Your Vote, Your Reasons

[LnGrrrR]

If we're going to go down the "God's choice that we can ignore" path, then I want to let you all know right now that I'm omniscient as well. In fact, I can predict the path of life for EVERY ONE of you.

Of course, if exactly what I said doesn't happen, then you took a wrong path.

Let's just take the easy shortcut and point out that it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If God sees a future, a DEFINITE future, then it must be impossible to change that future. If God is able to change that future, then he can not be omniscient in regards to the future.

Or, to sum it up, God is unable to change his own future if he knows about it ahead of time.

[JoeChalupa]

I believe in voting for the candidate of your choice. The time is now!!

[Trainwreck2100]

If we're going to go down the "God's choice that we can ignore" path, then I want to let you all know right now that I'm omniscient as well. In fact, I can predict the path of life for EVERY ONE of you.

Of course, it exactly what I said doesn't happen, then you took a wrong path.

Let's just take the easy shortcut and point out that it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. if god sees a future, a DEFINITE future, then it must be impossible to change that future. If God is able to change that future, then he can not be omniscient in regards to the future.

Or, to sum it up, God is unable to change his own future if he knows about it ahead of time.

Time is a human concept, how do we know whether of not for God time is then now and tomorrow, but all at once.

[BacktoBasics]

I don't believe just in the Word of God

Then you would be the exception to many.

[tp2021]

I do have a question: what in your mind marks the transition between a fetus being a lump of cells to being a human being and why?

I believe it is when the brain begins functioning, after about 6 weeks.

Here's a contrary Christian take I found, hopefully sparking debate. This place needs it.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life019.html

[Extra Stout]

The excerpts I'm posting are from acknowledged historians Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier with more years research on this subject than you and I have probably been alive.

Doherty’s argument from silence is striking. While I was attending Catholic high school ... dead people walked around the town. But no one wrote about this for 40 years. Or imagine Michael Jordan dazzling the basketball world for years, but no one writing about it . . . for 40 years.

What was the purpose of writing down the Gospels versus writing the epistles? Paul wrote epistles to churches because he could not be there in person, either because he was travelling elsewhere or because he was in prison. The primary method of teaching in the early church was oral, which makes sense, since everyday people would not have their own books like we do today. The purpose of writing the Gospels was that the apostles were growing old, and their accounts needed to be written down so their teaching could continue. So it makes sense that the epistles were written down first, and that they would deal more with specific issues in the churches than with systematic theology.

The Gospels themselves state than even despite the miracles, when Jesus started talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, most people washed their hands of him, and then when he was arrested and crucified, they figured him to be a fraud, mocked him, spat on him. Why would the historians write about him further? Because there was an earthquake in a fault zone? Because some commoners thought that they saw dead Uncle Yitzhak walking around?

The evidence is that a fellowship of his followers persisted and grew. A legend does not appear out of thin air in 40 years. Whatever they thought they saw happened, they believed in.

Your dating on the Gospels is a bit late. John is from about A.D. 90. The date for Mark has been pushed up as early as the destruction of the temple in 70, and it stops there only because critical scholars don't believe Jesus could have prophecied its destruction. There is a fragment in the caves at Qumran that appears to be from Mark, which could be dated A.D. 68, but this is not certain.

And I'll see your Michael Jordan and raise you an Elgin Baylor (who did great things on the court which are largely forgotten).

I find these discussions of Doherty and Carrier to be fascinating. In fact, these sorts of discussions should really be one of the starting points for any thoughtful Christian’s education. Shouldn’t anyone who wants to follow the truth consider even those things that might appear inconvenient or even hostile to those beliefs? In the same vein, shouldn’t those who want to use the Bible itself as the starting point for their beliefs, consider the origin of the Bible writings, including the undeniable fact that numerous biblical writings have been tampered with over the years?

The evidence of tampering would be why I prefer the Alexandrian family of manuscripts to the Byzantine, and why most modern translations use the Alexandrian critical text as the basis for Greek translation.

I’m not disparaging the teachings of Jesus. Many of those teachings are challenging, humanitarian, even revolutionary. We don’t need to believe in a flesh and blood Jesus in order to find value in those teachings that have value, right? Nor do we need to believe in a physical reality of Atticus Finch to be inspired by the kind of man he was portrayed to be. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am raising the issue of the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus, but not contesting that many of his teaching were inspirational.

Christian moral philosophy is great. It laid the basis for most of the notions of human rights we take for granted as true. I hope we can hold that in common. But moral philosophy is not the same thing as faith, and my reading of the text is not just "do these things" but rather "you need Me in order to do these things."

But I also think that beliefs should always be thoughtful, striving, humble and willing to consider all serious opposing views and consider where and when they don’t know what they don’t know.

I have no problem with epistemic humility, but I am still going to be vigorous in my apologetics. I don't believe that Cartesian certainty has anything to do with faith. Rather than certainty, what I have is trust. Sometimes in real life you still choose to trust in people even when you have doubts.

I would just end this diatribe in asking what do you honestly believe is more likely given the facts we know? I'd wager if most people knew the facts about the origins of the Bible and Jesus we'd have a lot less Christians in this world.

I believe N.T. Wright's treatise on the matter captures the available evidence best and concludes that the resurrection is historical.

I think the Western mind is predisposed to reduce something like faith to a set of facts, so that when a text like the Bible fails to be systematic according to modern standards, sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

I wonder if your Catholic upbringing was like some of my wife's aunts, where the teachers just drilled dogma into your head and allowed no questions. That made them doubt for a while too when they gained the freedom to learn for themselves.

[Satan]

This thread makes my day!!

[LnGrrrR]

Time is a human concept, how do we know whether of not for God time is then now and tomorrow, but all at once.

Hence, why I said LOGICALLY impossible. If you want to say that God is "beyond our comprehension" or whatever, feel free. I obviously won't be able to argue against something that is an illogical (or alogical) position.

[DWest30]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?

[Findog]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?

I came for the Anti Christ jokes, I stayed for the metaphysical debate!

[ElNono]

Time is a human concept, how do we know whether of not for God time is then now and tomorrow, but all at once.

O RLY? Do you have evidence of that, or just guessing?

[romad_20]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?

It was so much more fun when we were just making fun of the fact that people actually believe Obama might be the Anti-Christ. Philosophical discussion of God is sooooo old news.

[lurker23]

A lot of good stuff in this thread. I don't want to get into all the gory details of the arguments that have been presented, but I figured I'd make a few general points. I'll preface it by saying I am a person of faith, and so that is the world view I come in with, and am not a completely objective observer (of course, I doubt any of us really are, despite our best efforts).

*I wish more people would be respectful and tolerant of others' religious beliefs. However, I fully understand not being tolerant of religious extremism in all its forms. My general thought that covers most of these situations is this: Faith that gives people hope, compassion, and optimism is generally a good thing. Religion that causes intolerance, closed-mindedness, and paranoia is generally a bad thing. Obviously many subjects are much more nuanced than this, but as a general rule, I think this covers a lot of what creates clashes between religious and non-religious groups, as well as many accusations of hypocrisy.

*In addition to being a person of faith, there was also an extended period of time when biology was my major focus of study in a university. Despite this background, I often tell people that I still don't know "when life begins," and I doubt I ever will. So, I agree with MaryAnnKilledGinger in this regard, in that there is no way that anyone "knows for sure" about when life begins. You are en led to your opinion on it, and I respect that opinion, but please realize that others' opinions are usually just as valid and well-thought-out as yours, even if they disagree with you.

*Finally, I'd like to say welcome to all the new people to the board! I hope all of you stick around and give the board a try, as it has an active community and a lot to offer. This especially goes to people who are interested in basketball or sports, as that is what a lot of this board is devoted to. Even if you're not a Spurs fan, you're more than welcome to join in our discussions about the NBA; we have a lot of non-Spurs fans here, so you should feel welcome.

[tp2021]

Manu doesn't believe in God thread
Angel is su ious that Obama is the Anti-Christ thread

These are good times at ST.
These 2 might be my favorite threads since the Spork thread!
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ace+spork+fans
I also enjoyed the Unpopular Opinion thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...opular+opinion

Thank you, ST.

[angel_luv]

Be careful with that religious stuff. There is not only one way to the promised land.

Thank you for phrasing that, that way! That illustrates what I feel is so dangerous about Senator Obama.
He strives to incorporate religions as one, as shown on the video.

Angel_luv, I wonder what you think of this speech of Obama on the topic of religion

It may increase or decrease your concern.

The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.

My problem yesterday was that I focused on establishing and ended up rehashing the fact that I do not trust Obama farther than I can throw him,but gave no reason why.
I can see how that was counterproductive and why so many of you found that intolerable.


Senator Obama may not be the actual Anti Christ.
But I believe it is important to take a strong stance against his "all in on; all is okay" at ude because if people will accept it in part from Obama, they will all the more easily accept the whole lie when the actual AntiChrist comes on the scene.

After reflecting, I still don't trust Obama.

I still will not vote for him.
And I am still going to proceed cautiously in all that concerns him- will listen carefully to his speeches and am interested to learn his policy proposals with interest.

While this was not my best thread, debate argument wise, I do not regret having posted because it was worth it to help facilitate important discussion and raise awareness.


Most importantly, I absolutely stand by all I said about the world needing Jesus and that Jesus Christ is the ONE and ONLY way to salvation.

[Findog]

Goddamn idiots who think they're smart are ing annoying.

Ahem:

McCain will win. Landslide.
Over 300 Electoral Votes.
More votes than Bush.
Obama will get fewer than Kerry.
NY goes to McCain.
Penn goes to McCain.
NH goes to McCain.
Minn goes to McCain(it's in the 270 thread and trending).
WI goes to McCain.

Nobody named Hussein will ever be elected President of this country.

[tp2021]

The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.

Would it bother you if he said 1)"All religions are equal?" or 2)"As President, I will treat all religions as equal?"

[AntiChrist]

I still will not vote for him.
And I am still going to proceed cautiously in all that concerns him- will listen carefully to his speeches and am interested to learn his policy proposals with interest.

Why Angel? Why?


I need your vote.


Go see my good friends at ACORN. They'll set you up with a few hundred votes.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

But I believe it is important to take a strong stance against his "all in on; all is okay" at ude because if people will accept it in part from Obama, they will all the more easily accept the whole lie when the actual AntiChrist comes on the scene.

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are su ious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be su ious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

[Extra Stout]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but this reads like a circular argument. You're supporting the presumption that life begins at conception by stating it is a separate human life. This would appear to me a "it is because it is" argument. Nearly all our cells contain DNA. What, then makes a fetus more of a "life" than a severed finger?

The fetus has unique DNA different from that of the mother. It is a separate organism. The skin on your finger has your DNA. A zygote is not just a collection of cells like a polyp. It grows into what we all easily recognize as a separate person.

Certainly no one has to have any kind of consensus to hold personal moral beliefs. My reference to arrogance is not referring to consistency, but in the fact that some claim to "know" the stage when life originates in the process and would use such belief to impose law and consequence upon others. Criminalizing people based on belief in lieu of facts is a slippery slope.

As I've already stated, my goal is to stop abortions from happening. The goal is not to criminalize the act. The goal is not to punish women. I live in the real world. I'm not interested in being a judge. I want society to place a priority on protecting and advancing life.

The truthful answer is that this is a question I regularly revisit. My current personal reasoning that I have held for several years is that it makes such a transition when the fetus is able to survive absent of the mother and be "born." However, I would not criminalize someone based on this personal conclusion.

The infant does not cease to be physically dependent on the mother when it is born, so in my opinion that distinction is arbitrary.

With all due respect to your ability to see the shades of gray in this area, I have to say that I find this contradictory to the moral consistency and conviction you mentioned previously.

Remember that for the purposes of public policy, I am looking for a society that protects and advances life. Stem cell research protects and advances life. Not killing embryos protects and advances life. So both sides have a claim on upholding that basic philosophy. So being dogmatic here is not as conclusive.

Again, I commend you for seeing the bigger picture, but again, this would seem to contradict the consistency statement. Also your 99% isn't accurate. By defining life at moment-of-conception, you are including morning after pill patients as effectively committing abortion. I assure you, that if morning-after pill recipients are to be included, the number is far below 99%. You'd be criminalizing every women who took a rape kit and a morning after pill. I take your point, but the fetus is a true parasite on the mother's body by any medical definition. You are applying a social symbiotic relationship, not a medical one.

The most current research I have read said that EC's work by preventing ovulation rather than implementation.

I think I am saying for the third or fourth time that I do want to criminalize anybody. I want abortions not to happen. If education and social services to women cut the number from 1.2 million to 600,000, I'll take it. If there's another step that can cut that to 300,000, I'd be for that. If I can't get that, then at least that's 600,000 fewer violent acts per year. I'm not going to stand with my arms crossed waiting for an all-or-nothing ban and throw women in prison so I can be content in my flawless moral thinking. What does that accomplish? Pragmatism is the way to go here. If there is something your side and my side agree on doing that reduces the number of abortions, I would want to cooperate with you, without giving up my moral conviction that I wish there were zero.

[nkdlunch]

I thought stupidity had limits. I guess I was wrong.

[DWest30]

The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.

With all due respect, he is running for President, not Pope. He will be representing an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-religious population. With that in mind, no religion has ever been proven to be the 'correct' religion. As the leader of an earth-bound ins ution, the laws must apply and protect everyone equally. The only way to do that is to be nuetral to matters of faith, approving none and condemning none. Hence the 'separation of church and state'.

So, for the leader of a secular government, he has no reasonable choice but to treat all religions the same in the eyes of the law.

[Findog]

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are su ious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be su ious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

Sorry for the double post, but the first attempt messed up the formatting on the page.

[Findog]

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are su ious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be su ious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

Basically, the Anti Christ will supposedly be smart, charismatic and handsome, but he WON'T be a Republican:

[JoeChalupa]

Ahem: