Mike

In terms of the question put forward at the beginning of the thread I haven't seen an argument that convinced me that one lacks free will in the realm of an all-knowing God nor that one's possession of free will negates the omniscient characteristic of God. Even if "most Christians" believe that you and I were created from nothing I don't see how that answers the original question in the negative. It seems simple that most Christians' God would be fully capable of granting what those believers believe. If you would like to try again to explain why you assert what you do, I'm open.

Really nothing new there, is there? Humans have always cast their enemies, opponents, etc. as less than themselves whether they choose terms that cast the "others" as sub-human, evil, or whatever. I agree with what I think you're saying that it's up to each individual to choose. Your argument has just a good a chance of holding sway as any other person's argument. Some people will accept it, and some others won't--it depends upon your audience and what each individual wants in the first place.

I agree with @Jane_Doe and it seems to me that if the discussion involves Evolution as the argument for whether homosexuality is natural or not, then the so-called "natural scheme of things" is misleading since there is no "scheme" in nature in the traditional sense of the word. Moreover, if homosexuality occurs in nature regardless of the extent, then it is natural.

@wenglund I'm wondering what if everybody on this thread agreed with you--where would you go from there? What would be the point? In your mind is there something you would want us to go and do with this agreement on homosexuality being abnormal (or whatever word you might want us all to agree upon)?

That is true. I think we could file this under treating others with respect as we would wish to be treated. I would suppose that an LDS person, as an example, would look with suspicion at a non-LDS person wearing temple garments with less than the covenant type motive for which the garment is designed. As you rightly cite, the same might be felt by a Catholic observing a non-believer wielding a crucifix in a less than reverent manner in contrast to the devotion felt by the Catholic. It shouldn't be so difficult for one to see things through another person's eyes in this particular regard.

I think you rightly address a point that ought to make each of us think very hard about our own motives if we choose to wear or otherwise utilize a relic, symbol, etc., that pertains to a deeply felt religious conviction held by someone else.

Although my dad drank coffee and my maternal grandmother drank Postum, I never liked the taste nor the aroma of either. On Winter evenings I often enjoy a little hot chocolate with my marshmallow creme, but I can't seem to conjure any desire for a hot drink on a typical morning. I'll take a cold glass of juice nearly every time.

This portrait of Jesus Christ was up on the wall at the front of the chapel where I attended church as a child. It made me feel good.

I think that the video illustrates that to their own satisfaction human beings can believe they have proven or disproven anything--which I suppose is just another way of saying that one sees what one wants to see and hears what one wants to hear.

Yes. I taught them correct grammar when they were children, and later allowed them to speak as they would. When they don't follow (the grammar rules I learned) I try to focus on understanding them rather than worrying about their grammar.

You say that insurance policies are for the extreme emergencies. Yes, that's true, but they are also for the anticipated expensive aspects of life such as those associated with pregnancy. And of course for decades pre-existing conditions (like pregnancy or congenital diseases) were not covered by insurance. A key component of the equation is that from the perspective of the insurer the insurance exists to make money. We both know without saying that making money depends upon more people signing up for the insurance than will utilize it. But all too many people won't sign up at all (for all the reasons we both already know.) Because over time more and more insureds need the insurance benefits and the procedures grow ever more costly, the insurers must ultimately raise their prices. Ultimately a very large portion of the population can't afford the insurance (for a variety of reasons many of which are no one's "fault" except maybe greed, but nonetheless a reality) whether they want to or not. This is a single illustration where the market-place just doesn't work for the good of sufficient numbers of a society. Any society that seems to obtain different results (like a clan) is merely too small as of yet. Even the Stakes of Zion face this reality. At some point where any given society's population reaches a certain density the society has to decide what to do, and invariably regardless of whether the society favors Phillipino Clanism, Theocracy, Capitalism, Communism, Libertarianism, Dictatorship or any other form of government it must decide *between* allowing ever-growing numbers of the population to suffer and preventing such suffering. And invariably a given society must choose whether to put its government (in other words themselves) to ameliorate the situation that a market-based system cannot acceptably deal with. The alternative is to ignore the problem by saying it doesn't exist or by denying the numbers of sufferers exist until some other tipping point occurs which is most often associated with violence. If the next four years prove to me that my perception is wrong I will freely admit it and send you a gift certificate for a free lunch. But what I expect is that the GOP and President Trump will satisfy themselves with little more than what you initially called "dung" on this thread by telling each other things along the lines of what President Trump tells everyone about the number of attendees at his inauguration, and in four years sufficient numbers of disaffected voters will turn again to the other Party to dismantle O'Trumpcare in favor of helping greater numbers of Americans.

Right? I do remember being the age where everything revolved around me and the adults had to scramble to keep up. I realized not long ago that I now occupy that space where one debates internally about whether to continue adapting, or rather to what extent one's stamina will hold up.

My kids teased me because I couldn't stand Steve Carell's character on the sit-com "The Office". They said it was because the character's name is "Michael". They were probably right, hahahaha.

I noticed a writer named James Bartholomew of The Spectator claims to have coined the term because it " ...fulfills a need. For years, people have noticed the phenomenon but did not have a word or phrase to describe it." This fascinated me because I disagree that no word or phrase already existed. The so-called phenomenon has been well known for thousands of years and was even identified by the Savior criticizing Pharisees and the like for praying on street corners and making show of their self proclaimed righteousness. I suppose we are all guilty from time to time, and need to watch ourselves without the need for a new phrase which in my opinion ironically represents its own sort of political correctness--and from what I've observed in my little google adventure seems to be more useful for finding fault and suppressing discussion

Hmmm, virtue signalling. Guess it's a sign, but a I had to google this term. Leaves me wondering, though, whether by saying this am I automatically suspect?

I agree with you. And I'm not sure I see what the point would have been in the pre-existence to have been informed about everything. Also, it seems to me that a "test" doesn't mean in all cases that you're in because you passed and out because you failed--a test is also valuable to inform one of what one really knows and doesn't really know.

I think your scenario illustrates why healthcare is so not like the commodities/services you mentioned earlier. Let's make it more realistic, not that it (your version) doesn't happen but that it only supports what you want it to support and doesn't include the just as frequent aspects of what we're discussing. Let's say the doctor is seeing me because of an extreme emergency. Like everything else in life I go by faith--this time in the doctor's integrity. I don't have the luxury of shopping for an MRI the way I might shop for a new car or even for an insurance policy. Because my life or a vital organ may hang in the balance I accept the doctor's wisdom. Unless I misconstrue where you're leading this narrative my answer could easily differ if we were talking something like a prostate biopsy or a vitrectomy. Again this specific part of our conversation seems to me to illustrate how a market-based healthcare system in terms of the meaning of that phrase appears to me to be unrealistic--unless you want to modify the definition of a market-based healthcare system.

If your lemonade/flu treatment statement is an argument then I ought to conclude we already have market-based healthcare. I didn't say insurance is healthcare, I said that the closest thing we have to market-based healthcare is health insurance (which is market-based, isn't it?). So are you advocating the U.S. emulate the Philippines? Is the Philippines still (as I read recently) examining Cuba's system as something to emulate? Which countries in Asia are rated as having the best market-based healthcare systems? You probably think at this point that I'm being obstinate. I'm really only feeling frustration, especially with our Current Occupant who after making so many empty promises recently told us that nobody knew healthcare was so complicated (even though *everybody* always knew that healthcare is so complicated). He's finally a self-confessed politician.

@anatess2 I didn't ask you to explain about EVERYTHING. And you still haven't given me anything to go on with healthcare. You've told me about lemonade, and you've decried government involvement. But healthcare isn't like food and nothing like lemonade; and market-based means no government involvement, or am I wrong? Educate me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that no country in the world has a market-based healthcare system. The closest thing we have is healthcare insurance, and experience has been that the market hasn't reduced the costs of insurance. I'm left wondering why the market can't seem to become interested in getting into the business of healthcare the way I perceive market-based advocates seem to preach.

No, I'm not trying to equate healthcare with a fire department. You compared it to food, and I told you why I think your comparison isn't apt. I'm inviting you (as I said at the outset) to convince me that a market-based system will (a) reduce costs; and (b) provide healthcare to those who need it most and can least afford it. I think you are trivializing healthcare when you draw between two extremes like cancer and a paper cut--and certainly comparing the respective treatments doesn't address the issue. Not everyone needs healthcare, and those who need it don't need it every day of their lives (as everybody needs food) nor to the same extent.

Food is to hunger as healthcare is to bad health. Everyone hungers. Not everyone has bad health. Everyone needs to eat and will buy food to satisfy their hunger. But not everyone is sick or injured, and doesn't need to buy healthcare.

Hmmm. Consider me a potential proselyte because at the moment I don't believe a market-based healthcare system is a solution. I don't believe it will bring costs down. I especially don't believe it will make healthcare more affordable for those who need it the most. I don't see why I should consider healthcare as a commodity (like an iPhone as a particular Congressman analogizes) or even a service (in the way people compare it to typical services such as repairs) in the marketplace.

I can understand. I hope you and your husband have much happiness together. All my best to both of you.

As one who was born and raised in it and yet made many acquaintances with people born and raised differently I fully get it about the lifestyle issue. Hahaha, I remember one time in a fast-and-testimony meeting when the daughter of a friend stood and remarked that she just couldn't imagine how her life would be without the Church. In my mind I smiled and said to myself, "That's right, Sweetie, you can't imagine. Perhaps that's because you don't know what it's like. But there are millions of people without the Church who are doing just fine in the way you are saying". I hope that doesn't sound judgmental. It's only meant to illustrate how challenging it can be to see someone else's world view. But I'm still curious about the spiritually part. I hope you and your husband are not so far apart--like when (if) you're doing something like sitting under the stars on a warm night and talking about things that are really really important to the both of you. Know what I mean?

Right. Never say never But I'm (not intending to judge on any level so take me at face value) curious about your remark that you are spiritually different to your husband. What did you mean?