[joelsdad]

Pick a few categories of general law and we will cite New Testament passages that lay the groundwork for laws. I will say this up front, the New Testament does not spell it out like Leviticus does (thought hose were for a specific people for a specific time), but they do give clear teachings on commands from God that if drawen up into legislation make great laws. So picj some general categories and let us go at it.

This is what I said and this is what you said

I don't see how you managed to even streach your mind into a belief this is a command on how to run a government.

This is a depictions of the personal actions of Zacchaeus, this is not a command on how to run a government.

[IMG]Says that divorcing is a sin... again, no mention of governmental law.[/IMG]

A warning to an individual of what might happen in court... not a command on how to run a government.

I never said the NT gave commands for governemt, but gave principles that if enacted in to legislation would make for great government. SEE????????

[joelsdad]

Programs work... I'll lay money that Muslim and Hindu, and Secular programs also work... for example

The website was wonderful and I am grateful you showed me, but that has to do with keeping them out of jail the first time, not reducing the rate of recidivism. it is irrelavent to the toipic.

You would win your bet. their are Jewish Muslim (no Hindu that I know of but their probably are in gthe US) and secular programs that do reduce the rates of recidivism as drastically as Bible basede programs based on a saving relationship with Christ does.

Collected data is not an appeal to authority... appealing to someone else's conclusion is an appeal to authority. Do try to pay attention.

But they draw conclusions as well. I am just not as adept at finding graphs on the web as you are (at least not yewt)

No, it's a fictional work written by generation after generation of clergy, rulers, and self-titled prophets attempting to bend the populus to their respective wills.

this is the first statement you made about the bible.


Then you write this.

You first... OTOH, are you disputing that clergy (say Paul), rulers (Constantine), and prophets (Moses) wrote the Bible?

Constantine di dnot write even a vowel of the Bible, Paul and Moses wrote quite alot. But now prove your charge that they were trying to bend the populous to their wills. Then prove Moses was a self titled prophet.

[joelsdad]

And it's also true that your an ignorant, arrogant, narciccistic ****; but that's hardly a useful argument.

AH Jerry but to really know me is to love me--just ask ME!!!!!!!! :klol: :klol: :klol: :klol: :klol:

[JerryLove]

Well Jerry if you were completely objective I could accpet this, but seeing how you dislike Christianity(genewrally speaking) I know if you dislike thewir conclusions yuou would fault their methodology.

Your already making excuses? I'm guessing you know that the study is either a complete fabrication by you, or that it's faulty already .

They are neither. the study is in the text. and by the way it is not a study but a declaration, which you hate.

You said that the KKK and Aryan Nation were "the nominally religious segment or the cultic segment". Since you have just agreed they are not cults, are you saying they are only nominally religious?

Wrong Jerry, ask an ob s/gyn and then ask a psych they will tell you that both have both PPD is mostly physiological and PASS is mostly psychological for its worse implications occur months and years afterwards as the study I posted showed.

PPD, which efects 20% of women after child-birth, is long-term. I listed the details in my original post, with actual cites (as opposed to you "ask a gyoncologist" support).

Will you always twist my words because you dislike me?

No, I dislike you because you put up statistics which are easily provable as lie, because you dodge questions, ignore topics, make excuses for your lack of ability to support even your most basic assertions, and have an argument strategy based entirely on distraction attempts and unsupporable assertations.

Will you always twist my words because you dislike me?

Credability and consistancy of your claim. You aregued that groups like the KKK must not be Christian because they were garnering beliefs from sources other than the Bible... I've established that oyu also garner beliefs from other sources... Therfore, if that is the standard by which people are determined "non-christian", then you are not Christian... and if it si not, then you were lying when you used it as the standard to support your assertion.

And I did not say tha the New Testament gave specific commands for establishing government, I did say that the New Testament gave principles that would establish better government. Their is a difference.

You said: "come over to the New Testament and look at the laws God has required for His people to live under and see if they don't make for a greatr society."

Did you mean "rules for government"? Well, my response was: "Oh, there are no rules for government in the NT... just rules for Christians."

You said: "No there are plenty of rules for making successful governemtn"

A page or two later you decide you didn't really mean there were "rules"... you ment there were principles from which we could make rules... I guess you just neve thought to mention that befire huh?

Of course, since there is no instruction to make a government in the image of what principles you choose to draw from; it's hardly God's will now is it. after-all, we could make it illegal for men to have long hair, or for people to get married unless they burned with passion.

Thank you Jerry!

For pointing out that you destroied the thread? You're welcome... now stop doing it.

It does much for my assertion, it shows those who actively pursue Christianity in prision ( as demonstrated by their participoation in the program) show lower rates of recidivism than those who do not participate in Christian faith based programs. Besides I also gave other websites showing other states with other programs with the same reduced recidivism rates.

What are the numbers for people who actively persue Atheist programs? You've given nothing to tie the religious nature of the program into anything... and since your argument is that "people with objective values behave better", you will need to show a correlation between the objectiveness of the values and the change in recidivism. You have not shown anything that even suggests it.

I never said the NT gave commands for governemt, but gave principles that if enacted in to legislation would make for great government. SEE

OK... support that.

The website was wonderful and I am grateful you showed me, but that has to do with keeping them out of jail the first time, not reducing the rate of recidivism. it is irrelavent to the toipic.

The topic is weather your program succeeds in canging behavior because it instills objective values or not... the obvious inference from the big brothers program is that the intervention itself, rather than the secular or religious nature of the intervention, is what causes behavioral changes.

Constantine di dnot write even a vowel of the Bible, Paul and Moses wrote quite alot. But now prove your charge that they were trying to bend the populous to their wills. Then prove Moses was a self titled prophet.

Constantine is responsable for the, until him minor, cult that believe in a triune God getting control... He also made many of the holidays (like Christmas).

Are you claiming Moses did not say he was a pophet?

[joelsdad]

Your already making excuses? I'm guessing you know that the study is either a complete fabrication by you, or that it's faulty already

No , Just don't want to waste time. I posted a study showing reduced rates of recidivism for those in volved in Christian based programs while in Jail and you claimed flaws because it did what it set out to do. Why should I show you more when you will in all prbability do the same to them?

You said that the KKK and Aryan Nation were "the nominally religious segment or the cultic segment". Since you have just agreed they are not cults, are you saying they are only nominally religious?

No I said they were cults. And I said that all but the nominally religious consider them cults.

PPD, which efects 20% of women after child-birth, is long-term. I listed the details in my original post, with actual cites (as opposed to you "ask a gyoncologist" support).

First, this qoute has nothing to do with the qoute of mine you answered to. Second I gave you a web site that links to dozens of studies of PASS, that you have not even acknowldged, so I figured maybe you should taske a trip down to an obs/gyn and a psych who specializes in women for it seems obvious you will not even acknowledge the sites I do post up do to yiour bias against me.

No, I dislike you because you put up statistics which are easily provable as lie, because you dodge questions, ignore topics, make excuses for your lack of ability to support even your most basic assertions, and have an argument strategy based entirely on distraction attempts and unsupporable assertations.

Well Jerry you reject most of my proof because you reject the cites (as in the Pen study and "appeal to authority"), I answer questions as best I can, but you dislike most of my answers, you ignore topics when I prove you wrong in areas, and when I have put up stats that were faulty--I admitted it! I am not as adept at the web as you are and so, sometimes i have posted web sites that the dat swas incomplete--when I have I admitted it. Well, most of my "unsupportable assertions" are from books, which I at least gave you author, title, and in many cases page references ( on other threads) you reject that, so until I can find web sites saying the same stuff OH WELL.

Credability and consistancy of your claim. You aregued that groups like the KKK must not be Christian because they were garnering beliefs from sources other than the Bible... I've established that oyu also garner beliefs from other sources... Therfore, if that is the standard by which people are determined "non-christian", then you are not Christian... and if it si not, then you were lying when you used it as the standard to support your assertion.

Once again you twist my words or leave out important words from my qoutes. I said that cults use the bible as a source reference, while bible beleieving Christians use the Bible as THE source reference. I do not think their is anybody (with the excepption of you maybe) who even remotely thinks that that means Christians do not go to other Christian materials to glean knowledge. What it does mean is that other sources are filtered through scripture while the cults filter the bible through their groups writings. If you do not understand the difference, I or somebody else will gladly explain it to you.

You said: "come over to the New Testament and look at the laws God has required for His people to live under and see if they don't make for a greatr society."

Yep that is what I said and still stand by it. but once again you misqoute me. so for the third time I will repost what I said:

d I did not say tha the New Testament gave specific commands for establishing government, I did say that the New Testament gave principles that would establish better government. Their is a difference.

And I still stand by that! Let me SAY IT AGAIN; The new testament does not give commands like the book of Leviticus for establishing a specific national government, but the New Testamaent does give principle s(which are commands for those who name the name of Jesus as Savior to live under) that if enacted into legislation would make for better government.

For pointing out that you destroied the thread? You're welcome... now stop doing it.

No Jerry thank you for your acidic diatribes against me. As for destroying the thread, well only you have said that. I must be terrifying to others so that they won't say that also.

What are the numbers for people who actively persue Atheist programs? You've given nothing to tie the religious nature of the program into anything... and since your argument is that "people with objective values behave better", you will need to show a correlation between the objectiveness of the values and the change in recidivism. You have not shown anything that even suggests it.

First I don't know of any "atheist" programs. And I did prove my point and the assertion you ask me to prove which was--Inmates who follow a christian based value system (as attested to by their participation in the "gasp" "fundamentalist Christian Program") have greater reduced rates of recidivism than those who don't. Atheists have no absolutew value system, you even cited thast yourself, nominally religious folks, claim to have absolutes, but in reality dso not follow them. i am sorry you reject the proof, but you get the proof , then move the fences, I won't buy into that sorry.

OK... support that.

I gave four you rejected them, wh yshould I give more???

The topic is weather your program succeeds in canging behavior because it instills objective values or not... the obvious inference from the big brothers program is that the intervention itself, rather than the secular or religious nature of the intervention, is what causes behavioral changes.

NO JERRY, the topic that I addressed was proving that faith based (Christian ) programs IN jail greatly reduced the rates of recidivism, versus other values. I gave one cite, posted a site sith links to other studies that prove this. Now if you want to talk about reduction or prevention of negative behavioral changes, we will move onto that. Do not mix apples with oranges. For without any statistics in fromt of me, I can confidently say (with proof coming if I can find the detail minte studies you seem to require) thatr while programs like Big Brothers, the boys/girls club and othe rprograms are excellent and enormously commendable for the success they have--Christian based programs would still have higher %. I am going to a large inner city church in 2 months, and they do enormous amounts of street work, I will see if I can get statistics from their work. One thing that has dawned on me Jerry as to why their is a dearth of stats for faith based projects, is that we Christians due it for far different reasons than the worlds does with more eteranl goals. Most Christians orgs (pleawee look I did say MOST and not all), simply do not compile statistical analysis for publication.

Constantine is responsable for the, until him minor, cult that believe in a triune God getting control... He also made many of the holidays (like Christmas).

Well Cult is a generic term so yor little dig means little. But once again Constantine did not write one syllable of the bible. And his elevasting Christianity to a state religion helped bring about the dark ages and the massive corruption of the faith. One of the great tricks of destruction is if you can't beat it out of them, nmake it your own and corrupt it. If yo want to get inot the damage Constantine di dto Christianity I will gladly start a thread with you on it.

Are you claiming Moses did not say he was a pophet?

Not at all. Just not a self styled one as you alleged.

[JerryLove]

No , Just don't want to waste time. I posted a study showing reduced rates of recidivism for those in volved in Christian based programs while in Jail and you claimed flaws because it did what it set out to do. Why should I show you more when you will in all prbability do the same to them?

You just changed the subject again!

What you SAID was: "I am not inferrinfg that bible beleiving Christians commit no crime, but it is a far lower rate than other segments. "

Another statistic showing that people who enter rehabilitation programs are more likely to be rehabilitated (something I've never argued against), does nothing to support your claim (of several pages now), that people with objective systems of morality commit less crime than people with subjective systems.

Please try to stay on the topic... especially when you started it.

No I said they were cults. And I said that all but the nominally religious consider them cults.

Then you defined cults as existing in two types (fundamentalist and charismatic). Then I asked which the KKK was, and you said "neither" - June 27 08:26 PM

First, this qoute has nothing to do with the qoute of mine you answered to.

You siad PASS occured for months and years... I said "so does PPD"... that response seems to directly address your statement.

[qoute]Second I gave you a web site that links to dozens of studies of PASS, that you have not even acknowldged, so I figured maybe you should taske a trip down to an obs/gyn and a psych who specializes in women for it seems obvious you will not even acknowledge the sites I do post up do to yiour bias against me.[/quote] And I've acknowledged it, pointed out that the US Government is unconvinced it's a seperate disorder (as opposed to something like PTSD), and pointed out that PPD and PPP are equally severe problems afflicting women who do have the child.

Well Jerry you reject most of my proof because you reject the cites (as in the Pen study and "appeal to authority"), I answer questions as best I can, but you dislike most of my answers, you ignore topics when I prove you wrong in areas, and when I have put up stats that were faulty--I admitted it!

Usually you just dodge the question... once in a while you admit one, then make a different argument. Almost nothing that I have disagreed with you on has been a case of my position being wrong... They've prettty uniformly been cases of you saying one thing (obvective morals cause lower crime rates) and supporting another (entering rehabilitation lowers crime); you changing your statement every post (back in the christian 1950s... I mean 1850s... I mean 1750s); you posting absurd truisms (Christians, defined as "people who don't commit crimes often", don't commit crimes often), or you posting flat-out lies (birth rates among teens in the 1950s for example).

I am not as adept at the web as you are and so, sometimes i have posted web sites that the dat swas incomplete--when I have I admitted it. Well, most of my "unsupportable assertions" are from books, which I at least gave you author, title, and in many cases page references ( on other threads) you reject that, so until I can find web sites saying the same stuff OH WELL.

Because every time I can look up what I dispute, I find your statistics to be complete fabrications. You tell me, when 10 out of 10 times you are wrong, why I should put the effort to research the other claims that you cannot support here?

Once again you twist my words or leave out important words from my qoutes. I said that cults use the bible as a source reference, while bible beleieving Christians use the Bible as THE source reference. I do not think their is anybody (with the excepption of you maybe) who even remotely thinks that that means Christians do not go to other Christian materials to glean knowledge. What it does mean is that other sources are filtered through scripture while the cults filter the bible through their groups writings. If you do not understand the difference, I or somebody else will gladly explain it to you.

I understand that the difference is entirely subjective to the person making the claim. There is no fundamental difference.

And I still stand by that! Let me SAY IT AGAIN; The new testament does not give commands like the book of Leviticus for establishing a specific national government, but the New Testamaent does give principle s(which are commands for those who name the name of Jesus as Savior to live under) that if enacted into legislation would make for better government.

OK, you have a claim... where is your support? Further, who gets to decide which principles? The one that says "judge not lest ye be judged" would seem to remove you ideas on what should be there. This, then, would not use the NT as *The* source; it would use you as *the* source.. .making it (by your definition) non-christian.

You seek to place yourself as God.

[joelsdad]

Another statistic showing that people who enter rehabilitation programs are more likely to be rehabilitated (something I've never argued against), does nothing to support your claim (of several pages now), that people with objective systems of morality commit less crime than people with subjective systems.

Jerry it does, you just don't like it it appears. the very statistics show that. Recidivism rates for thosw who get in volved in Christian faith based programs are lower than all other categories.

[joelsdad]

Read Walter Martins book Kingdom of the Cults--His definition is the accepted definition by most of evangelical, fundamewntal and charismatic Christian sects.

This is what I said in an earlier post and this is what you said I said in the same post above

Then you defined cults as existing in two types (fundamentalist and charismatic). Then I asked which the KKK was, and you said "neither" - June 27 08:26 PM

Jerry please do try to read what I say! I never defined cults as existing in 2 types I said that groups like KKK and aryan nation are called cults by most fundamental and charismatic sects. Once again you try to twist my words to make them say something they don't.

[joelsdad]

Wrong Jerry, ask an ob s/gyn and then ask a psych they will tell you that both have both PPD is mostly physiological and PASS is mostly psychological for its worse implications occur months and years afterwards as the study I posted showed.

Once again Jerry you have twisted my words for your own reasons. This is what I wrote and below is what you said I wrote

You siad PASS occured for months and years... I said "so does PPD"... that response seems to directly address your statement.

Again ISAID--THE WORST IMPLICATIONS OF PASS OCCUR MONTHS AND YEARS AFTERWARDS--I DID NOT SAY THAT PASS OCCURS FOR MONTHS AND YEARS (THOGH THE EFFECTS DO LAST THAT LONG BUT THAT WAS NOT THE ISSUE AT ALL) THE ISSUE WAS THAT PASS SOMETIMES CAN TAKE YEARSA TO SHOW ITSLEF WHICH IS WHY THE EARLY STUDIES WERE FLAWED AND INCORRECT.

quote] And I've acknowledged it, pointed out that the US Government is unconvinced it's a seperate disorder (as opposed to something like PTSD), and pointed out that PPD and PPP are equally severe problems afflicting women who do have the child.

No On edisagrees that ppd is a debillitating problem, but that is not what I was refferring to and its irrelelvant about the govts. accpetance or denial--Why Jerry I beleive you just tried to appeal to authority!!!!!!!!!!!

OH BTW 7-8,000,000prescritpions for anti depressants prrescribed to woman who have had abortions is not insignificant either. It is one of the websites I posted.

(obvective morals cause lower crime rates

Again you twist my words.

Because every time I can look up what I dispute, I find your statistics to be complete fabrications. You tell me, when 10 out of 10 times you are wrong, why I should put the effort to research the other claims that you cannot support here?

Why Jeryy, you thought I haven't even posted that many stats!!! And you proved one study of mine wrong and I agreed it was based on incomplete data. The others you haven't even touched yet.

I understand that the difference is entirely subjective to the person making the claim. There is no fundamental difference.

Only to someone of your ilk Jerry.

OK, you have a claim... where is your support?

I gave four examples and you rejected them on the basis of redefining what I said. Start with those four-prove why they would not be good laws if enacted and then we can go from there. To things like wages, and employer-employee relations (as many are government nmandated) etc.etc.etc.

rt? Further, who gets to decide which principles? The one that says "judge not lest ye be judged" would seem to remove you ideas on what should be there.

If you only had the vaguest idea what this meant in context you wouldn't have even used this verse. Well lets remove your and my ideas, there are millions of beleivers I would trust in enactring NT principles in to laws of the land.

[joelsdad]

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/YouthIndicators/indtab07.html

wqebsite from U.S. Govt showing growing birth rates in all age groups for unmarried woman

[joelsdad]

Geez, I post up some websites that prove my case, prove Jerry was twisiting my words to make them say something I didn't say and all of a sudden--this thread gets quiet as a church mouse.

[JerryLove]

You lie... I post up proof of your lie... you change topics and lie again... I post up proof of your lie again... etc... etc.

I've gotten tired of putting up proofs for every lie you can spout out... and based on this thread, no one else cares. So at this point, they either know you for the liar you are or never will, responding became a waste of my time.

[joelsdad]

You lie... I post up proof of your lie... you change topics and lie again... I post up proof of your lie again... etc... etc.

So then the Us census data is a lie? The APA is a lie? Wow thanks for telling me. So I guess we can reject their data about stuff.

[JerryLove]

If it was a cite made before I go bored, it's been addressed... if it was made after I got bored, it may or may not be... you've been lying too consistantly to make checking your sources or claims continue to be interesting.

[joelsdad]

ou lie... I post up proof of your lie... you change topics and lie again... I post up proof of your lie again... etc... etc.

And I finally find the web sites that butrtress my claims and you get bore. I catch you half a dozen times twisting my statements around to make them say something different post the proof and you run. That is an old tactic.

Like I told you Jerry most of my infor was from books-you posted web sites that contradicted my clasims, so I spend the time finding how to gwt to the websites, find my claims validateds by such sources as the US census Bureau, The Amer. Psych. Assoc., and several others and you now refuse to answer. Well I for my part (now that I can navigate the web a whole lot better) will conotinue to find sources that show my claims valid.