They are already allowed to do that. I don't know any women that get mad at men for not sitting down

Is that because women are willing to bear the pain for a good cause or because the man doesn't want a punch to the nuts?

Wouldn't doing this in itself be an act of racism? Just curious

Like, is a person who is missing 2 legs more handicap than a person missing 2 middle fingers?

I personally would think so. I mean unless the person missing the legs had prosthetic or mechanical ones that they were using

Can a person missing 2 middle fingers take a handicap parking spot with wheel chair access?

I wouldn't if I was missing both my middle fingers since I don't really see it as much of a handicap

Is it OK for a handicap person to have to wait, say 5 minutes, for a parking spot or should there already be one waiting for him?

I think it depends on the situation, but I tend to go along with the part of me that says that those spots are there specifically for the handicap people

Is it OK to park in a handicap spot for 5 minutes while you run in and do whatever it is and get out before the cops come to ticket you?

See previous reply

Is it OK to borrow a handicap person's car (and handicap sticker) to get their medication for them and park in the handicap spot?

I personally don't think the person should unless they them self have a legitimate handicap

If a person's only handicap is being obese, are you doing them a favor by forcing them to park far away and walking (exercise) to the front of the store?

I wouldn't say that I'm doing them a favor, but I wouldn't want someone who is obese to take the handicap spot from someone who actually needs it

Is Tourette's syndrome considered a handicap (if your reply is, "No," then... fuck you)?

I guess it would depend on how bad the Tourette's is. I actually have the disorder, but its pretty mild and I have it under control. However, if its to the point where it is actually hindering them pretty badly, then yes

Is it really a handicap to not be able to flip off a double amputee who is yelling at you for taking the wheel chair access handicap space and forcing him to wait 5 minutes?

I don't think so. Like I said earlier, I don't really see missing both your middle fingers as much of a handicap. It could obviously be much worse, but compared to a double amputee, there's not much thats missing

This is just my 2 cents

Adding them together is just a line you shouldn't cross...............

He's not. As it was mentioned before, a megalomaniac wouldn't send His son to die for us. It also sounds like you're assuming that God has no morally sufficient reason for anything that He does or allows to happen

There are no false truths. That is pretty obvious.

Except that something can't be both true and not true at the same time. Unless I misunderstood what you were trying to say. In which case, what do you mean by that?

Because the whole God story doesn't make sense.

Is there anything specific you can think of? Maybe I can help clear some things up

What if I'm not interested in debating it?

I didn't ask if you were interested in debating it. I asked what your definition of the word was. If you don't want to debate, we don't have to

Do I need evidence to speculate?

Not to speculate, just to support the claims that you made. I'm just looking for why you have the line of thinking that you do

What do i mean by debate it? Some books made it, others didn't.

That may have been a result, but it doesn't sound like a definition of debate

Lord it over everybody. "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah we are God's chosen people and you're not. Want to be one of the chosen? Psych!"

What evidence do you have for this?

It would have been viewed as prophecy.

Same question here. What evidence do you have for this?

Aside from the Torah, the other books were not considered part of the bible because there was no bible. The bible came together centuries later when Constantine became a Christian and told his holy men to write the stuff down. The holy men then debated which books should make up the "bible."

You're right when you say that there was no bible until after all the stuff happened and people made it. I would have to ask what you mean by debated though

I'll combine both responses you had to make things a little bit easier.

The Jews got a raw deal. I mean, at first, God was like, "You dudes are like my chose people. Here's your bible and 10 commandments to go along with it." Then He's like, "Screw that. Only people who believe in the late JC are like my new chosen people. Oh, and there's more, new, bible crap to go along with the old bible crap."

What was it that the Israelites were supposed to do as God's chosen people?

So..., yeah dude. The Christians were all like, "We'll take that!" and then they added the New Testament to it. I mean, if God is like such a big now it all, why didn't He give the Jews the entire bible from the beginning? It's like a movie man! God's all like, "Here's part one and..., oh..., wait..., I forgot..., here's part 2."

Would the Jews have been able to make sense of everything that happened had they received the entire bible? Even if they had the entire story of what would happen, what evidence do you have that they would have changed their ways?

The Jews have a case. How do they know that the Christians didn't like just make up the New Testament? I mean, how do we know that the devil wasn't like, "Oh crap! God has a bible and chosen people! I better get in on the action." So he tried to screw people up by coming up with a new bible version and a new set of chosen people. And when you think about it... it kinda makes sense. i mean, the Jews don't go door to door looking for new recruits but there are at least 2 Christians group that do and if you ask me..., that's pretty wicked. Satanic, hellish, wicked.

If the bible is considered to be a historical book, then it follows that there has to be other people that talked about various things that are in it whether it be a person, event, or whatever right? Some of the more common extra biblical writers that are mentioned are Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. Of course there are more than just these three, these are just some of the more famous ones. Also, were the collection of books referred to as the bible in those days? Ya there was the torah and the other books that followed, but were those books referred to as the old testament part of the bible or even part of a bible?

Why did He do that? He was out of control. It was like one of those Islamic father who kill their daughter and call it an "Honor Killing."

So God never has any logical reason for doing anything? Only emotional reasons?

What evidence? Uh..., the bible. The old testament is effectively the Jewish Torah.

Was this in response to the new testament question? If so, what does this have to do with the new testament?

Why is it an issue? What if you're Jewish?

Was this in reference to the salvation thing? If so, Jewish people that don't accept Christ as their lord and savior, they won't be saved. If we were the ones that separated ourselves from God, why should we be the ones to determine how the issue is fixed?

Serving out of love? Serving is for slaves.

This sounds like a personal problem

The God in the old testament wanted sacrifices. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He flooded the world.

Why do you think he did these outside of just an emotional response or something like that?

The God in the new testament was all about turning the other cheek (the cheeky monkey ;). And love thy neighbor and forgive transgressions.

What do you think of the verse where Jesus says "before Abraham was, I am" basically saying that he is God?

The old testament says that the Jews are the chosen people.

How is having a chosen people a bad thing?

The Christians took the old testament and added the new testament.

What evidence do you have for this?

Isn't one of the 10 commandments something about adding to the word of God?

The 10 commandments actually don't say anything about recording information

Christians also claim that the only path to salvation is through Jesus.

They do. Why is this an issue

They seem to always be asking, "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior? He paid for your sins with His blood. Your His bitch now."

This seems like you have an understanding of it that is more emotional than intellectual. Why is serving someone out of love a problem?

How did you come to all these conclusions that you came to?

The only one you got incorrect would be Christianity. In Christianity, its grace through faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The acts that follow come from being saved through faith. Also, what would you say you mean by selflessness and selfishness?

Things like the moral argument and cosmological argument as well as prophecies that are in the bible

I would say that the evidence points to Christianity being the one true religion

Would you be willing to give an example of a particular religion that does this?

Uh, the great flood, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, the very first commandment (You shall have no other gods before Me.) need I go on?

Lets leave emotion out of this for a second. Why do you think God actually these things?

The God in the old testament doesn't give 2nd chances. The God in the new testament gives you a chance to repent.

So telling the canaanites for 400 years to turn from their way or they would have to get dealt with isn't considered a second chance? Having Jonah go to Ninevah to preach to the people there isn't considered giving them a second chance?

Satan is either crazy and has a death wish to challenge a God he knows he can't defeat for He is the All Mighty. Or, God is just like the other angels only He's in charge.

Its 100% the first option

The God in the old testament is a vengeful God.

What makes Him vengeful?

The God in the new testament is a kinder, gentler, God.

If thats true, do you just leave out the book of revelation then?

If you challenge the best chess player and lose, you still get to live. Satan is scheduled to be destroyed so that he can no longer deceive man. So, it is your logic that does not follow.

Ya I gave a bad analogy, I apologize. My point was that Satan challenging God doesn't make God any less omnipotent. In fact, Satan challenging God all on its own says nothing about Gods power, just that Satan challenged God

A couple things

Anyways, God is the dude in the old testament and Jesus is the dude in the new testament.

John 8:58 has Jesus saying that before Abraham was, I am. That has Jesus claiming to be the God of the old testament since the God of the old testament had the title of I am.

If Satan felt that he could beat God at His own game, then God must not be all-powerful.

That logic doesn't follow. If I challenge the best chess player in the world at chess knowing that he is many orders of magnitude better than I am, does that change the fact that the person is still the best chess player in the world? The same idea can be said of God and Satan. Satan's challenging God is an act of pride on Satan's part because he knows that God is more powerful than he could ever hope to be