

Just like we accept with certain freedoms like the Bill of Rights and free speech it will mean there will also be things that happen that we don't like. But we readily take that trade-off because of how much we value freedom. No one issue is bigger than the Constitution and either we abide by it or we do not. The same goes a thousand-fold for free-will. There is nothing worth the trade-off of mankind having no free will and no freedom of personal thought.

Instead of blaming God (in these hypothetical debates) for not intervening and stopping man from doing bad things, your issue should be with the man who does bad things. The solution isn't to strip away our very identities so as robots no terrible sins can be committed. The solution is to try to make this world a better place where people abide by the greatest commandments such as love your neighbor as thyself

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534209
May 14, 2013
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with my point?
If there was no free-will then individuals couldn't be responsible for their actions
The law doesn't inquire whether a defendant was exercising free will.

We are responsible for our actions, unless we are legally insane.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534210
May 14, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

People are addicted to a lot of things for which they have no chemical dependency at all.
Yeah, like Topix.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534211
May 14, 2013
 
Skombolis wrote:
Apparently you can't
It is total ignorance to think opiates don't cause physical addiction
1) Dr Dan Hendrix MD
Opiate dependency is born once the physical addiction occurs
http://www.danheadrickmd.com/opiates/opiate-d...
2) Opiate addiction
" As a result, the person who is addicted to opiates experiences a physical dependence on the drug."
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/addiction-ty...
2) Prescription opiate use rising among teens
This indicates the person is experiencing withdrawal from opiates as opiates cause physical dependence within the user
http://www.compassionateinterventions.com/dru...
4) Opiates - Dacco Community Education
Individuals using opiate drugs may become both psychologically and physically addicted to the drugs in as little as two weeks
http://dacco.org.temp.realssl.com/ACCORDION/C...
There is no excuse with the information available for any doctor not to know this. You can defend Ians till you are blue in the face. You are wrong
Do you think any of this contradicts anything IANS or I have said, besides the semantic differences, which by the way, exist in the very sources you provide?

Addiction, the psychological condition, can occur in the absence of chemical dependency, and chemical dependency can occur in the absence of addiction.

That's all I've been saying, apart from the semantic argument that the terminology I'm using is superior.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534212
May 14, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The law doesn't inquire whether a defendant was exercising free will.
We are responsible for our actions, unless we are legally insane.
Actually that's not true

"As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.

Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.

Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.

Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Now in strict liability cases or certain other crimes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse and having guilty intent (mens rea) wouldn't matter

However, there still exists a crucial component to be guilty of a crime which is that it is voluntary

"All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal."

If we had no free-will then an act could not be voluntary

Thus, no guilt

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534213
May 14, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, like Topix.
The Jesus photobomb.

http://www.funnyist.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534214
May 14, 2013
 
Skombolis wrote:
Adi Jeffery PHY - Phychology today
Physical addiction or psychological addiction Is there a real difference?
There's no such thing as a purely psychological addiction
All in all, the only way to look at Addiction is as both a psychological addiction AND a physical addiction that are inextricably liked through our psyche's presence in the brain, a physical part of the body.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about...
I never said that a psychological condition, specifically addiction, was not physical. I very intentionally stated that addiction was a psychological condition, which must necessarily be a physiological one.

I am differentiating between addiction and chemical dependence.

I'll read the link later to see if it even supports your position. I'm getting hungry.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534215
May 14, 2013
 
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think any of this contradicts anything IANS or I have said, besides the semantic differences, which by the way, exist in the very sources you provide?
Addiction, the psychological condition, can occur in the absence of chemical dependency, and chemical dependency can occur in the absence of addiction.
That's all I've been saying, apart from the semantic argument that the terminology I'm using is superior.
First of all, this is wrong

"chemical dependency can occur in the absence of addiction"

Addiction is defined as dependency

Secondly it absolutely contradicts what you guys have been saying, especially IANS

He has been flat-out denying opiate addiction can be physical.

The argument wasn't whether in some cases the physical part won't be an element either because the person hasn't been on the drug long enough or has gone through the physical withdrawal. The argument has been opiate addiction does not lead to physical addiction. It absolutely does after prolonged use

He has continue to deny this, saying he doesn't care what I have found on the Internet

I am really hoping after we managed to have a good conversation yesterday that you will have the maturity to discontinue this. I ignored the insults as you reverted to form and gave you all the information anyone would need. It is amazing to me that you still can't maintain seperate interactions when it comes to Ians and have to turn your discussions with someone negative because of it. Why not leave what is going on between me and him between me and him and post to me with the same respect I showed you yesterday as I even ignored repeated little jabs about the faith?

Regardless of how you choose to go from here, my further participation in this with you is just about at an end. I know why you are arguing what you were and why. And i know what the facts are about addiction. There isn't much else to say

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534216
May 14, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes you can be very good.
Props on this one.
Hahahahah!
Sometimes I jist can't hep it! I gits out'a remote control! LOL!

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534217
May 14, 2013
 
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Adi Jeffery PHY - Phychology today
Physical addiction or psychological addiction Is there a real difference?
There's no such thing as a purely psychological addiction
All in all, the only way to look at Addiction is as both a psychological addiction AND a physical addiction that are inextricably liked through our psyche's presence in the brain, a physical part of the body.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about...
That was actually a quick read.

That article is mostly in line with what I've been saying.

He's talking only about drug addiction, only when chemical dependence is present. That's a limited scope.

Aside from the semantic differences, this is the only part I take issue with: "All in all, the only way to look at Addiction is as both a psychological addiction AND a physical addiction that are inextricably liked through our psyche's presence in the brain, a physical part of the body."

"psychological addiction AND a physical addiction" can only be inextricably linked if they are both present. I can't tell if he's asserting that both are always present or not. If he is, he is wrong. You can certainly have either without the other.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 512,481 - 512,500 of596,815
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

550 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min June VanDerMark 513,519
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 14 min Ed Teach 52,636
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 14 min Internet dr Pipke 38,070
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 15 min lisw 168,974
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min Divinity Surgeon 682,962
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 17 min Eagle 12 218,171
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 23 min andet1987 3,361
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 34 min Porkpie Hat 250,742
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr EdmondWA 89,782
•••
•••
•••