I do not approve. It is dishonest.
-
OK, thank you.
Didn't want you to miss my response to a point:
Really, AMR did that? I would have thought him the least likely to abuse whatever privleges he has..
AMR has publicly stated that he rid TOL of some of his writing that he later regretted and found untenable in advance. I think that's commendable. Now someone erasing posts or threads to hide from responsibility is another thing entirely.
Hey CL, I will get back with you on that
Welcome back!I think perhaps, you're a punk kid who knows little of nothing!
No offence, just trying to get you to face the facts!
You don't talk to me, CL, I'm going to start belting show tunes on this page.
<clears throat, prepares to sing "When You're a Jet" from West Side Story.>
Ahem.
I just received two warnings and two infractions for reporting both Enyart and Tambora. Will have to be careful in order to avoid a ban.
I believe the law should actually allow those under the age of 20/21 [when the brain finishes fully developing] should be allowed to drink under the supervision of responsible adults. However, we should not allow children to come to harm. And alcohol consumption will harm those whose brains are underdeveloped at young ages. So, where do we draw the line?
:doh: It's not about life experience. Learn some science. And how about not making assumptions when we've only just begun to scratch the surface?
Maybe so, but in many cases one drink leads to another, leads to another, etc. Especially in those too underdeveloped to know when they've had enough before it's too much. It is easier if the law is a little cautionary in order to prevent crime ahead of time.
And seat belt laws protect your family from you dying in a car crash, for instance. They are no different than helmet laws in most regards.
Worth a read, esp. on matters of common grace, supra vs. infra, and other in-house disagreements:
http://www.askmrreligion.com/Systematic_Calvinism_Curt_Daniel.doc
An apologist, not a Pastor.
You would be brilliant!
Why not some kind of ministry? An apologist!
What kind of history and in what context?
Getting drunk is drunkenness. Are you talking about getting buzzed? For those under the age wherein their brains have fully formed any impairment to function is immoral because they are already horrible at making proper decisions on big issues when sober.
And seat belt laws are about protecting others from the consequences of your stupidity and/or arrogance.
A single beer? Maybe not. But drinking to excess? Very much so. Do you know why?
Just because the Bible isn't specific on seatbelts doesn't make your argument solid.:nono:
Neither of these are about protecting you from yourself. They are about protecting others from you.
Except Brandon's an immature idiot, and you're not. Bottom line: You're wasting your time with him. He's an angry, time-wasting manchild.
How is that intrinsically wrong?
As far as it being illegal I only mention it in regard to people knowing they are breaking the law if they do something that is illegal, and publicly known to be so.
Can you show how those last two things are not immoral? Do you even know why they're illegal? -
Loading…
-
Loading…
-
Loading…