PDA

View Full Version : I live in jesusland.



Shane W
11-02-2006, 06:50 AM
And it's starting to get to me.

About 60% of the houses around me have "vote god, vote no on amendment 2" signs in their yards.

I've gotta get out of here. I need to be around secular heathans.

Ben
11-02-2006, 06:52 AM
Luckily, God can't run for President since he wasn't born in the US.

ClintP
11-02-2006, 06:52 AM
I have seen a sign that says "Elect Jesus as your savior" around. I wonder where on the ballet he is?

Shane W
11-02-2006, 06:52 AM
Luckily, God can't run for President since he wasn't born in the US.

I thought he was born everywhere. And he's watching you poop.

Race
11-02-2006, 06:53 AM
We're just tenants, He's the landlord.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 06:53 AM
What is amendment 2?

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 06:54 AM
It's weird. In my neighborhood I go down two blocks east and for several blocks there are nothing but Dem signs. Two blocks west and for blocks it's Republican signs and signs like "TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: ONE MAN. ONE WOMAN. AS GOD INTENDED" are all over the lawns. Like on either side of the highway next to my building they decide only liberals or conservatives can live in that particular area.

jason hissong
11-02-2006, 06:55 AM
Shane, where do you live?

Shane W
11-02-2006, 06:55 AM
What is amendment 2?


It's a amendment to protect Embryonic Stem Cell research here. Why the proponets decided to write it as an amendment is beyond me.

http://www.missouricures.com/facts.php

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 06:55 AM
What is amendment 2?

Stem Cells bill IIRC.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 06:56 AM
Shane, where do you live?

Just outside the city between Shrewsburry, Maplewood, and Webster.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 06:57 AM
We're just tenants, He's the landlord.

Great, since I'm just renting, can you tell him that my basement is leaky and he's responsible?

RickLM
11-02-2006, 06:59 AM
Only five more days, people. Then no more political ads on TV for a while.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 07:00 AM
Ah. Unfortunately it's going to take alot to bring the Christian Right around on that issue.

The bizarre thing is that they are just find with fertility clinics. Thier version of God gives the thumbs up to destroying embryo's, He just doesn't approve of using the medical waste to save lives.

Perhaps if they tried to think of it as organ donation maybe? The embryo's are dead but parts of them could save others, just like a car crash victum donating thier organs. Has anyone tried to spin it like that before?

Smokinblues
11-02-2006, 07:01 AM
:sigh: cardinals fans :no:

Race
11-02-2006, 07:02 AM
Ah. Unfortunately it's going to take alot to bring the Christian Right around on that issue.

The bizarre thing is that they are just find with fertility clinics. Thier version of God gives the thumbs up to destroying embryo's, He just doesn't approve of using the medical waste to save lives.

Perhaps if they tried to think of it as organ donation maybe? The embryo's are dead but parts of them could save others, just like a car crash victum donating thier organs. Has anyone tried to spin it like that before?No.

The implication is that they are still alive/have the potential for life.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 07:02 AM
Ah. Unfortunately it's going to take alot to bring the Christian Right around on that issue.

The bizarre thing is that they are just find with fertility clinics. Thier version of God gives the thumbs up to destroying embryo's, He just doesn't approve of using the medical waste to save lives.

Perhaps if they tried to think of it as organ donation maybe? The embryo's are dead but parts of them could save others, just like a car crash victum donating thier organs. Has anyone tried to spin it like that before?

The only positive thing is that the main catholic church in the area (Saint louis Univeristy) is actually FOR it. I guess that's what happens when you have a medical school attached, money talks and bullshit belief systems walk.

Race
11-02-2006, 07:03 AM
Great, since I'm just renting, can you tell him that my basement is leaky and he's responsible?Sure will - just as soon as you pay your rent.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 07:04 AM
No.

The implication is that they are still alive/have the potential for life.

Every sperm has the "potential" for life, as does every egg.

of course most people ignore that it's a pretty popular understanding that life actually begins at implantation, and not with an egg being fertilized.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 07:06 AM
No.

The implication is that they are still alive/have the potential for life.

So the fertility clinics must be shut down then. Artificial creation of emryo's can not be allowed at all because it is impossible to not destroy a portion of them.

When will the campaign for that begin?

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 07:08 AM
Sure will - just as soon as you pay your rent.

Nice answer, I like that one! :eek:

Race
11-02-2006, 07:08 AM
So the fertility clinics must be shut down then. Artificial creation of emryo's can not be allowed at all because it is impossible to not destroy a portion of them.

When will the campaign for that begin?Probably once some ultra-conservatives discover that it's not as easy as putting one sperm into one egg . . .

Shane W
11-02-2006, 07:09 AM
Sure will - just as soon as you pay your rent.

god can't even pay his taxes like a real american, but expects me to pay his rent?

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 07:12 AM
So the fertility clinics must be shut down then. Artificial creation of emryo's can not be allowed at all because it is impossible to not destroy a portion of them.

When will the campaign for that begin?

Not to mention the campaign against masturbation. See, I perform the same as an abortion every time I tug one out to internet porn. No difference to me between wacking it and tossing a few embryos at a fertility clinic. If anything the ones used in medical research are the only ones not being wasted and should be supported. Talk about backward priorities.

Race
11-02-2006, 07:12 AM
god can't even pay his taxes like a real american, but expects me to pay his rent?Not all currency is monetary.

Race
11-02-2006, 07:13 AM
Not to mention the campaign against masturbation. See, I perform the same as an abortion every time I tug one out to internet porn. No difference to me between wacking it and tossing a few embryos at a fertility clinic. If anything the ones used in medical research are the only ones not being wasted and should be supported. Talk about backward priorities.You've seriously never heard a Christian rail against masturbation? :mistrust:

Shane W
11-02-2006, 07:13 AM
Not all currency is monetary.

Some of it even pretend.

changingshades
11-02-2006, 07:17 AM
I have seen a sign that says "Elect Jesus as your savior" around. I wonder where on the ballet he is?
I tried to do that here in florida but ended up voting for Pat Buchanan instead

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 07:41 AM
Not to mention the campaign against masturbation. See, I perform the same as an abortion every time I tug one out to internet porn. No difference to me between wacking it and tossing a few embryos at a fertility clinic. If anything the ones used in medical research are the only ones not being wasted and should be supported. Talk about backward priorities.

You might not have given it much thought then. Sperm and eggs are very different than an embryo. An embryo is a seperate and individual life, it will grow into a person if nurtured. Your sperm will not.

I know it's tempting to be clever and mock anyone who doesn't see things the way you do. But there is something to the belief that embryos are alive. It's because they are. So is a fetus. They are individual people, seperate from thier parents, in the early stages of development.

Wether there is a 'spirit' being placed into every embryo by God? I have no idea. You have no idea, you have beliefs but you have no knowledge. Your beliefs conflict with others beliefs. It's as simple as that. Persue your own but please stop mocking others.

Wether it is right to kill an embryo is a moral delema I don't have the answer to. I feel it's murder personally. But I see no practicle way to stop those who wish to murder them. So I researve judgement, and if there is a God he will sort it out. It's not my place.

I do, however, hate hypocracy. If Christians are going to support Fertility clinics and the destruction of embryo's in the pursuit of thier own pregnancies then they have no right to oppose stem cell research. It is hypocritical.

Zack
11-02-2006, 07:46 AM
What is amendment 2?

has to do with stem cell research and cloning of stem cells

...not the real second amendment

Shane W
11-02-2006, 07:51 AM
Wether it is right to kill an embryo is a moral delema I don't have the answer to. I feel it's murder personally. But I see no practicle way to stop those who wish to murder them. So I researve judgement, and if there is a God he will sort it out. It's not my place.

I hope your wife does not use birth control then as it is the same process of not allowing a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

This is doing the same thing, except instead of flushing the egg away in the monthly cycle, we're using that egg for medical purposes.

mattbrand
11-02-2006, 07:53 AM
So does this all mean that I live in Satanland?

Shane W
11-02-2006, 07:53 AM
So does this all mean that I live in Satanland?

Yes, and I'm getting jealous.

mattbrand
11-02-2006, 07:55 AM
Yes, and I'm getting jealous.

Hmm...I think you definitely belong here then. Jealousy is not very Jesus-like.

BWC Boston
11-02-2006, 07:59 AM
Not all currency is monetary.
Now you're just speaking in riddles. "The first of the month isn't always on a calandar." "Do you not want your eternal security deposit back?" "Read His good word, 'I no fix leeky sink. I fix Thursday,' and know you are loved."

Ben
11-02-2006, 08:00 AM
You might not have given it much thought then. Sperm and eggs are very different than an embryo. An embryo is a seperate and individual life, it will grow into a person if nurtured. Your sperm will not.'Alive' and 'not alive' are not two easily determined states. Even with adults, what does it mean to be dead? When your heart stops? But we can restart hearts. What about when someone's heart's beating but their brain is dead? Is that alive?

Scientifically speaking, 'life' isn't even the property of an individual. It's a population state. And the only way to determine if some unknown creature is alive or not is to test to see if the population can evolve. All other characteristics we use to define life (metabolism, reproduction, etc.) are not exclusive to cellular or viral life.

Basically, it's never such an easy thing to determine. The degree of care you need to put into an embryo to have it become a baby is no more complicated or unlikely to occur than what goes into nurturing sperm into a baby. Is sperm not alive?

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 08:25 AM
I hope your wife does not use birth control then as it is the same process of not allowing a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

This is doing the same thing, except instead of flushing the egg away in the monthly cycle, we're using that egg for medical purposes.

I've never understood the arguement that contraceptive is the same as abortion. I do not believe that preventing the creation of an embryo is the same as destroying it after it is created.

I'm not sure how you percieve all Christians to be Shane. Do you believe that we all share the same views on every issue dispite the fact that there are hundreds of denominations with sometimes radically differing takes on Christianity? Or that we have all made a secret pact on this issue maybe?

Sorry to say we do differ on some issues. This would be one. Personally I use contraceptives because we do not want a kid right now. Someday when we are ready we will stop. My belief is that I am not going to hell for that.

Now if I did believe it was wrong and did it anyway? Then I would probably have a problem.

Ben
11-02-2006, 08:27 AM
I've never understood the arguement that contraceptive is the same as abortion. I do not believe that preventing the creation of an embryo is the same as destroying it after it is created.

I'm not sure how you percieve all Christians to be Shane. Do you believe that we all share the same views on every issue dispite the fact that there are hundreds of denominations with sometimes radically differing takes on Christianity? Or that we have all made a secret pact on this issue maybe?

Sorry to say we do differ on some issues. This would be one. Personally I use contraceptives because we do not want a kid right now. Someday when we are ready we will stop. My belief is that I am not going to hell for that.

Now if I did believe it was wrong and did it anyway? Then I would probably have a problem.Interestingly, this is another area where science and religion (some religions) differ. Many religions believe that sex exists purely for reproduction. But the science shows that reproduction is not the sole function of sex (in humans, esp.).

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 08:31 AM
'Alive' and 'not alive' are not two easily determined states. Even with adults, what does it mean to be dead? When your heart stops? But we can restart hearts. What about when someone's heart's beating but their brain is dead? Is that alive?

Scientifically speaking, 'life' isn't even the property of an individual. It's a population state. And the only way to determine if some unknown creature is alive or not is to test to see if the population can evolve. All other characteristics we use to define life (metabolism, reproduction, etc.) are not exclusive to cellular or viral life.

Basically, it's never such an easy thing to determine. The degree of care you need to put into an embryo to have it become a baby is no more complicated or unlikely to occur than what goes into nurturing sperm into a baby. Is sperm not alive?

I agree, life is something that is extremely hard to define. And science currently is not cabable of giving us a difinitive answer.

I do believe that we can define life based on our beliefs though. And that peoples definitions will differ. Personally I'm fine with that. If someone wants to define life as starting when you exit a vagina then ok. If they want to define it at the earliest possible point when growth starts then ok.

Personally I don't think sperm or eggs are life. I also don't think life begins when you start breathing air. Neither of those make sense to me.

Ben
11-02-2006, 08:34 AM
I agree, life is something that is extremely hard to define. And science currently is not cabable of giving us a difinitive answer.

I do believe that we can define life based on our beliefs though. And that peoples definitions will differ. Personally I'm fine with that. If someone wants to define life as starting when you exit a vagina then ok. If they want to define it at the earliest possible point when growth starts then ok.

Personally I don't think sperm or eggs are life. I also don't think life begins when you start breathing air. Neither of those make sense to me.Science can't give a definitive answer because it's not a valid question. You really can't ask "when does life begin?" for an individual because 'life' a condition of populations. You can speak generally about individuals being alive or dead, but pinpointing the moment is impossible and will always be because there is never a specific moment when something goes from alive to dead (or vice versa).

Therefore, since it is up to belief, you can legislate it. QED! BA-JAM!

Taxman
11-02-2006, 08:35 AM
I've gotta get out of here. I need to be around secular heathans.You just need to vote no on amendment 2.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 08:39 AM
Interestingly, this is another area where science and religion (some religions) differ. Many religions believe that sex exists purely for reproduction. But the science shows that reproduction is not the sole function of sex (in humans, esp.).

That issue is trickier. The guilt and immorality issues of sex and Christianity confuse me and alot of it seems wrong and is repelant. It's one of the reasons I don't participate in organized religion. I've never found one that I agree with when it gets to the details of how I should live. So I just live in a generally Christian way, going with what I feel is right. I'll find out someday if i was right to do that I guess.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 08:44 AM
Science can't give a definitive answer because it's not a valid question. You really can't ask "when does life begin?" for an individual because 'life' a condition of populations. You can speak generally about individuals being alive or dead, but pinpointing the moment is impossible and will always be because there is never a specific moment when something goes from alive to dead (or vice versa).

Therefore, since it is up to belief, you can legislate it. QED! BA-JAM!

I would never want to legislate it. Abortion should be legal. Morning after pills, stem cell research, fertility clinics, all of it. I oppose any move to make any of it illegal.

But I still belive abortion is murder and think it's tragic. I just don't feel I have any way or right to interfere other than speaking my beliefs. It is something that individuals and thier own morality will sort out.

Race
11-02-2006, 08:49 AM
I would never want to legislate it. Abortion should be legal. Morning after pills, stem cell research, fertility clinics, all of it. I oppose any move to make any of it illegal.

But I still belive abortion is murder and think it's tragic. I just don't feel I have any way or right to interfere other than speaking my beliefs. It is something that individuals and thier own morality will sort out.People often miss the fact that Jesus never tried to take over the government or get into politics - even at the height of his popularity when the people wanted to literally force him to be their king (John 6:15). His concern was with the individual and how that individual interacted with God and with everyone around them.

You don't change the world with a government, you change the world by changing people.

Politics should be the least of a Christian's worries. However, when presented with a choice in the voting booth (as is inevitable), they should vote according to the way they live.

Taxman
11-02-2006, 08:52 AM
I would never want to legislate it. Abortion should be legal. Morning after pills, stem cell research, fertility clinics, all of it. I oppose any move to make any of it illegal.

But I still belive abortion is murder and think it's tragic. I just don't feel I have any way or right to interfere other than speaking my beliefs. It is something that individuals and thier own morality will sort out.I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that abortion is murder and should be legal. I really can't wrap my punny little head around that one.

Race
11-02-2006, 08:53 AM
I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that abortion is murder and should be legal. I really can't wrap my punny little head around that one.One is a personal moral stance (viewing it as murder) and the other is right that he's willing to support (keeping it legal).

Shane W
11-02-2006, 08:54 AM
I've never understood the arguement that contraceptive is the same as abortion. I do not believe that preventing the creation of an embryo is the same as destroying it after it is created.

I'm not sure how you percieve all Christians to be Shane. Do you believe that we all share the same views on every issue dispite the fact that there are hundreds of denominations with sometimes radically differing takes on Christianity? Or that we have all made a secret pact on this issue maybe?

Sorry to say we do differ on some issues. This would be one. Personally I use contraceptives because we do not want a kid right now. Someday when we are ready we will stop. My belief is that I am not going to hell for that.

Now if I did believe it was wrong and did it anyway? Then I would probably have a problem.

I'm not commenting on your religious beliefs, just your belief that preventing a fertilized egg from inplanting is murder. If you believe this, then you have to have the same thoughs on the pill, IUD, and prettty much any female version of birth control. You are not preventing the fertilization of an egg, just the implantation, and since you have said yourself that you believe that a fertilized egg is "life" then by your own standards, you've committed murder.

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 08:55 AM
You've seriously never heard a Christian rail against masturbation? :mistrust:

I have (Onan's sin) given my Evangelical background, but it's mostly limited to within the church. It's never been much of a national movement that gets the same attention as the anti-abortion and anti-stem cell crusades.

Taxman
11-02-2006, 08:55 AM
One is a personal moral stance (viewing it as murder) and the other is right that he's willing to support (keeping it legal).If I thought it constituted an actually murder, I would feel morally obligated to oppose it.

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 08:57 AM
You might not have given it much thought then. Sperm and eggs are very different than an embryo. An embryo is a seperate and individual life, it will grow into a person if nurtured. Your sperm will not.

I know it's tempting to be clever and mock anyone who doesn't see things the way you do. But there is something to the belief that embryos are alive. It's because they are. So is a fetus. They are individual people, seperate from thier parents, in the early stages of development.

Wether there is a 'spirit' being placed into every embryo by God? I have no idea. You have no idea, you have beliefs but you have no knowledge. Your beliefs conflict with others beliefs. It's as simple as that. Persue your own but please stop mocking others.

Wether it is right to kill an embryo is a moral delema I don't have the answer to. I feel it's murder personally. But I see no practicle way to stop those who wish to murder them. So I researve judgement, and if there is a God he will sort it out. It's not my place.

I do, however, hate hypocracy. If Christians are going to support Fertility clinics and the destruction of embryo's in the pursuit of thier own pregnancies then they have no right to oppose stem cell research. It is hypocritical.

Jesus. All I'm trying to say there, Thud. You too me to task and acted holier than thou to only say the exact same thing I did? :-?

Matt Jay
11-02-2006, 08:57 AM
I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that abortion is murder and should be legal. I really can't wrap my punny little head around that one.
How do you feel about capital punishment? War? It's all legal murder.

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 08:57 AM
Here I thought life involves things like breathing and a nervous system, none of these systems exist until well into the blastocyst stage after an embryo has implanted itself into the womb and starts pulling in nutrients from the mother's system to help create the sheets of tissue that will later form bones, nerves and organs. An embryo has a very limited span of cell division and can't continue to it's potential without a womb. It has no nerves to feel pain, it doesn't breathe or think, it has no gender and it can't even be seen with the naked eye. It's a group of cells.

Taxman
11-02-2006, 09:01 AM
How do you feel about capital punishment? War? It's all legal murder.No, no it isn't. It is the taking of life under circustances that the state has allowed. It is therefore specifically not murder in the legal sense. Like abortions, it is a completely subjective opinion that such action constitute murder. And, if it were my opinion that any of these situations did constiture murder, I would feel morally obligated to oppose them.

Matt Jay
11-02-2006, 09:06 AM
No, no it isn't. It is the taking of life under circustances that the state has allowed. It is therefore specifically not murder in the legal sense. Like abortions, it is a completely subjective opinion that such action constitute murder. And, if it were my opinion that any of these situations did constiture murder, I would feel morally obligated to oppose them.
Well if it's legalized murder, of course it's not murder in the legal sense. I don't understand what you are saying here.

Taxman
11-02-2006, 09:09 AM
I don't understand what you are saying here.I guess that puts on equal footing.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:11 AM
Here I thought life involves things like breathing and a nervous system, none of these systems exist until well into the blastocyst stage after an embryo has implanted itself into the womb and starts pulling in nutrients from the mother's system to help create the sheets of tissue that will later form bones, nerves and organs. An embryo has a very limited span of cell division and can't continue to it's potential without a womb. It has no nerves to feel pain, it doesn't breathe or think, it has no gender and it can't even be seen with the naked eye. It's a group of cells. . . . trying to become a human being . . .

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:12 AM
I'm not commenting on your religious beliefs, just your belief that preventing a fertilized egg from inplanting is murder. If you believe this, then you have to have the same thoughs on the pill, IUD, and prettty much any female version of birth control. You are not preventing the fertilization of an egg, just the implantation, and since you have said yourself that you believe that a fertilized egg is "life" then by your own standards, you've committed murder.And lots of anti-inflammatories that LOTS of people take!

Shane W
11-02-2006, 09:13 AM
And lots of anti-inflammatories that LOTS of people take!

I was not aware that other drugs would do this also, but I guess that makes sense.

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:14 AM
Here I thought life involves things like breathing and a nervous system, none of these systems exist until well into the blastocyst stage after an embryo has implanted itself into the womb and starts pulling in nutrients from the mother's system to help create the sheets of tissue that will later form bones, nerves and organs. An embryo has a very limited span of cell division and can't continue to it's potential without a womb. It has no nerves to feel pain, it doesn't breathe or think, it has no gender and it can't even be seen with the naked eye. It's a group of cells.So if I shoot you full of morphine and put a bag over your head, are you dead?

Matt Jay
11-02-2006, 09:15 AM
I guess that puts on equal footing.
What I'm saying is that the government authorizes the taking of life all the time. You apparently agree, but you don't think it should be called murder. Is that right?

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 09:15 AM
. . . trying to become a human being . . .

A little squeaky voice is suddenly heard from the petri dish, "Oh pwease mistah doctah man, I wanna be a reeeall boy someday! Wontcha let me? Wontcha?"

Please.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:15 AM
If I thought it constituted an actually murder, I would feel morally obligated to oppose it.And many do.

I view it in a similar (but not exactly the same) vein to flag burning: It really bothers me to see anyone, especially a fellow American, desecrate our flag - in fact, sometimes I get angry over it. However, I will fight to preserve the right for that American to express himself in the way he sees fit - even if that includes flag-burning.

Taxman
11-02-2006, 09:18 AM
What I'm saying is that the government authorizes the taking of life all the time. You apparently agree, but you don't think it should be called murder. Is that right?I don't see how you can call it murder unless you are making a moral judgement about it. You can kill someone in an accident, or in self-defense, and it is not considered to be murder

Race
11-02-2006, 09:20 AM
A little squeaky voice is suddenly heard from the petri dish, "Oh pwease mistah doctah man, I wanna be a reeeall boy someday! Wontcha let me? Wontcha?"

Please.Are you not now, at this very moment, really nothing more than a "group of cells?"

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 09:21 AM
And many do.

I view it in a similar (but not exactly the same) vein to flag burning: It really bothers me to see anyone, especially a fellow American, desecrate our flag - in fact, sometimes I get angry over it. However, I will fight to preserve the right for that American to express himself in the way he sees fit - even if that includes flag-burning.

When have you ever seen an American burn a flag? Besides a video from the 60's? Seriously, flag burning is more rare than seeing a jackalope.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:23 AM
When have you ever seen an American burn a flag? Besides a video from the 60's? Seriously, flag burning is more rare than seeing a jackalope.*sigh* fine, "When I hear people publicly criticize our country . . ." Happy?

I think the point's still valid.

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:24 AM
When have you ever seen an American burn a flag? Besides a video from the 60's? Seriously, flag burning is more rare than seeing a jackalope.Or a late-term/partial-birth abortion for birth control purposes.

Matt Jay
11-02-2006, 09:24 AM
I don't see how you can call it murder unless you are making a moral judgement about it. You can kill someone in an accident, or in self-defense, and it is not considered to be murder
...in the legal sense. I'm not talking about the legal sense. In the "let's call a spade a spade" sense, I consider murder to be when one person voluntarily takes another person's life. Certain circumstances exist where this is considered to be socially acceptable, such as wartime casualties, capital punishment, and (as you mention) self-defense. I throw abortion into the same category as those three examples. Competing concerns negate the wrongfulness of the murder.

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:24 AM
*sigh* fine, "When I hear people publicly criticize our country . . ." Happy?

I think the point's still valid.It really bothers you to see anyone criticize our country?

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 09:25 AM
Are you not now, at this very moment, really nothing more than a "group of cells?"

A self sustaining group of cells with the ability to think, breathe, consume, reproduce and create comic books yeah.

Something an embryo is not. It's not 'trying' to become anything, it just divides until its resources are spent and it stops dividing. When it reaches the resources of a womb then tissue is created to help it develop into a self sustainable being.

A blueprint is not a house.

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:29 AM
A self sustaining group of cells with the ability to think, breathe, consume, reproduce and create comic books yeah.

Something an embryo is not. It's not 'trying' to become anything, it just divides until its resources are spent and it stops dividing. When it reaches the resources of a womb then tissue is created to help it develop into a self sustainable being.

A blueprint is not a house.Babies are self-sustainable? I don't think they are. I don't think adults are either. We're extremely social and don't function well when we're alone.

I'm pro-choice, I don't think it's murder to vacuum out a blob of goo, but I don't think these arguments really hold up. After all the thinking I've done, I really think it comes down to personal belief/opinion.

xyzzy
11-02-2006, 09:31 AM
Are you not now, at this very moment, really nothing more than a "group of cells?"

differentiated cells.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:31 AM
It really bothers you to see anyone criticize our country?Depends on how and why.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:34 AM
A blueprint is not a house.No. But what you're calling a "blueprint" for a human, if left to it's own devices, becomes a human.

A blueprint for a house will never become anything other than a blueprint for a house - regardless of what you do or don't do for it.

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:34 AM
differentiated cells.Is that really what we want to use as the point where we become human? When our cells differentiate? Seems arbitrary.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 09:35 AM
It is so stupid and backwards for faith to have any relationship with government and legislation. I am so sick of unreason and otherworldliness seeping in to every aspect of American life, from education to science, and worse, maintaining a stranglehold on world life. As to American politics, it shoulnd't even be a conversation. And in general, organized religion should have NO place in modern life, and is a virus among reason that could very well kill us all.

And of course goverments change the world. Within the vapid statement that is "people change the world," governments are collections of people organized by laws.

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 09:35 AM
Or a late-term/partial-birth abortion for birth control purposes.

Don't let Sean Hannity, Rush, Coulter, or any other conservative talker see this...their head might splode.

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:36 AM
No. But what you're calling a "blueprint" for a human, if left to it's own devices, becomes a human.

A blueprint for a house will never become anything other than a blueprint for a house - regardless of what you do or don't do for it.I just want to say that DNA is more of a recipe than a blueprint. That is all.

xyzzy
11-02-2006, 09:37 AM
Is that really what we want to use as the point where we become human? When our cells differentiate? Seems arbitrary.

That's not what I'm saying. I can't define when an embryo becomes a human being. There's a very nebulous time when I'm just not sure. But I can say with some certainty that I've crossed that line. That's pretty obvious. And also, that a blob of undifferentiated cells certainly has not. Also obvious, to me.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:37 AM
And of course goverments change the world. Within the vapid statement that is "people change the world," governments are collections of people organized by laws.Right. Change the people, and everything else will change with them.

Use a government to force change on people and, well - it should be obvious what happens then . . .

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:37 AM
It is so stupid and backwards for faith to have any relationship with government and legislation. I am so sick of unreason and otherworldliness seeping in to every aspect of American life, from education to science, and worse, maintaining a stranglehold on world life. As to American politics, it shoulnd't even be a conversation. And in general, organized religion should have NO place in modern life, and is a virus among reason that could very well kill us all.

And of course goverments change the world. Within the vapid statement that is "people change the world," governments are collections of people organized by laws.If organized religion is so harmful, why do people continue to flock to it?

Shane W
11-02-2006, 09:39 AM
If organized religion is so harmful, why do people continue to flock to it?

Same reason that certain people flock to harmful drugs such as meth?

Race
11-02-2006, 09:39 AM
That's not what I'm saying. I can't define when an embryo becomes a human being. There's a very nebulous time when I'm just not sure. But I can say with some certainty that I've crossed that line. That's pretty obvious. And also, that a blob of undifferentiated cells certainly has not. Also obvious, to me.If a medical authority could draw a line where the undifferentiated cells become human and the Democrats said, "No abortions past this point." You'd win over a lot of Christians. Not all, but it'd definately make a difference.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 09:39 AM
If organized religion is so harmful, why do people continue to flock to it?

History and catechism, combined with a fear of death. Religion is a very successful, viral meme.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:40 AM
Same reason that certain people flock to harmful drugs such as meth?They're chemicaly dependant?

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:40 AM
Same reason that certain people flock to harmful drugs such as meth?90% of the world is not addicted to meth. I don't think they're comparable.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 09:40 AM
If a medical authority could draw a line where the undifferentiated cells become human and the Democrats said, "No abortions past this point." You'd win over a lot of Christians. Not all, but it'd definately make a difference.

See: "abortion laws."

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:41 AM
History and catechism, combined with a fear of death. Religion is a very successful, viral meme.When there's a conflict between memes and genes, genes win. When organisms are harmed by a behavior, the behavior is strongly selected against and removed regardless of its history.

xyzzy
11-02-2006, 09:42 AM
If a medical authority could draw a line where the undifferentiated cells become human and the Democrats said, "No abortions past this point." You'd win over a lot of Christians. Not all, but it'd definately make a difference.

Unfortunately, for abortions, by the time people become aware of the pregnancy, we're typically past that point. Makes it much thornier, in my opinion.

But for stem cell research (and some forms of birth control, morning after pill, etc.), that's what we're talking about.

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 09:43 AM
Babies are self-sustainable? I don't think they are. I don't think adults are either. We're extremely social and don't function well when we're alone.

I'm pro-choice, I don't think it's murder to vacuum out a blob of goo, but I don't think these arguments really hold up. After all the thinking I've done, I really think it comes down to personal belief/opinion.

You remove an undeveloped fetus/zygote/embryo from a womb and it will die because the systems it needs to live are not completely formed. A baby, though still needing lots of help (thanks to the evolution of our ridiculously large heads) can breathe on its own. It no longer requires attachment to the mother via the placenta to continue development as it can do so with food. And the waste created can be expelled on its own as well. A self sustaining system.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:44 AM
Unfortunately, for abortions, by the time people become aware of the pregnancy, we're typically past that point. Makes it much thornier, in my opinion.

But for stem cell research (and some forms of birth control, morning after pill, etc.), that's what we're talking about.Quite honestly, a large portion of the outcry against stem cells comes from a lack of understanding/edcuation of what, exactly, a stem cell is and how it is harvested.

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 09:47 AM
No. But what you're calling a "blueprint" for a human, if left to it's own devices, becomes a human.

If an embryo is left to its own devices it expires. It cannot become a human being without a womb. Period.

Bill!
11-02-2006, 09:48 AM
Quite honestly, a large portion of the outcry against stem cells comes from a lack of understanding/edcuation of what, exactly, a stem cell is and how it is harvested.
I thought South Park explained it quite well.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 09:48 AM
They're chemicaly dependant?

One chemicaly, the other mentally. While religion may not do DIRECT harm to the individual, there's no questioning that for every good that is done (soup kitchens, charity) there is plenty of bad (treating women as second class, denying equal rights to all humans)

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:48 AM
You remove an undeveloped fetus/zygote/embryo from a womb and it will die because the systems it needs to live are not completely formed. A baby, though still needing lots of help (thanks to the evolution of our ridiculously large heads) can breathe on its own. It no longer requires attachment to the mother via the placenta to continue development as it can do so with food. And the waste created can be expelled on its own as well. A self sustaining system.Our altricial offspring probably have more to do with our complex level of sociality, which has driven the evolution of our large heads, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't see the difference between a baby needed the placenta for food and needing someone who can spoon-feed them. But I also don't see the difference between a woman's body deciding the pregancy is fucked up and having a miscarriage and a woman deciding consciously that her pregnancy is fucked up (not the right time for it) and behaviorally getting a medical abortion.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 09:49 AM
90% of the world is not addicted to meth. I don't think they're comparable.

While the numbers are not the same, do you not think the addictive nature of humans are working in the same way?

Ben
11-02-2006, 09:49 AM
One chemicaly, the other mentally. While religion may not do DIRECT harm to the individual, there's no questioning that for every good that is done (soup kitchens, charity) there is plenty of bad (treating women as second class, denying equal rights to all humans)You think we wouldn't treat women and other races like shit without religion? I think if a society wants to do mean shit, the religion shapes itself to fit what they're already doing. I don't think religion is the root cause of doing shitty things to people.

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 09:51 AM
Our altricial offspring probably have more to do with our complex level of sociality, which has driven the evolution of our large heads, but that's neither here nor there.

I don't see the difference between a baby needed the placenta for food and needing someone who can spoon-feed them. But I also don't see the difference between a woman's body deciding the pregancy is fucked up and having a miscarriage and a woman deciding consciously that her pregnancy is fucked up (not the right time for it) and behaviorally getting a medical abortion.

What about Tarzan?

xyzzy
11-02-2006, 09:51 AM
While the numbers are not the same, do you not think the addictive nature of humans are working in the same way?

No. That analogy doesn't work for me. If you want to compare it to something negative, it's more like a gang. It's a result of the human need to form communities and the desire to belong.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 09:51 AM
You think we wouldn't treat women and other races like shit without religion? [quote]

Probably, but religion continues to support certain traits of this.

[quote]I think if a society wants to do mean shit, the religion shapes itself to fit what they're already doing. I don't think religion is the root cause of doing shitty things to people.

No, it's not the root cause, but it may very well be the crutch that allows it to continue.

Race
11-02-2006, 09:51 AM
If an embryo is left to its own devices it expires. It cannot become a human being without a womb. Period.You've encountered a lot of naturally occuring embryos outside the womb, have you?

Shane W
11-02-2006, 09:51 AM
No. That analogy doesn't work for me. If you want to compare it to something, it's more like a gang. It's a result of the human need to form communities and the desire to belong.
That's fine, I can buy that.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 09:52 AM
You've encountered a lot of naturally occuring embryos outside the womb, have you?

If she's on birth control, then probably every month or so.

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 09:55 AM
If she's on birth control, then probably every month or so.

Yup.

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 09:57 AM
You've encountered a lot of naturally occuring embryos outside the womb, have you?

Not all fertilised eggs implant, plenty are miscarried or simply don't attach thanks to irregularities in the womb. Some implant in the fallopian tubes or just outside the womb and put the mother's life at risk. All of these embryos expire as a result.

EDIT and thank you no, I'm not on the pill.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 10:08 AM
When there's a conflict between memes and genes, genes win. When organisms are harmed by a behavior, the behavior is strongly selected against and removed regardless of its history.

See conflicts in the last 10 years where religion is the explicit cause of millions of deaths:

Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Servieans v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinahalese Buddhsts v Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Chirstians) and the Caucasus ((Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Mulsims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Aermenians).

Source: Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terro and the Future of Reason. 2005.

I reference the above for a couple of reasons. First, one could argue that organized religion is being selected against given the obliteration of peoples and communities given above. Too slowly, though. Add weapons of mass destruction in to the mix, and the selective process could take us all. I truly hope that reason will prevail.

Second, the tenets of the various religions reconstrue death such that believers don't view death as harmful. For many it is a boon. Behaviourlism, while an important study, doesn't fully capture the dialectic between subjectism and multiplicity, conscioussness and community, that each of us experiences as human beings. Behavior is thought around every day, and is a foundation on which consciousness arises, not a an effect towards which consciousness is an end. Which is all to say, that religions fuel these wars, while never convincing their participants of the destruction it brings, given their tenets regarding death and the afterlife.

half guard
11-02-2006, 10:08 AM
I have seen a sign that says "Elect Jesus as your savior" around. I wonder where on the ballet he is?

i had no idea that he even danced, much less in something like a BALLET. ;)

Ben
11-02-2006, 10:11 AM
If she's on birth control, then probably every month or so.Birth control acts to prevent ovulation. There's no evidence that it interferes with implantation. There's the theoretical potential for it to do this, but no direct evidence of it ever occurring.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 10:23 AM
I think if a society wants to do mean shit, the religion shapes itself to fit what they're already doing. I don't think religion is the root cause of doing shitty things to people.

It is in fact the root cause for doing shitty things to a lot of people. For example, Osama Bin Ladin does not hate us in the typical sense. He doesn't know the people whose deaths he promotes. And his motivations are not poverty or lack of education. Rather, the book that he believes to be literally true as pronounced by his god has certain passages instructing him to kill infidels and nonbelievers, and that such actions will allow him immediate access to paradise. George W.'s book has similar passages.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughet, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other god," unknown to you or your ancestors before you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or coceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death [....]"

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be thier home: an evil fate."

Quick, whose book is whose?

The first passage is Deuteronomy 12:7-11, and the second is the Koran 9:73.

Ben
11-02-2006, 10:25 AM
It is in fact the root cause for doing shitty things to a lot of people. For example, Osama Bin Ladin does not hate us in the typical sense. He doesn't know the people whose deaths he promotes. And his motivations are not poverty or lack of education. Rather, the book that he believes to be literally true as pronounced by his god has certain passages instructing him to kill infidels and nonbelievers, and that such actions will allow him immediate access to paradise. George W.'s book has similar passages.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughet, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other god," unknown to you or your ancestors before you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or coceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death [....]"

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be thier home: an evil fate."

Quick, whose book is whose?

The first passage is Deuteronomy 12:7-11, and the second is the Koran 9:73.I think Osama hates us for non-religious reasons. If anything, the religion just helps him gather more troops.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 10:27 AM
Birth control acts to prevent ovulation. There's no evidence that it interferes with implantation. There's the theoretical potential for it to do this, but no direct evidence of it ever occurring.

Ate you sure about that? I'm pretty conifident that's how IUD works.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 10:27 AM
I think Osama hates us for non-religious reasons. If anything, the religion just helps him gather more troops.

What are those reasons?

Ben
11-02-2006, 10:28 AM
Ate you sure about that? I'm pretty conifident that's how IUD works.Yeah, you're right. And I meant hormonal contraception, since obviously condoms and diaphragms and the sponge, etc. don't prevent ovulation.

Ben
11-02-2006, 10:29 AM
What are those reasons?It's been a while since I really read up on this stuff. Aren't they all pissed at us for meddling in Mid East politics?

xyzzy
11-02-2006, 10:30 AM
It's been a while since I really read up on this stuff. Aren't they all pissed at us for meddling in Mid East politics?

Well, we used him to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and then abandoned them when we lost interest.

Race
11-02-2006, 10:32 AM
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughet, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, 'Let us go and serve other god," unknown to you or your ancestors before you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or coceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death - Deuteronomy 12:7-11First off, that's wrong:


Deuteronomy 12:7-11 - There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you.
8 You are not to do as we do here today, everyone as he sees fit, 9 since you have not yet reached the resting place and the inheritance the LORD your God is giving you. 10 But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety. 11 Then to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name—there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the LORD.
Second: Christians follow the teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. The OT serves as history for us and reveals the long term nature of God's plan of salvation while also (ideally) helping us to appreciate the freedom we have in Christ.


Matthew 5:38-48 - "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=31#fen-NIV-23273g)] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=31#fen-NIV-23278h)] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&version=31#fen-NIV-23279i)] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Ben
11-02-2006, 10:33 AM
First off, that's wrong:

Second: Christians follow the teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. The OT serves as history for us and reveals the long term nature of God's plan of salvation while also (ideally) helping us to appreciate the freedom we have in Christ.OH NO, look what you've done, Jef UK!!!

LazyComix
11-02-2006, 11:17 AM
And it's starting to get to me.

About 60% of the houses around me have "vote god, vote no on amendment 2" signs in their yards.

I've gotta get out of here. I need to be around secular heathans.

Come to NYC... I'll buy ya a beer at a Yankee game. ;)

Shane W
11-02-2006, 11:19 AM
Come to NYC... I'll buy ya a beer at a Yankee game. ;)

I've already emjoyed many a beer at a Yankee game.

I was at the god damned Clemens 300th Win, 3000th K game.

LazyComix
11-02-2006, 11:25 AM
I've already emjoyed many a beer at a Yankee game.

I was at the god damned Clemens 300th Win, 3000th K game.

Nice.... that was lucky, it took him a bunch of games to get 300...

Shane W
11-02-2006, 11:26 AM
Nice.... that was lucky, it took him a bunch of games to get 300...

I remember, I was excited about seeing my Cardinals keep that streak going, but alas.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 11:37 AM
Second: Christians follow the teachings of Christ as found in the New Testament. The OT serves as history for us and reveals the long term nature of God's plan of salvation while also (ideally) helping us to appreciate the freedom we have in Christ.

First: oh, sorry, typo. Here's the King James version of the same passage, which is actually Deuteronomy 13:6-11. A more honest response would have pointed out said typo, acknowleding that these are in fact "the words of God."

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvdeu13.htm

Second:

:blah:

If the Bible is the word of God, and God is perfect, then how can the word of God contradict itself? If God is perfect, how can he change his tune, and why would he? It's all flimsy, archaic hocum, that has very little bearing on modernity, except that people's beliefs in flimsy, archaic hocum has killed literally millions in the last 10 years, and could kill millions more in the next. If anything you've shown that the people that wrote the Old Testament were not writing for the people that wrote the New Testament. Finishing this thought, the people that wrote both were not writing for us.

It's time to stop respecting other people's beliefs, and show what said beleifs entail, for what they are responsible, and for what they will be responsible. Reason must prevail, or our societies won't.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 11:38 AM
I remember, I was excited about seeing my Cardinals keep that streak going, but alas.

I like the parallel conversations occuring in this thread. :)

Race
11-02-2006, 12:21 PM
If the Bible is the word of God, and God is perfect, then how can the word of God contradict itself? If God is perfect, how can he change his tune, and why would he?It doesn't contradict itself. There are two totally different covenants (contracts) God makes between man and Himself. Why he chose to do it that way, I don't know - I have personal hypotheses - I can't presume to know for sure anything beyond what is in the Bible. But I will take it on faith that He, as the creator of our reality, knew what He was doing when He did it.


It's all flimsy, archaic hocum, that has very little bearing on modernity, except that people's beliefs in flimsy, archaic hocum has killed literally millions in the last 10 years, and could kill millions more in the next.Jesus preached "Love your enemy" a looooong time before all that happened. Anyone who harms another (in the name of Jesus or not) is doing wrong and will have to answer for it.

I defy you or anyone else to find anywhere in the New Testament - in the new covenant between God and man - that says it's okay to harm someone. The closest you'll find is Jesus' hypbolic teaching that if part of your body causes you to sin, cut it off - because it's better to enter heaven maimed than it is to enter hell whole.


If anything you've shown that the people that wrote the Old Testament were not writing for the people that wrote the New Testament.Not in the way that you think. The writings are useful as history and give us insight into God Himself and how he cannot abide evil, teaching us how even God's chosen people fell short of the holy standard He held them to, time and time again. It reveals the weakness inherent in human nature and why the need for a messiah was so important - it also includes prophecies involving the messiah.


Finishing this thought, the people that wrote both were not writing for us.What can I say? Flawed thinking leads to a flawed conclusion.


It's time to stop respecting other people's beliefs, and show what said beliefs entail, for what they are responsible, and for what they will be responsible. Reason must prevail, or our societies won't.That is the attitude that's led to most of the violence humans have perpetuated upon each other in the first place!

I can't change your mind about God or religion - but I won't let you put words in the mouth of Christ. He was not violent, nor did He teach or promote violence towards anyone. He wouldn't even resist those who used violence against Him.

That is the standard for Christians - that is who we are supposed to pattern ourselves after. Anything less than that makes us less than we are called to be and puts us at odds with God Himself. And that is why Jesus sacrificed himself - to make up for our shortcomings, to save us from the wrath our own finite, inherently selfish nature would bring down upon us.

Matt Jay
11-02-2006, 12:33 PM
I defy you or anyone else to find anywhere in the New Testament - in the new covenant between God and man - that says it's okay to harm someone.
I WIN!!!

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_parables_of_jesus/parable_of_the_many_murders/mt21_33a.html

Amos Moses
11-02-2006, 12:36 PM
Shane, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't live in Jesusland. John the Baptist land maybe, but not Jesus land.

This is Jesusland, and until you've lived here, you can't complain.

http://www.nr.usu.edu/Geography-Department/utgeog/images/utah.gif

Race
11-02-2006, 12:55 PM
I WIN!!!

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_parables_of_jesus/parable_of_the_many_murders/mt21_33a.htmlNice try.

NOT!

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:03 PM
Jesus. All I'm trying to say there, Thud. You too me to task and acted holier than thou to only say the exact same thing I did? :-?

Didn't intend to take you to task or offend. Just discussing the issue is all.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:07 PM
I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that abortion is murder and should be legal. I really can't wrap my punny little head around that one.

I think it is morally wrong and may well be the equivalent of murder. I am also realistic and know that there is no way to make it illegal and enforce it. Can't be done, shouldn't be tried. Issues like this have to be left to the individual.

Brendan
11-02-2006, 01:09 PM
I think it is morally wrong and may well be the equivalent of murder. I am also realistic and know that there is no way to make it illegal and enforce it. Can't be done, shouldn't be tried.

People once said the same thing about slavery.

While I will agree that this is a hugely complex issue, I think that "enforcement would be too hard" is a cop-out argument.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:11 PM
Here I thought life involves things like breathing and a nervous system, none of these systems exist until well into the blastocyst stage after an embryo has implanted itself into the womb and starts pulling in nutrients from the mother's system to help create the sheets of tissue that will later form bones, nerves and organs. An embryo has a very limited span of cell division and can't continue to it's potential without a womb. It has no nerves to feel pain, it doesn't breathe or think, it has no gender and it can't even be seen with the naked eye. It's a group of cells.

I don't understand why you've decided on those requirements. You've chosen a specific stage of the embyo's development to dub it 'alive'. It existed before that momment you've chosen but in those previous seconds it wasn't alive, but then suddenly it is?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just say life starts at the momment of creation of the embryo?

Brendan
11-02-2006, 01:12 PM
And it's starting to get to me.

About 60% of the houses around me have "vote god, vote no on amendment 2" signs in their yards.

I've gotta get out of here. I need to be around secular heathans.


I certainly wouldn't want to live next door to Ned Flanders, but if given the choice between living in a town full of Flanderses and a town full of Al Bundys, I'll take the Flanders.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:12 PM
I'm not commenting on your religious beliefs, just your belief that preventing a fertilized egg from inplanting is murder. If you believe this, then you have to have the same thoughs on the pill, IUD, and prettty much any female version of birth control. You are not preventing the fertilization of an egg, just the implantation, and since you have said yourself that you believe that a fertilized egg is "life" then by your own standards, you've committed murder.

I'm not following. If it's implanted is it alive but in the exact same state unplanted it is not?

Brad N.
11-02-2006, 01:13 PM
Didn't intend to take you to task or offend. Just discussing the issue is all.

No biggie. I just felt like you were laying into me for a bit there only to make the exact same point I made. I was just a bit confused there, that's all. It's all good, Thud. I loves ya even when we disagree.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:15 PM
When have you ever seen an American burn a flag? Besides a video from the 60's? Seriously, flag burning is more rare than seeing a jackalope.

Interesting. You know, I've never actually seen someone burn a flag. Never thought about it.

Brendan
11-02-2006, 01:17 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to just say life starts at the momment of creation of the embryo?

Yes an no. This is a semantic point, but an important one:

We confuse the issue by trying to determine when "life" begins. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. The cells in your hair follicles are alive. There are cells in your saliva, blood, and stomach that are alive. Lettuce is alive. Gerbils are alive. Fleas are alive. They all meet every scientific criteria of "life." But ending the life of any of those does not equate to murder.

We need to be asking when a human being begins. And that is conception. An embryo has all the genetic material needed to produce a full human fetus, infant, child, adult, etc. Left in healthy conditions with no complications, that embryo will eventually become a baby, that baby will become a child, a child an adult, etc. That cannot be said of a sperm or an egg. Left in the best of conditions, a sperm will never be anything more than a sperm, and an egg will never be more than an egg. An embryo, however, will become a full-fledged human. An embryo is a human and deserves all the rights and protections as the rest of us.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:17 PM
A self sustaining group of cells with the ability to think, breathe, consume, reproduce and create comic books yeah.

Something an embryo is not. It's not 'trying' to become anything, it just divides until its resources are spent and it stops dividing. When it reaches the resources of a womb then tissue is created to help it develop into a self sustainable being.

A blueprint is not a house.

So life that is not self sustaining is not life? Are parasitic lifeforms 'non-life'?

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 01:18 PM
It doesn't contradict itself. There are two totally different covenants (contracts) God makes between man and Himself. Why he chose to do it that way, I don't know - I have personal hypotheses - I can't presume to know for sure anything beyond what is in the Bible. But I will take it on faith that He, as the creator of our reality, knew what He was doing when He did it.

Obviously he didn't, or he wouldn't have had to make a new, different covenant with man. Again, if God is perfect, how would it even be possible for him to change? But more to the point, how do you decide which scripture to take literally and which not to? The problem with religious moderates is that according to their own tracts, they are neither good practioners of their religions, nor are they very reasonable otherwise, or they wouldn't accept the absurdities of their religions in the first place. And what is frightening are that there are people out there who do read these texts completely literally, as the texts themselves instruct they should be read, and many of the beliefs represented therein are inherently dangerous to society. Your arbitrary decisions about which scriptures outweigh the others is meaningless against extremism, and incapable of doing anything about it because of your beliefs: i.e. faith gets a pass. It shouldn't. Faith should be held to the same accountability of reason as EVERY OTHER aspect of modern life. Doing so would abolish faith.



Jesus preached "Love your enemy" a looooong time before all that happened. Anyone who harms another (in the name of Jesus or not) is doing wrong and will have to answer for it.

I defy you or anyone else to find anywhere in the New Testament - in the new covenant between God and man - that says it's okay to harm someone. The closest you'll find is Jesus' hypbolic teaching that if part of your body causes you to sin, cut it off - because it's better to enter heaven maimed than it is to enter hell whole.

Matt Jay already did it for me. And also, so what? The only thing that justifies Jesus' gospels in the Bible, IS THE BIBLE, which begs the question. There is absolutlely no other realm of human understanding wherein we would allow this sort of circular logic and fake authority. Your Jesus has no weight towards another's Mohammed. We've seen what happens when the two ideologies clash.


Not in the way that you think. The writings are useful as history and give us insight into God Himself and how he cannot abide evil, teaching us how even God's chosen people fell short of the holy standard He held them to, time and time again. It reveals the weakness inherent in human nature and why the need for a messiah was so important - it also includes prophecies involving the messiah.

God himself is so flawed and contradictory throughout the Old Testament, that I barely understand what you are saying. The Bible as a whole was written over so many millinia by so many varying cultures, that I barely understand what you are saying. There is rarely an aspect of God as described in Bible Schools all over America that isn't contradicted in the book of Job alone. And obviously you don't interpret all of the Old Testament as just "history." You take the creation as a fact about ontology, and the authority of the Ten Commandments as fact. So which is it and what is what? And why don't you take the acknowledged history occuring around the Bible and the particulars of its being written into account?




That is the attitude that's led to most of the violence humans have perpetuated upon each other in the first place!

Bullshit. What do you mean? Are you even familiar with the history of Christianity outside of the Bible and whatever they are teaching you in church? Either way, to think somehow that reason promotes violence is utterly insane.


I can't change your mind about God or religion - but I won't let you put words in the mouth of Christ. He was not violent, nor did He teach or promote violence towards anyone. He wouldn't even resist those who used violence against Him.

[QUOTE=RACE] That is the standard for Christians - that is who we are supposed to pattern ourselves after. Anything less than that makes us less than we are called to be and puts us at odds with God Himself. And that is why Jesus sacrificed himself - to make up for our shortcomings, to save us from the wrath our own finite, inherently selfish nature would bring down upon us.

You act like you're actually speaking for all Christians and as though Christianity is even one religion. Historically, Christianity is several religions as fractured and antagonistic to the others as the current world theatre of religion operating now.

I know I can't change your mind about religion either. That's the problem. Faith could kill us all.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:19 PM
Is that really what we want to use as the point where we become human? When our cells differentiate? Seems arbitrary.

exiting the birth canal also seems arbitrary.

Ben
11-02-2006, 01:21 PM
exiting the birth canal also seems arbitrary.Exactly.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:25 PM
See conflicts in the last 10 years where religion is the explicit cause of millions of deaths:

Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Servieans v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinahalese Buddhsts v Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Chirstians) and the Caucasus ((Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Mulsims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Aermenians).

Source: Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terro and the Future of Reason. 2005.

I reference the above for a couple of reasons. First, one could argue that organized religion is being selected against given the obliteration of peoples and communities given above. Too slowly, though. Add weapons of mass destruction in to the mix, and the selective process could take us all. I truly hope that reason will prevail.

Second, the tenets of the various religions reconstrue death such that believers don't view death as harmful. For many it is a boon. Behaviourlism, while an important study, doesn't fully capture the dialectic between subjectism and multiplicity, conscioussness and community, that each of us experiences as human beings. Behavior is thought around every day, and is a foundation on which consciousness arises, not a an effect towards which consciousness is an end. Which is all to say, that religions fuel these wars, while never convincing their participants of the destruction it brings, given their tenets regarding death and the afterlife.

"religion is bad" is such a boring thing and it is pretty much a non-issue to me.

People are bad. Religion is just a tool. It can be used to do both good and bad, and there are a milion cases of both good and evil deeds done with that tool.

Religion is still just a tool though. It is not inherantly anything.

Brendan
11-02-2006, 01:25 PM
Interestingly, this is another area where science and religion (some religions) differ. Many religions believe that sex exists purely for reproduction.

Which ones? Aside from a few really fringe elements, I can't think of a single major religion in the world today that thinks that. And a few fringe groups hardly constitutes "many."

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:29 PM
People once said the same thing about slavery.

While I will agree that this is a hugely complex issue, I think that "enforcement would be too hard" is a cop-out argument.

It is not possible to enforce laws that go against the wishes of a large percentage of the population. All doing so leads to is fascism. And has fascism ever been effective?

Brendan
11-02-2006, 01:31 PM
It is not possible to enforce laws that go against the wishes of a large percentage of the population.

The South circa 1865 and before certainly agreed.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:32 PM
No biggie. I just felt like you were laying into me for a bit there only to make the exact same point I made. I was just a bit confused there, that's all. It's all good, Thud. I loves ya even when we disagree.

:heart:

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:35 PM
The South circa 1865 and before certainly agreed.

Yes, they did.

More current parrelles would be our 'war on terror' in the Middle East and the 'war on drugs' here at home.

Jef UK
11-02-2006, 01:38 PM
"religion is bad" is such a boring thing and it is pretty much a non-issue to me.

People are bad. Religion is just a tool. It can be used to do both good and bad, and there are a milion cases of both good and evil deeds done with that tool.

Religion is still just a tool though. It is not inherantly anything.

But there are ideas in these religions that are inherently harmful. Why does faith get a pass for you? Individual religions, all of them, promote harmful acts against the people that don't practice them. So what do you mean? If religion is not inherintly bad, but it causes bad things--and yes, religion IS responsible for bad things, and not just a medium for their occurence--then why even make the distinction? Because you certainly don't NEED religion to do good things. So if we don't need religion to do good things (name one good thing that couldn't be achieved without religion), and religion is the cause of millions of deaths worldwide, every decade, why give it a pass? Why not subject it to the same measures of reason that we subject to every other aspect of our lives except religion. If religion is a tool, then it is no longer useful. Humanity has discarded many tools throughout our time, and it's time to get rid of religion and faith.

And finally, saying that people are bad is much more vacuous. The whole point of reason and laws and community is to get to the bottom of bad deeds, and correct them or remove them entirely. Furthermore, morals are a biological imperitive and cognitive necessity, and ethics are a communal neccesity.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 01:40 PM
I'm not following. If it's implanted is it alive but in the exact same state unplanted it is not?

If it's not implanted, then it's not in the exact same state. Think of it as puting the batter in the oven. The womb is "cooking" the ingredients and turning it into a babycake.

Brendan
11-02-2006, 01:43 PM
But there are ideas in these religions that are inherently harmful. Why does faith get a pass for you? Individual religions, all of them, promote harmful acts against the people that don't practice them.

Nah. There are certainly invididuals and groups within every faith that do such things, but they represent a perversion of their faith, not its natural result.



The whole point of reason and laws and community is to get to the bottom of bad deeds, and correct them or remove them entirely. Furthermore, morals are a biological imperitive and cognitive necessity, and ethics are a communal neccesity.

And there is your justification for organized religion from your own fingertips.

Brendan
11-02-2006, 01:48 PM
If religion is a tool, then it is no longer useful. Humanity has discarded many tools throughout our time, and it's time to get rid of religion and faith.

Religion and faith are not just tools. They are a natural state of humanity. You can try to discard them, but you won't succeed. Nature -- even human nature -- abhors a vacuum. You might as well try to remove romance and humor and love from the human. You'll have just as much success.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:50 PM
But there are ideas in these religions that are inherently harmful. Why does faith get a pass for you? Individual religions, all of them, promote harmful acts against the people that don't practice them. So what do you mean? If religion is not inherintly bad, but it causes bad things--and yes, religion IS responsible for bad things, and not just a medium for their occurence--then why even make the distinction? Because you certainly don't NEED religion to do good things. So if we don't need religion to do good things (name one good thing that couldn't be achieved without religion), and religion is the cause of millions of deaths worldwide, every decade, why give it a pass? Why not subject it to the same measures of reason that we subject to every other aspect of our lives except religion. If religion is a tool, then it is no longer useful. Humanity has discarded many tools throughout our time, and it's time to get rid of religion and faith.

And finally, saying that people are bad is much more vacuous. The whole point of reason and laws and community is to get to the bottom of bad deeds, and correct them or remove them entirely. Furthermore, morals are a biological imperitive and cognitive necessity, and ethics are a communal neccesity.

It's not religion that you have the problem with. Think about it.

People will try and use any form of power an organization gives that they can to get what they want. Politics and government, business, schools, charity organizations, ect. Any group dynamic that leads to people having power and influence over others? Some will exert that power for good or bad purposes.

Turn on a TV and watch a few political election ads if you don't believe me.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:51 PM
If it's not implanted, then it's not in the exact same state. Think of it as puting the batter in the oven. The womb is "cooking" the ingredients and turning it into a babycake.

I understand what you are saying but I don't think I agree with it.

Shane W
11-02-2006, 01:52 PM
I understand what you are saying but I don't think I agree with it.

It's cool.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 01:53 PM
Religion and faith are not just tools. They are a natural state of humanity. You can try to discard them, but you won't succeed. Nature -- even human nature -- abhors a vacuum. You might as well try to remove romance and humor and love from the human. You'll have just as much success.

Religion and faith are not the same thing. Faith is a natural state of humanity. Religion is an artificial construction imposed on it.

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 03:34 PM
So life that is not self sustaining is not life? Are parasitic lifeforms 'non-life'?

An embryo is a form of life but it is far from human life. It's a group of dividing cells with a very limited lifespan, unless it implants into the Uterine wall it will most definitely expire. Once it implants it does, technically, become a parasitic organism, drawing nutrients from its host in order to create tissue that will make up a human life as dictated by the DNA of the embryo. If the development of the zygote and later the foetus are interrupted before it can be self sustaining it will expire. Until it can breathe on its own, it is completely dependent on the host to survive.

Is it alive? Yes, but the basis for the whole right to choose argument is whether a woman should be a host to a parasite against her will. Many have abortions out of convenience, an accident happened, they didn't plan accordingly and don't want to go through a pregnancy. Other women simply don't want to risk their lives because it is a stressful and sometimes dangerous thing to go through. I personally know two women who nearly bled to death in childbirth (both actually went into cardiac arrest).

I suppose the real question then is which life should have priority? The woman's or the zygotes?

Embryos from fertility clinics are not being used. They will never become human. Their 'life'spans are limited to a few weeks at most and their potential for finding cures for disease is amazing and people who refuse to understand the science based on myths with no grounding in reason? That's pretty dumbfounding.

Thudpucker
11-02-2006, 04:33 PM
An embryo is a form of life but it is far from human life. It's a group of dividing cells with a very limited lifespan, unless it implants into the Uterine wall it will most definitely expire. Once it implants it does, technically, become a parasitic organism, drawing nutrients from its host in order to create tissue that will make up a human life as dictated by the DNA of the embryo. If the development of the zygote and later the foetus are interrupted before it can be self sustaining it will expire. Until it can breathe on its own, it is completely dependent on the host to survive.

Is it alive? Yes, but the basis for the whole right to choose argument is whether a woman should be a host to a parasite against her will. Many have abortions out of convenience, an accident happened, they didn't plan accordingly and don't want to go through a pregnancy. Other women simply don't want to risk their lives because it is a stressful and sometimes dangerous thing to go through. I personally know two women who nearly bled to death in childbirth (both actually went into cardiac arrest).

I suppose the real question then is which life should have priority? The woman's or the zygotes?

Embryos from fertility clinics are not being used. They will never become human. Their 'life'spans are limited to a few weeks at most and their potential for finding cures for disease is amazing and people who refuse to understand the science based on myths with no grounding in reason? That's pretty dumbfounding.

Questions such as which life should have priority I have no idea how to answer. It's a value judgement and I don't really know how to qualify the values. I personally know women who would rather die than lose thier unborn child and I know women who have flushed thiers away like unwanted trash.

I honestly can't judge that. I know how the idea of abortion makes me feel but I would never impose myself on others over this issue. Again, I think it has to be left up to individual choice.

I also understand that you are very set in your viewpoint and like to consider children in the various development stages as 'things' or 'it's' instead of human beings, and that you are carefully chosing your terminoligy to dehumanize them as much as possible. Otherwise you could not imagine disecting them as funny.

But I think the people on the other side of this issue have a very vaild point. There is nothing fanatical or unreasonable in the conclusion they are drawing, at least not to me, that a fetus or embryo is human life. What matters more than the preservation of human life, especially children?

Stem Cell research is vital. And if the embryo's are indeed medical waste it is tragic that they can not be used for research. But I definately see why some fear that allowing any step in that direction would lead to embryo harvest farms and other things that downright scary (at least for some) to think about. You'll have to forgive me if I don't feel the urge to mock those fears like you do.

NickT
11-02-2006, 04:36 PM
"religion is bad" is such a boring thing and it is pretty much a non-issue to me.

People are bad. Religion is just a tool. It can be used to do both good and bad, and there are a milion cases of both good and evil deeds done with that tool.

Religion is still just a tool though. It is not inherantly anything.
I agree (Although I wouldn't say people are bad).

Pia Guerra
11-02-2006, 08:19 PM
I also understand that you are very set in your viewpoint and like to consider children in the various development stages as 'things' or 'it's' instead of human beings, and that you are carefully chosing your terminoligy to dehumanize them as much as possible. Otherwise you could not imagine disecting them as funny.

I have my own ideas when life starts yes, it's not at the embryo stage but that's just me. I tend to see it at the point where tissue forms nervous and circulatory systems and that is usually long enough for women who pay attention to their reproduction to realise something is amiss and make appropriate decisions. I'm personally not comfortable with later stage abortions. There's the issue of advanced development, but there's also the seeming lack of attention on the mother's part regardless if she wants to be a mother or not. Again, that's just me.

I see nothing funny about abortion, it shouldn't have to happen, especially if more women took control of their reproduction but sadly it does. If there was better education about how traumatising it can be maybe there'd be fewer performed.


But I think the people on the other side of this issue have a very vaild point. There is nothing fanatical or unreasonable in the conclusion they are drawing, at least not to me, that a fetus or embryo is human life. What matters more than the preservation of human life, especially children?

Except that an embryo isn't a child.


Stem Cell research is vital. And if the embryo's are indeed medical waste it is tragic that they can not be used for research. But I definitely see why some fear that allowing any step in that direction would lead to embryo harvest farms and other things that downright scary (at least for some) to think about. You'll have to forgive me if I don't feel the urge to mock those fears like you do.

There are already laws in place to banning the sale of eggs for the purpose of surrogate pregnancies. Harvesting eggs is a physically stressfull procedure with its own set of risks that no one would take lightly. New laws being proposed have similar guidelines. No fertilised eggs can be created or sold expressly for research. Couples have to give consent to clinics using leftover eggs and won't receive any money for their use. Clinics have oversight hoops they have to jump through making these nightmare scenarios of yours very far fetched.

I saw an interview with Talent on CNN today and his viewpoint seems to reflect the kind of ignorance running rampant about the issue. He claims that the law will not allow human cloning but he is still against the cloning of embryos even though they will never be implanted. He doesn't seem to understand that cloning of embryos for the purpose of research, either by twinning (which has been done for years) or the more recent somatic nuclear transfer is intended to create lines by which to create cleaner, more consistent results. Embryos can't be used beyond 14 days leaving only a limited amount of time to study them and cloning helps to observe more long term results by going line to line to line.

People are clouding an issue of science with religion, yes that pisses me off. I don't 'mock' for fun, I question why the hell more people aren't pissed that religion is standing in the way of reason and common sense.

Thudpucker
11-03-2006, 05:08 PM
Well, common sense is not the same as common ground.




A compromise is fine, but when the religious right tries to impose it's beliefs into our government and tell ME what I can and can not do based on what THEY believe, I will not stand down.




We can only hope.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Religious Right motivating it's masses into voting blocks and forcing thier views on us. That is just the way the system works. The 'Liberal Left' is busy doing the exact same thing, and they are every bit as obnoxious. Same with any number of other groups inbetween.

Majority rules, and there is nothing wrong with aggressively pursuing your goals and launching heavy recruiting drives. So what if it pisses people off? It's the way it should be. Don't stand down, fight back without taking it personally. Start your own compaound and name yourselves the 'Branch Welkerians'. Just don't get caught visiting male prostitutes like what's his name this weekend ;-)

Thudpucker
11-03-2006, 05:13 PM
um, something wierd is happening when I reply, is the board screwed up right now?

Thudpucker
11-03-2006, 05:26 PM
People are clouding an issue of science with religion, yes that pisses me off. I don't 'mock' for fun, I question why the hell more people aren't pissed that religion is standing in the way of reason and common sense.

It's probably because more people do not agree with you that religion is not common sense.

And since so many do not agree it looks like a compromise will need to be reached on this issue. A compromise made on both sides, not just telling the religious right to shut up and go away. Because that isn't likely right? Hopefully when Bush leaves office our next President will be someone willing to reach a middle ground on the issue.

Thomas Mauer
11-03-2006, 05:36 PM
People once said the same thing about slavery.

While I will agree that this is a hugely complex issue, I think that "enforcement would be too hard" is a cop-out argument.
History shows that enforcement of anti-abortion laws *is* impossible. Abortions and infanticide were punishable by death until the late 18th/early 19th century in Europe. It was not a deterrent and it could not be stopped.

Shane W
11-03-2006, 06:03 PM
It's probably because more people do not agree with you that religion is not common sense.

Well, common sense is not the same as common ground.



And since so many do not agree it looks like a compromise will need to be reached on this issue. A compromise made on both sides, not just telling the religious right to shut up and go away. Because that isn't likely right?

A compromise is fine, but when the religious right tries to impose it's beliefs into our government and tell ME what I can and can not do based on what THEY believe, I will not stand down.



Hopefully when Bush leaves office our next President will be someone willing to reach a middle ground on the issue.

We can only hope.

Race
11-03-2006, 06:03 PM
Again, if God is perfect, how would it even be possible for him to change?God's overall plan - where He's going with it - is perfect. Just because He changes one part of it doesn't mean the whole plan is discarded.

Do you drive the same way to comic book store every time you go? Probably not, but you still wind up at the comic book store. Does taking a different route make the trip there any less purposeful? Can you not still buy the same comics you planned on buying if you'd taken your "normal" route?


But more to the point, how do you decide which scripture to take literally and which not to?I've already had this discussion with xyzzy and provided some links, you can do a search for it.


Faith should be held to the same accountability of reason as EVERY OTHER aspect of modern life. Doing so would abolish faith.Faith, by its very definition, is absurd - believing in something that cannot be observed. You yourself do it every day: You believe there will be a tomorrow - that you will wake up and that the sun will rise; You believe that when you flip a light switch, the light will turn on, etc. - but you have no absolute assurance of these things, just past experiences to base your faith around a future occurance.

It is no different with God - I have seen Him at work in the past (both in my personal life and historically), and have faith that He is still at work today.


Matt Jay already did it for me. And also, so what?Matt took a parable out of context - I thought that was self-evident by the first slide of that story. I will be happy to explain it to you, if you'd like.

I maintain that Christians are not allowed to do harm to another - the worst we are instructed to do is not associate with someone, letting the world (and the devil) have its way with them. But even then, if they repent, we are instructed to forgive.


The only thing that justifies Jesus' gospels in the Bible, IS THE BIBLE, which begs the question. There is absolutlely no other realm of human understanding wherein we would allow this sort of circular logic and fake authority.Once again, I take it on faith - faith that if there is a God, He must be able and willing to not only share His will, but preserve it over time. Were He unable or unwilling to do it, He would not be worth worshipping.

Conversely, if God were a proven certainty, our worship and devotion would mean nothing to Him. It has to be chosen.


You act like you're actually speaking for all Christians and as though Christianity is even one religion. Historically, Christianity is several religions as fractured and antagonistic to the others as the current world theatre of religion operating now.There was one Christ, He delivered one message. Humanity has screwed up - repeatedly - in trying to force a single interpretation on people, especially those areas that were not actually spoken about. That is why I don't strictly align myself with one church - but with Christ Himself. You have to go to the source, anything less/different leads to the human atrocities you've somehow (erroneously) associated with Christ Himself.


Faith could kill us all.That depends on what/who you put faith in.

I guess we'll just have to shake hands and go our separate ways on this.

Jef UK
11-03-2006, 06:11 PM
I guess we'll just have to shake hands and go our separate ways on this.

*shake*

Brendan
11-03-2006, 08:02 PM
History shows that enforcement of anti-abortion laws *is* impossible. Abortions and infanticide were punishable by death until the late 18th/early 19th century in Europe. It was not a deterrent and it could not be stopped.

That’s still a super weak argument. We have laws against murder, punishable by death in some states. Yet people still murder other people every day.

The argument for legalizing abortion that “people are going to do it so we should make it safe” defies all logic. That’s like saying, “Drunks are always going to beat their wives, so we should provide a safe environment for them to do so.”

The very foundation of the argument is whether or not an unborn child is a human. If the answer is yes, then they deserve the full protection of the law. They have the same “inalienable rights” as the rest of us, first and foremost of which is life. Yes, there are lots and lots of issues that are going to come along with enforcing that, but we can find ways to do that and help women in crisis pregnancies, reduce the number of crisis pregnancies, etc.

Saying, “It’s too difficult” is no reason not to do something. If it is the right thing to do, it must be done.

Thomas Mauer
11-03-2006, 08:11 PM
That’s still a super weak argument. We have laws against murder, punishable by death in some states. Yet people still murder other people every day.

Saying, “It’s too difficult” is no reason not to do something. If it is the right thing to do, it must be done.
I think you missed the bit where you said that strong legislation against abortion and its enforcement will help curb the practice and I simply disproved that idea by citing more than a thousand years of unsuccessful legislation and enforcement of the very same. What you suggested is futile. That's all.

Ben
11-03-2006, 08:24 PM
That’s still a super weak argument. We have laws against murder, punishable by death in some states. Yet people still murder other people every day.

The argument for legalizing abortion that “people are going to do it so we should make it safe” defies all logic. That’s like saying, “Drunks are always going to beat their wives, so we should provide a safe environment for them to do so.”

The very foundation of the argument is whether or not an unborn child is a human. If the answer is yes, then they deserve the full protection of the law. They have the same “inalienable rights” as the rest of us, first and foremost of which is life. Yes, there are lots and lots of issues that are going to come along with enforcing that, but we can find ways to do that and help women in crisis pregnancies, reduce the number of crisis pregnancies, etc.

Saying, “It’s too difficult” is no reason not to do something. If it is the right thing to do, it must be done.It depends what your goal is. If you just want to sit on your high horse and scream "Abortion is wrong! Nyah nyah nyah!" then make it illegal, by all means. It won't stop abortions from occurring, however.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to actually REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS THAT OCCUR, making it illegal will NOT DO THIS. The only thing illegalizing abortions does is increase the number of deaths from illegal abortions. There are ways to reduce abortions that actually work (sex education, accessible birth control, emergency contraception, adoption services combined with affordable pre-natal care, etc.)

Please, explain to me how this is in any way comparable to murder? Please? Does making murder illegal increase the number of deaths while keeping the number of murders the same?

Race
11-03-2006, 08:33 PM
It depends what your goal is. If you just want to sit on your high horse and scream "Abortion is wrong! Nyah nyah nyah!" then make it illegal, by all means. It won't stop abortions from occurring, however.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to actually REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS THAT OCCUR, making it illegal will NOT DO THIS. The only thing illegalizing abortions does is increase the number of deaths from illegal abortions. There are ways to reduce abortions that actually work (sex education, accessible birth control, emergency contraception, adoption services combined with affordable pre-natal care, etc.)I agree with this statement.

Brendan
11-03-2006, 08:56 PM
If, on the other hand, your goal is to actually REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS THAT OCCUR, making it illegal will NOT DO THIS.

I want both. I want the human rights of the unborn protected by law, just like the rest of us. But I also want to reduce the number of crisis pregnancies and provide a safety net for women and children, beginning (though not limited to) a complete overhaul of the healthcare system in the US.



Please, explain to me how this is in any way comparable to murder? Please?

What “this” do you mean? You lost me. Do you mean how is abortion comparable to murder? Purposefully ending a human life is murder. The distinction that is a crime after we are born, but completely okay before we are born makes no sense to me. Unborn children of various stages are certainly less developed than you and me, but that doesn’t make them any less live or less human.



Does making murder illegal increase the number of deaths while keeping the number of murders the same?

Huh???? Murder is illegal. Are you suggesting it shouldn’t be? I haven’t had my coffee yet this morning, so maybe I’m just being slow, but you lost me.

Pia Guerra
11-04-2006, 04:45 AM
It's probably because more people do not agree with you that religion is not common sense.

And since so many do not agree it looks like a compromise will need to be reached on this issue. A compromise made on both sides, not just telling the religious right to shut up and go away. Because that isn't likely right? Hopefully when Bush leaves office our next President will be someone willing to reach a middle ground on the issue.

You ask that science and reason compromise with people who just outright refuse to get their heads out of the sand and understand an issue before voting in a secular election?

I can see setting up a compromise with people who willingly look at the argument but here you're dealing with people who just go "uh-uh, it's in the bible therefore it's wrong".

Back to the Talent interview, after saying he agreed the law would not allow human cloning he claimed that the reason he was against cloning of human embryos was because it was the same technology that was used to create Dolly the Sheep. The idiot contradicted his own statement! You can't create a Dolly without implanting the cloned embryo and the law says a cloned human embryo can't be implanted to create a human being! He's deliberately clouding the issue because he knows his supporters won't even take the time to understand the issue. It's insulting in the extreme. How exactly do you compromise with ignorance?

And Brendan, the issue isn't "it's just too difficult to enforce therefore we shouldn't make it illegal", the issue is whether a woman should be forced to carry a birth to term if she's not prepared to do so. The best way to reduce abortions is through education and proper emergency contraception but as it turns out, the same people wanting to make abortion illegal don't want those things either. But then Christianity is full of contradictions we have to put up with.