Ten oz

We (western world) cannot stop it through any type of intervention that involves killing people. Foriegn forces in ones backyard killing people is fuel terrorists can use. Certainly foriegn forces have been welcomed places before; England was happy to have U.S. in WW2 but that was a partnership between allied counrties with shared history and culture. U.S. forces, NATO forces, Russian forces will not be able to resolve this. In the region there are several stable and wealthy countries. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain.These countries enjoy healthy business relationships with the western world. International money feeds their opulent countries. Yet they stay neutral on most of the destructive matters facing their region. In some cases they even provided money to violent groups. I think the western world should sacrifice paying higher fuel costs for a while so that our gov't can put pressure on these wealthy countries to act. Pressure Saudi Arabia to work with Iran and Turkey. Pressure the affluent nations to build alliance. They are the ones with the shared history and culture. Their presence isn't automatically a force multiplier for terrorist groups. That would take sacrifice though. Drone bombing suspected terrorists thousands of miles away doesn't impact our wallets in a linear way. Much easier for politicians to campaign on how big our stick is.

Since 1973 there has been 156 exonerated death row inmates. How many innocent people would you be okay sacrificing at the atler of our bloodlust for institutionally performed revenge? Death row exonerations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates Not just Death Row cases but since 1992 the Innocene Project has help exonerate 342 people. http://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/ You don't think any of the murderers on death row murdered for vengeance? If it wasn't a justifiable reason for them why is it for our gov't?

It is more expensive to execute a person than lock them up for life. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-07-exepensive-to-execute_N.htm Sure there are psychological reasons and many murders are psychopaths how does that justify us (society of non-psychpaths) killing people who are detained and under our control? The feeling that someone deserves to die is, in my opinion, a very selfish one everyone is capable of. We have conflicts all over the world where people are killing each other for reason they have selfishly determined justified. I think not killing when it isn't necessary is far simplier than putting in the mental effort to kill someone that we do not need to. Explain why it is necessary to execute a prison inmate?

"defense mechanisms, e.g., (moral) rationalization, denial, projection, etc. for starters." is not the context of my statement. Whe a person is being watched and knows they are being watched they behave differently than when they are not being watched. Nothing philosophical about about it. People cheat behind others backs, steal when no one is looking, and etc. When we (humans) know we are being watched we behave differently than when we are not. That is a simple truth. Despite religious people claiming to believe God is watching most don't clearly do not believe it; not enough for it to impact their behavior the way a camera would. Of course we are very complicated. Psychology there are any number of reasons for what anyone says, does, and believes. I am not looking to determine right or wrong or understand the human mind broadly. I'm simply observing that people behave differently when they know they are being watched but being watched by God isn't legitimate/tangible enough to have that same impact. Now that isn't to say 100% people behave free from any concern for God. Obviously many people make efforts to behave in a manner that they feel God would approve of. However they fall short much more quickly and far more often than they would if something real was watching. The overwhelming majority of people would stay virgins till marriage if they knew their parents could see them at all times. God watching just doesn't carry the same weight.

Some have tried in their own way. In my opinion life is for the living. I think we (society) spend way to much time concerning ourselves with the dead. Abrahamic religions are competitive and cruel (in my opinion) compared to many other religions. So it makes sense they'd claim dominance over land, people, and the afterlife.

Why not; we don't have enough information to make an informed assumption about their motives. We often don't even know for sure how how much of the writings attributed to them was actually written by them. Determining a motive is a leap of faith. Determining a benevolent motive, considering the history of violence and oppression linked to religion, a blind leap of faith.

@ dissary, you say a cult leader is more likely to lie but what is the difference between a cult leader and a major religion founder other than how popular their movement becomes? Christianity didn't start to formalize until about 50yrs after Jesus was said to have been executed and was initially viewed as cultish. I don't see the delineation between L Ron Hubert, Joseph Smith, and Paul. Of course people were more supertitious thousands of years ago. I think, ironically, many athiests are probably still a little superstitious today. People living in a world where ghosts, monsters, and etc were suspected to be real doesn't mean that those who founded various religions weren't bold face liars. Move over I would contend that most people who proclaim to have faith or are superstitious engaged in some self-delusion. For example people claim to believe in god, claim to believe it watches over everthing, claim to believe in an afterlife, and etc yet behavior tells a different story. If they (religious) believe god is literally watching why do the overwhelming majority still lie, cheat, steal, and etc? If they believe as claimed god has a plan why wear a seat belt, worry about security at airports, and etc? Supertition is a convoluted thing that is both believed and not believed at the sametime. A cleaer example are children; they may say there is a monster under the bed or in the closet but in truth if they ever actually saw a monster or even just a strange man under their bed they would be tramitized for life. Push comes to shove we all know the difference between what is real and what isn't. I see no reason the assume Paul or any other narrator of any major religion were true believers or even partial believers. I know that what they claim are often contradictory, historically inaccurate, and fully of unsubstantiated claims. Why assume their motives benevolent?

I am unaware of cases, that can substantiate your claim of saving thousands of lives, where convicted murderers on death row have escaped or killed fellow prisoners. Move over if people escaping prison our committing murder while in prison was a problem would better prison security be the solution to that problem? People behave in society in the manners that society allows/encourages. When it was okay for males to beat their wives doing so was far more common. Same goes for hitting children. Society saying something is okay increases the rate of practice. Here in the United States as a matter of policy we say it is okay to kill people. That killing people is an acceptable course of action against those doing things we find reprehensible. It isn't constrained to our judical system either. War, drone killings, and special forces raids, and etc are part of our foriegn policy. Any presidential candidate that doesn't proclaim a desire to KILL terrorists (not just stop them) is viewed as weak and unfit to lead. As a downstream effect of this individuals arm themselves not just in their homes but out walking the streets with the intention of killing anyone who is doing something bad. Killing as a means to prevent any crime, even petty crime, and that behavior is viewed as a gray area. Case by case we accept our citizens killing each other if we feel the dead had it common. So we get cases like Trayvon Martin. In my opinion it would be far better for society to say killing, all killing of any type, is a bad thing. That it is reserved strictly for the defense from imminent harm. A prison inmate who is detained behind bars and under guard poses no imminent threat. Not killing them is an easy place to start.

How are you arriving at this conclusion? You concede that what was written may simple not be true and the characters fictional yet insist it is unlikely the people who wrote it were atheist. L Ron Hubbard started a religion; do you think he was an atheist? The motives to start a religion as a means of influence and control are very obvious and many have attempted it. I reference Scienctology because it is the newest religion on the block and history hasn't had time to rewrite it. Why should I assume any realigon that exists today was more sincerely created than Scienctology?

locking people up should only be for those who are a danger. If someone being free to walk the street poses a tangible threat. Everyone else can be dealt with through fines in my opinion. The idea of bail and bond is pointless in 2016. If a court fines someone in Kansas it isn't like that person can just get on a horse ride off to Oklahoma and start over. Once a fines is in place wages can be garnished, it can be taken from tax returns, and etc. A person will have credit, banking, and etc trouble until it is resolved so they aren't able to just walk away from it. So the idea of a having a collateral system in place to ensure a person shows up for a court date isn't neccessary. Don't show up and the court rules agaionst you automatically. Show up and you can defend yourself. It is simple.

You concede that what was said is true but still demand time is wasted to prove it for purely punitive reasons?

Which is what make them the bad guys. If all they did was negotiate peaceful terms there wouldn't be a problem would there? As a nation we can't justify violating our Constitution and international treaties because rogue individuals do bad things. I stand correct on what Trump has advocated. He said he'd kill the famlies and torture the terrorists. Either way it is against our laws and international law. Beyond the pale for a major party candidate for the White House to say such.

Clinton is running to be the President of the United States. Trump is running to be the Ruler of World. Clinton, like her policies or not, plans to function within the status qou and has a normal centerist platform. Trump has said he'll make Mexico pay for the wall, will make China sign more favorable trade deals by increasing our military presence in Asia to strengthen our negotiating position (stated policy of his own campaign site), and will kill and or torture the families of terrorists (he literally said that). This isn't between lesser evils. Clinton is the boring status qou; not evil. This between someone we may not like much and evil. Trump wanting to use our military for to force China to change trade policy would violate nurmerous international agreements; dangerous Trump threatening to torture and kill families of terrorists violates the Constitution of the U.S. and nurmerous international agreements; dangerous Trump's border wall is nonsensical, divisive, and involves us dictating terms to another sovereign nation; dangerous In addition to those dangerous policies Trump denies Climate Change, doesn't believe there is a drought in California, want to lower taxes for rich people, remove federal control and oversight from medicare and all gov't from healthcare, and etc, etc, etc. What dangerous of evil policies can you list that Clinton advocates? I can name many that I wish were different or think fall short of going far enought but none that I feel would direct lead to war or toture. None that deny basic realities like climate change.

Not much. In this country more people identify as Democrat than Republican and Sanders not only polls as much more likable than Trump but crushes Trump in head to head polling. The GOP primary and the general election are very different things and Hillary should be (probably will be) mindful of that.

Name calling is something Trump brought to the fight. It is his weapon of choice. No beating him at it. Losing strategy to try. Sanders appeal is that he is right on the issues. That should be the approach; being right about stuff. Leave the lowbrow shtick to Trump.

We all grew up learning that one shouldn't criticize less they have a better idea. That solutions are better than complaints. Trump does a great job turning all his critics into complainers who point out his stupidity and run out of time before presenting any solutions. At the same time he hides his complaints inside of nebulous solutions that mean something different each time he states them. Will we build a wall on the southern border and would it be successful if we did; of course not. That said building a wall is a proposed solution that really appeals to the low information voters Trump has all worked up. Simply pointing out (complaining) that the wall wouldn't work, is racist, would be expensive, would hurt the economy, and etc offers no solution and thus can be ignored as criticism from haters. Trump is full of impratical solutions. We cannot allow ourselves to constantly be suckered into combating his solutions merely with complaints about those solutions because that is what he wants. Daily tit for tats rather than real policy discussion. Instead of complaining about the excessive media coverage we should focus debate on the equal time and solutions like the fairness doctrine, campaign reform, public media, and etc. Rather than laughing at the wall proposal we should focus debate on our agricultural industry, minimum wage, and immigration reform. As opposed to agruing about whether long lost jobs will comeback we should focus on technology, innovation, and infrastructure. Because stupid as Trump's solutions are, and they are breath takenly stupid, they're solutions all the same and complaints generally lose out to solutions. *I am not implying you are complaining. Rather my post is meant broadly (pundits, bloggers, journalist, etc).

The native population of this country is about one percent while the other 99% are immigrants. We already have immigration in large proportions. Removing race from conversations about immigration is ignorant. The history of immigration in this country is racial. The clean slate approach of trying to remove race from any conversations moving forward only serves as a conveinience for those who don't understand history and aren't prepared to tackle the whole problem. Historical snapshot of immigration policy: - 1790 Naturalization Act allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person. -Page Act of 1875 first restrictive immigration law prohibiting "undesirables". The law defined "undesirable" as anyone from Asia engaged a list of practices. - Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 the first law implemented to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the United States. Not repealed until 1943. - Immigration Act of 1924 limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the U.S. in 1890. -Mexican Repatriation Act forced people of Mexican decent to move to Mexico. Targeted states fromerly part of Mexico. Most were U.S. citizens. - Immigration Act 1965 changed the quota formula making immigration laws universal to all racial and enthnic groups. Our immigration policies started with all free white persons can apply and went through various waves of restricting all others until finally standardizing policy for all groups in 1965. That history has shaped the power structure, demographics, culture, religion, and etc of this country for hundreds of years. Race has always been part of the all our immigration debates. The question has seldom been how many immigrants should be allowed in but rather which types should be allowed in based on how our majority white protestants judge others worthy. That simply has not change. WhenTrump says Mexico isn't sending their best Trump is making clear value judgements on the worthiness of Mexicans in this country. Conservatives argue it is merely about the law then turn around and take personal shiots at Mexican immigrants specifically basically saying that they are all a bunch of uneducated undesirables. Obviously this isn't just about "the law".

@ Delta1212, look at how far boasting, exaggerating, and lying has gotten him. I think there is more to it than just his ego. It is a huge coup of the media narrative that continuously does bait and switch tactics to spin critics in circles. Trump has started with what he knows a strong portion of the conservative base wants and has basically promised them everything they could ever want and assured them he won't do anything that compromises it like consider logic, reason, the views of others, and etc. They hate fact checking leading to them being on the wrong side of everything. Trump represents the hope of them just getting what they want rather then whats true or fair. Sometimes people just selfishly want what they want. To that end all of Trump's lies are comforting to his base. They are comforted that like them Trump just wants win and be awesome. Who cares about the rest. In the U.S. the pinnacle of success is money. There is an almost religious quality to wealth where it is assumed that all people with money, regardless of how that money was attained, must be intelligent and worked hard to be where they are. Trump preys on that by lying about how wealthy and succesful he is. Despite all the business failures and the fact that Trump inherited his real estate empire (branding) the simple fact that he is or at least is believed to be very wealthy makes the view that he must know business irrefutable. In turn he doesn't need to explain his views on econimcs. If a reporter ask how he'll create jobs all he needs to do is talk about how big his plane is and insist that he knows more because he has more. All of his lies build on themselves that way. So Trump lies because it works. Lying assures his supporters that he won't consider the "facts" from the other side and/or be reasonable; his lying reinforces many ignorant views about success, and his lies prevent the media or anyone else from focusing on anything that matters. That last part being the most important. For examples; I have enjoyed watching Bill Maher's HBO show for several years. In the past Maher has done well having panel debates about policy (gun laws, healthcare, abortion, religious freedom, DOJ, etc). His panels are informed and everyone normally has a purposed change or fix which would resolve which ever policy issue is being debated. Yet Maher's show recently has fallen victim to what we can call the "Trump effect". Maher spends at least a 3rd of every show meandering about trying to wrestle in all the Trump lies and exaggeration of the week. By the end of the show it feels like a series of complaints that lacks stated resolutions for those complaints. As a result no policy is being discussed. Just a weekly rehashing of "how can Trump", "why does Trump", "who would Trump", and etc. Trump says he'll build a wall and rather than people like Maher and the rest of the media doing indepth work on immigration they all just sit around and talk about how Trump expects to do it. Debating the need for immigration form is a very different conversation that debating the viability of a Trump tweet. And that is where Trump is winning with his lies. Turning normally well thought out political observers into daily twitter followers who are always playing catch up.

Many in here have made posts I agree with in context to events. The child had inadequate supervision and the zoo staff made a tough choice that errored on the side of a child life. However I can't help but wonder why this is still a thing? Why enclosing animals that aren't domesticated in viewing centers so people can stand around looking at them purely for entertainment is still a thing. Lots of really good work being done out there by filmmakers and photographers capturing animals in their natural environment. That work allows us to see them is a more edicational and dynamic manner. Why imprison a guerilla in an aritificial envirnment and watch it sit around growing old? Perhaps it would be healthier for society if we had more gardens, observatories, refuges, and etc rather than zoos? Stuff happens. Of course parents should be watching their kids but we all know they don't; not 100% of the time. Everyone makes mistakes and has slip ups. Did any of our parents prevent us from 100% of the stupid stuff we did? Part of properly accessing risk is understanding that stuff doesn't always go the way it should. So while the zoo staff have primary jobs that don't involve saving children; they are in a business where thousands of their customers are children and they should have some basic plans in place for the unseen. Animal interaction with people at a zoo is not an out of left field emergent issue that no one ever could have imagined. The zoo should have been prepared. Dito for parents; if you are takening your children someplace to see "wild" animals understand there are risks associated with that. In context to what happened the zoo did what was the most straight forward a safest for the child in the situation. Big picture the situation was sort of stupid and perhaps zoos antiquated places that shouldn't still be a thing.

Good post. God created all and knows all. So God must have created Satan with knowledge of what would follow? Perhaps providing free will requires choice which made creating Satan necessary or inevitable. It provides a yin and yang but only a superficial one; God will defeat Satan and paradise (for eternity) will be without evil. Which begs to question if free will is taken from man in paradise or if free will doesn't require the option of sin.

Sanders has done worse in open primaries than he has in caucuses. The system you are complaining about has benefited Sanders. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

@ dissary, it is not "depiction of a God with similar qualities" the 3 literally come from the one. Just as all romantic languages (Portuguese, Spanish, French, etc) come from Latin. They do not merely share words they are built up the same root base. Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam did not all create independently of each other. For example Christianity started as a Jewish Sect. When Mohammad went to Medina he is said to have referred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as "people of the book" and initially viewed the 3 as natural allies. No amount of add ons change the history of where these religions come from and what immortal entity started off as their God. Had there never been Judiasm there never would have been Christianity or Islam. The old Testament is to all Abrahamic realigions what Latin is to all Romantic languages. That is a fact. The link you provided is from a Christian Bible College. At best it serves as an informed Christian opinion. Of course every religion thinks they are singular. Saying their God can't be the same because "their attributes are different" holds ZERO weight. If I vs my nephews were to assign attributes to my parents, their grand parents, we would assign wildly different ones despite the fact the we would all be describing the same 2 people. This is distracting from the threads topic which is suppose to be about free will. My initial point with regards to Abrahamic realigions was to say that they are based on the Old Testament (fact) and that Satan as mentioned in the OP of this thread is only a figure in Abrahamic religions. As such Satan from the Old Testament is the Satan referenced. Outside of us working towards addressing the threads topic there is no reason for us to continue this debate. You are coming from a Christian Theological prespective and I purely from a historical/archaeological one. I am an Athiest that doesn't believe in God. As such the Theological views on whom god is understood to be aren't ones that register with me. Without Judiasm there would never have been Christianity or Islam. That simple straight forward lineage is reality and requires zero faith based translation. The 3 are siblings.

"Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes called Abrahamic religions because they all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the prophet Abraham. The theological traditions of all Abrahamic religions are thus to some extent influenced by the depiction of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, and the historical development of monotheism in the history of Judaism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Abrahamic_religions You are using the way people feel about religions to redefine terms. My point is that what is believed about god is the same; just that all Abrahamic religions have the same basic god. What each different religion claims about God is obviously different.

I am not saying they don't have differences. I said the way they worship and follow the God of Abrahamic Realigions is what's different. Within every denomination Christianity there are differences. In my life I have heard countless Evangelical Christians say that Catholics aren't Christian because of this that and the other. Within the egocentric nature of any self identifier there is always superficial differences use to redefine that which is being identified. A Football fan may object to a Golfer being called an athlete or a Tea Party activist may object to a Centerist Republican being called Conservative. Ones personal feelings about the beliefs and actions of others is often used to subtly distort definitions and history. As each new denomination, culture, or language translates the Old Testament it is changed. Words that carry key meanings to one culture or in one language may be frivolous words that are cut out, understood differently, or altered by another. It doesn't mean a new or different God has been created or is otherwise suddenly being worshiped. Catholics are Christians regardless of how strongly many Evangelicals object to that reality.

Jesus was literally born into Judaism so it shouldn't be a tough sell there. Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc are all central figures for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. All three beleive the Old Testament. The Quran and New Testament are additions to the Old Testament for their perspective religions. They do not replace God of the Old Testament they simply adlust the manner by which that god is worshiped and followed.