|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 5, 2014 14:25:41 GMT -6
$30k will cover about one day of ICU care. Until BCBS applies their discount, which cuts it, at least if not more, in half. The point is that the family is already bankrupt (secondary problem) due to the care received. And, money isn't the issue anyway. There is no justification for indefinite application of futile care no matter how much money is in the picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 12:26:57 GMT -6
How come neither of you responded to my previous thread about BibleGod 1.0 (OT edition) mandating abortion for unfaithful women? Why would you expect me to reply to that post? I'm about as likely to look to the Old Testament for specific literal guidance on the abortion issue as you are. Jim
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Jan 6, 2014 12:33:42 GMT -6
Besides, even Jesus relativized the Hebrew scriptures, putting them into a new context. Just look at his reformulation of things like divorce, the great commandment, and the eating of unclean foods, among others. As the Divine Logos, God's word sprang forth through the Holy Spirit. So, for us non-literalist believers, we have no trouble seeing the Hebrew Scripture in relative terms.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 6, 2014 15:56:27 GMT -6
Besides, even Jesus relativized the Hebrew scriptures, putting them into a new context. Just look at his reformulation of things like divorce, the great commandment, and the eating of unclean foods, among others. As the Divine Logos, God's word sprang forth through the Holy Spirit. So, for us non-literalist believers, we have no trouble seeing the Hebrew Scripture in relative terms. Just not your Testament, right? Makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 6, 2014 17:13:33 GMT -6
How come neither of you responded to my previous thread about BibleGod 1.0 (OT edition) mandating abortion for unfaithful women? Why would you expect me to reply to that post? I'm about as likely to look to the Old Testament for specific literal guidance on the abortion issue as you are. Jim So there is no value whatsoever in examining the supposed source of religious teaching that life begins at conception for those who hold it? Granted, most will not actually cite Numbers 5, but most Judeochristian moralists will cite Psalm 139--a poem, no less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 17:53:37 GMT -6
Why would you expect me to reply to that post? I'm about as likely to look to the Old Testament for specific literal guidance on the abortion issue as you are. Jim So there is no value whatsoever in examining the supposed source of religious teaching that life begins at conception for those who hold it? Granted, most will not actually cite Numbers 5, but most Judeochristian moralists will cite Psalm 139--a poem, no less. Who said that there was no value in examining those scriptures? Certainly not me. What I said was, "Why would you expect me to reply to that post? I'm about as likely to look to the Old Testament for specific literal guidance on the abortion issue as you are..." Since you understand my theological point of view as well as anyone, I'm pretty confident that you know what I mean. In case it is not entirely clear, the fact that I'm not particularly interested in examining OT scripture hardly means that, "there is no value whatsoever in examining the supposed source of religious teaching that life begins at conception for those who hold it." It's almost like you are trying to apply the one-size-fits-all mode of argument (1st cousin to the straw man) here. I doubt that's the case, so I imagine we're just talking past each other. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 6, 2014 19:39:46 GMT -6
Trout,
Now that it's legal, have you had to juggle finances to fit pot into your life?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 21:37:20 GMT -6
Trout, Now that it's legal, have you had to juggle finances to fit pot into your life? No, not me. I have slowly progressed from $10-12 bottles of wine to $15-18 bottles over the past several years though. If the Broncos lay another egg on January 12, I might have to go straight to whisky too. I've wondered how much legalization will increase actual pot consumption in Colorado. You don't have to be a stoner to notice that pot always seemed plenty available to those who were interested, legal or not. J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 6, 2014 22:34:41 GMT -6
So there is no value whatsoever in examining the supposed source of religious teaching that life begins at conception for those who hold it? Granted, most will not actually cite Numbers 5, but most Judeochristian moralists will cite Psalm 139--a poem, no less. Who said that there was no value in examining those scriptures? Certainly not me. What I said was, "Why would you expect me to reply to that post? I'm about as likely to look to the Old Testament for specific literal guidance on the abortion issue as you are..." Since you understand my theological point of view as well as anyone, I'm pretty confident that you know what I mean. In case it is not entirely clear, the fact that I'm not particularly interested in examining OT scripture hardly means that, "there is no value whatsoever in examining the supposed source of religious teaching that life begins at conception for those who hold it." It's almost like you are trying to apply the one-size-fits-all mode of argument (1st cousin to the straw man) here. I doubt that's the case, so I imagine we're just talking past each other. Jim Here's my thought process: 1. I think, given our history, that it is fair to assume that when there appears to be a charged conversation between us, it usually owes predominantly to tendencies on the part of one or the other or both to hold opinions strongly and/or articulate them bluntly, rather than to malice. 2. I am generally aware of your position on abortion. I think it is this: you personally believe, for religious or philosophical reasons, that life begins (or might begin) at conception. For this reason you see abortion as undesirable. You do not, as far as I know, wish to enforce your personal moral convictions on others by outlawing abortion. 3. I don't think that you have the sort of sheep mentality that would amount to "the church says it, therefore I believe it." You must have examined the scriptural and traditional bases for the doctrine of life at conception in at least some detail. 4. It is not credible to say that such teaching isn't at least partially anchored in a literal approaches to various OT passages. It may be that you really don't care that the scriptural basis for pro-life politics isn't especially strong. I suspect that you at least find it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 6, 2014 22:46:30 GMT -6
Trout, Now that it's legal, have you had to juggle finances to fit pot into your life? No, not me. I have slowly progressed from $10-12 bottles of wine to $15-18 bottles over the past several years though. If the Broncos lay another egg on January 12, I might have to go straight to whisky too. I've wondered how much legalization will increase actual pot consumption in Colorado. You don't have to be a stoner to notice that pot always seemed plenty available to those who were interested, legal or not. J Seeing whisky as a desperate or last-ditch move is a mistake, IMO. Sure, you can blow your hard earned wages on single malts just as easily as you can on wine, but either can be done on a lawyers budget with without too much trouble. The maximum bang for buck IMO lies with the Irish, who certainly have worked hard to perfect the art. Standard Jameson is a pleasant carmel/vanilla pour straight up, and isn't anymore likely to keep you up all night or foster regret in the morning than a $15 red. Less, IMO, but YMMV. Since our last lunch, I've acquired a taste for Scotch, but I also recognize that the sublime smokey, peat-y Islay-type stuff comes at both a financial and a biological cost. FWIW, there seemed to be plenty of weed available last night for those interested at my non-Colorado establishment of choice. I've never dabbled, but some of my friends swear by it and still seem to function well in society. I'm a bit ambivalent about legalization. While it's true that the drug war has been a colossal failure, I worry about addiction potential and the difficulties surrounding detecting it for purposes of prosecuting DWI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 17:33:34 GMT -6
Who said that there was no value in examining those scriptures? Certainly not me. What I said was, "Why would you expect me to reply to that post? I'm about as likely to look to the Old Testament for specific literal guidance on the abortion issue as you are..." Since you understand my theological point of view as well as anyone, I'm pretty confident that you know what I mean. In case it is not entirely clear, the fact that I'm not particularly interested in examining OT scripture hardly means that, "there is no value whatsoever in examining the supposed source of religious teaching that life begins at conception for those who hold it." It's almost like you are trying to apply the one-size-fits-all mode of argument (1st cousin to the straw man) here. I doubt that's the case, so I imagine we're just talking past each other. Jim Here's my thought process: 1. I think, given our history, that it is fair to assume that when there appears to be a charged conversation between us, it usually owes predominantly to tendencies on the part of one or the other or both to hold opinions strongly and/or articulate them bluntly, rather than to malice. 2. I am generally aware of your position on abortion. I think it is this: you personally believe, for religious or philosophical reasons, that life begins (or might begin) at conception. For this reason you see abortion as undesirable. You do not, as far as I know, wish to enforce your personal moral convictions on others by outlawing abortion. 3. I don't think that you have the sort of sheep mentality that would amount to "the church says it, therefore I believe it." You must have examined the scriptural and traditional bases for the doctrine of life at conception in at least some detail. 4. It is not credible to say that such teaching isn't at least partially anchored in a literal approaches to various OT passages. It may be that you really don't care that the scriptural basis for pro-life politics isn't especially strong. I suspect that you at least find it interesting. Hi FB: You're right except for a couple of nuances. This conversation isn't even close to being charged. I was probably too abrupt. You've got my position on the merits correct. I respect church teaching on this subject, but not enough to legislate the Church line. Thus, although I'm not a "yes man" in general I respect the church teaching here enough to personalize it even though I have not studied these scriptures. I'm well aware of the fact that I reject other Church teaching on other contemporary issues (gay marriage). In one case the Church teaching contradicts my concept of a loving God in the other case it doesn't. Is that an itchy ears thing? Beats me. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 17:35:28 GMT -6
No, not me. I have slowly progressed from $10-12 bottles of wine to $15-18 bottles over the past several years though. If the Broncos lay another egg on January 12, I might have to go straight to whisky too. I've wondered how much legalization will increase actual pot consumption in Colorado. You don't have to be a stoner to notice that pot always seemed plenty available to those who were interested, legal or not. J Seeing whisky as a desperate or last-ditch move is a mistake, IMO. Sure, you can blow your hard earned wages on single malts just as easily as you can on wine, but either can be done on a lawyers budget with without too much trouble. The maximum bang for buck IMO lies with the Irish, who certainly have worked hard to perfect the art. Standard Jameson is a pleasant carmel/vanilla pour straight up, and isn't anymore likely to keep you up all night or foster regret in the morning than a $15 red. Less, IMO, but YMMV. Since our last lunch, I've acquired a taste for Scotch, but I also recognize that the sublime smokey, peat-y Islay-type stuff comes at both a financial and a biological cost. FWIW, there seemed to be plenty of weed available last night for those interested at my non-Colorado establishment of choice. I've never dabbled, but some of my friends swear by it and still seem to function well in society. I'm a bit ambivalent about legalization. While it's true that the drug war has been a colossal failure, I worry about addiction potential and the difficulties surrounding detecting it for purposes of prosecuting DWI. Does good Scotch have a biological cost above and beyond other spirits? J
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 17:40:41 GMT -6
No, not me. I have slowly progressed from $10-12 bottles of wine to $15-18 bottles over the past several years though. If the Broncos lay another egg on January 12, I might have to go straight to whisky too. I've wondered how much legalization will increase actual pot consumption in Colorado. You don't have to be a stoner to notice that pot always seemed plenty available to those who were interested, legal or not. J Seeing whisky as a desperate or last-ditch move is a mistake, IMO. Sure, you can blow your hard earned wages on single malts just as easily as you can on wine, but either can be done on a lawyers budget with without too much trouble. The maximum bang for buck IMO lies with the Irish, who certainly have worked hard to perfect the art. Standard Jameson is a pleasant carmel/vanilla pour straight up, and isn't anymore likely to keep you up all night or foster regret in the morning than a $15 red. Less, IMO, but YMMV. Since our last lunch, I've acquired a taste for Scotch, but I also recognize that the sublime smokey, peat-y Islay-type stuff comes at both a financial and a biological cost. FWIW, there seemed to be plenty of weed available last night for those interested at my non-Colorado establishment of choice. I've never dabbled, but some of my friends swear by it and still seem to function well in society. I'm a bit ambivalent about legalization. While it's true that the drug war has been a colossal failure, I worry about addiction potential and the difficulties surrounding detecting it for purposes of prosecuting DWI. Taxing pot seems like a good idea to me - a robust black market does not benefit society at all. On the other hand, a big uptick in drug use resulting from legalization would be bad. My gut says that legalization won't increase usage that much. I just don't think that many kids consider the illegality of pot or booze to be a deciding factor in the "am I going to try this" decision. I'm sure we will have data from the Colorado experiment soon enough. J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 8, 2014 0:49:53 GMT -6
Seeing whisky as a desperate or last-ditch move is a mistake, IMO. Sure, you can blow your hard earned wages on single malts just as easily as you can on wine, but either can be done on a lawyers budget with without too much trouble. The maximum bang for buck IMO lies with the Irish, who certainly have worked hard to perfect the art. Standard Jameson is a pleasant carmel/vanilla pour straight up, and isn't anymore likely to keep you up all night or foster regret in the morning than a $15 red. Less, IMO, but YMMV. Since our last lunch, I've acquired a taste for Scotch, but I also recognize that the sublime smokey, peat-y Islay-type stuff comes at both a financial and a biological cost. FWIW, there seemed to be plenty of weed available last night for those interested at my non-Colorado establishment of choice. I've never dabbled, but some of my friends swear by it and still seem to function well in society. I'm a bit ambivalent about legalization. While it's true that the drug war has been a colossal failure, I worry about addiction potential and the difficulties surrounding detecting it for purposes of prosecuting DWI. Does good Scotch have a biological cost above and beyond other spirits? J In my opinion, yes. I love a good Islay malt, and I drink it neat, but if I don't make sure I'm well hydrated, there is hell to pay even for a small indulgence. Peaty scotches aren't for wimps.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 8, 2014 0:51:00 GMT -6
Seeing whisky as a desperate or last-ditch move is a mistake, IMO. Sure, you can blow your hard earned wages on single malts just as easily as you can on wine, but either can be done on a lawyers budget with without too much trouble. The maximum bang for buck IMO lies with the Irish, who certainly have worked hard to perfect the art. Standard Jameson is a pleasant carmel/vanilla pour straight up, and isn't anymore likely to keep you up all night or foster regret in the morning than a $15 red. Less, IMO, but YMMV. Since our last lunch, I've acquired a taste for Scotch, but I also recognize that the sublime smokey, peat-y Islay-type stuff comes at both a financial and a biological cost. FWIW, there seemed to be plenty of weed available last night for those interested at my non-Colorado establishment of choice. I've never dabbled, but some of my friends swear by it and still seem to function well in society. I'm a bit ambivalent about legalization. While it's true that the drug war has been a colossal failure, I worry about addiction potential and the difficulties surrounding detecting it for purposes of prosecuting DWI. Taxing pot seems like a good idea to me - a robust black market does not benefit society at all. On the other hand, a big uptick in drug use resulting from legalization would be bad. My gut says that legalization won't increase usage that much. I just don't think that many kids consider the illegality of pot or booze to be a deciding factor in the "am I going to try this" decision. I'm sure we will have data from the Colorado experiment soon enough. J I'll be interested in the impact on vehicular safety and what, if anything, can be done to prosecute DWI when the breathalyzer says "0".
|
|