Reply With Quote
Seems like the number of viewers is going down.
We need another controversial argument, quick!
See, here's the part where you clearly just didn't read my post about my misgivings on McCain and just recycled your boilerplate "you're a hypocrite" auto-reply.
Are you even really participating in this debate, or just finding passages from atheist websites to cut and paste to see if you can wear me out?
Oh, what Bush delivered on abortion was Supreme Court justices, though as I said above I no longer think the strategy of "overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion in the red states" is the best way to curtail the practice.
Seems like the number of viewers is going down.
We need another controversial argument, quick!
I've read anti-christ accusations about every presidential candidate in my lifetime. Ronald Wilson Reagan had six letters in each of his names... thus: 666.Originally Posted by angel_luv
If Senator Obama has addressed the anti Christ accusations, I would be greatly interested to hear what he had to say.
This is one area where I don't think politicians should answer what I view as crazy accusations. Nobody, regardless of what party, country, or philosophy they represent, is going to look reasonable while standing behind a podium in a public forum declaring, "I am Not the anti-christ!"
Honestly, I think all of this anti-christ stuff is beyond ridiculous. If you really believe in it as a prophecy of the Bible, then why would you try to stop it? Do you think that you can change the course of a pre-ordained history by voting a certain way in a democratic election, and convince God to give the End-of-Days a more user-friendly ending?
Last edited by tp2021; 10-22-2008 at 02:38 AM.
The basis of your argument on this issue is centered upon the premise that life begins at conception. You believe that a fetus at every stage is an "innocent human life." You consider this a given. May I ask what you personally base this presumption on if not your faith?
This is exactly my point. We deal with the world we have. In the world we have, outlawing abortion will not stop abortions anymore than the "war on drugs" has stopped drug use. So you either have a sincere interest in preventing abortion, or you're just looking for the easy scapegoat of making it illegal and taboo. To earnestly end abortion you have to fight the good fight at the root and deal with the world we have. Given the myriad reasons women have to seek abortions, you first need to target those causes and eliminate them. To use an old anaology, it makes a lot more sense to take the bullets out of the gun than it does to force everyone to wear a bullet-proof vest. (yes, I'm totally using Jedi mind powers to get gun control somewhere in this thread - I just realized it was missing)
I never called specific names. I spoke about people who identify themselves with a certain religious demographic. You would seem to be one of them, but I don't have any way to know that for certain. That's not fancy footwork, I simply don't have any desire to personalize a theorhetical discussion.
You, like many others, consider a fetus a human being. I consider it a lump of cells that behaves very much like a parasite. Many would not use that exact language, but share my basic view. A lot of people in the middle don't know what they think and get brain freeze trying to figure it out. The truth is that none of us can know for certain. Not yet. Maybe not ever. Until then, telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body is the ultimate in arrogance (although many religions think that imposing will over the body of another - especially a woman - is just fine).
I'm not exactly sure what your side, but a good reference for Obama's abortion position is here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Ba...a_Abortion.htm
I'm confused as to why you think McCain is on your side. He has repeatedly stated (like BO) that he will not try to repeal RvW:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Jo...n_Abortion.htm
This issue gets even more complicated when you factor in stem cell research. How does one apply that from the pro-life standpoint? And, if one is truly pro-life doesn't rape and incest abortion still have to be off the table?
Also, I'm just curious, and would like to know if you don't mind answering: If neither BO or JM are "on [your] side" of the abortion issue, will you still exercise your rights as an American and cast a ballot based on other issues, or will you abstain?
Ah, controversy!
Good job answering the call so quickly!
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 (which I did for 4 years), we often heard readings from the Epistles and the Gospels. Only once was I in a class where the students were told that the Epistles were the only existing Christian writings for the 40 years following the alleged death of Jesus (the earliest date on which scholars affix the writing of the Gospels was about 90 A.D.). Even more striking, it was never pointed out to the students that the Epistles failed to even mention Mary, Joseph, the birth of an historical Jesus, the miracles of Jesus or the teachings of an historical Jesus. This is rather incredible, given that an earth-residing Jesus was allegedly God.
Think about this: out planet was visited by God incarnate (Creator of the Universe), whose earthly life was snuffed out by a bloody crucifixion after He performed dozens miracles allegedly witnessed by thousands, and we get . . . silence. For 40 years. Imagine an event that is much less noteworthy, for instance imagine that San Francisco suffered a massive earthquake in 1906 but no one wrote anything about it for 40 years. Jesus did something even more amazing, it is claimed. Upon his death, the earth shook, tombs opened and 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.
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?
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.
Nor am I raising alarm that many people are striving to seek out higher meaning in the absence of sufficient facts on which to base that meaning of life. All of us, those who believe in God and those who don’t, are all in the same boat in that respect. 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 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.
Last edited by TheMadHatter; 10-22-2008 at 03:10 AM.
That "truth" is obviously the crux of the abortion debate. Let's say that at some point in the future, science has figured out that the unborn fetus develops human traits instantly - in terms of features such as self consciousness or the ability to sense pain. At that point, if abortion is deemed a barbaric act, that will be a tough pill for humanity to swallow.
As huge of an issue as the Iraq war seems, more fetuses are aborted in the U.S. in one day than the total number of U.S. soldiers that have died in Iraq. "Better safe than sorry" is basically why I lean pro-life in theory, however it's such a personal decision that I can't get myself to negatively judge someone else for their reasoning.
All that said, I personally do not factor in the abortion issue during presidential elections. It too easily becomes an overriding factor and the uncertainty surrounding it doesn't make one side overwhelming more "correct" than the other.
This thread is so full of win, I had to register and post. As a rabid Hornets fan, it hurts me to post here and yeah, I was at Game 7. This thread beckoned me like a Chris Paul lob to the basket....
My problem with the fundamentalist at ude is not the belief structure itself but its conflict with our form of government. Representative democracy requires compromise to affect the best outcome for the most people. That is entirely possible using Christian principles, but not possible if following the Bible literally and inputting that into your politics. A Bible literalist can't compromise on anything as that would be going against God's Will. When applied to politics, there is only One Way. The Founding Fathers were big on rational debate, but that's not a viable option if your religious belief is tied directly to your voting habits. Christian principles have been the basis for many of this country's greatest triumphs. Christian literalist theology has not.
What confounds me is the literlists' desire to legislate their belief system. Faith is a personal relationship with the Almighty. When actively pushing for laws that mandate active fealty to matters of Faith, you remove that option from the non-believers/unbeleivers. Forcing people by writ of law to ACT in a manner 'pleasing to God' without the underlying belief structure is a wasted effort and a defeat of the theology. It cheapens Faith.
See yall in the playoffs. We wont choke next time
Why couldn't Palin be the anti christ? Does the anti christ have to be a man?
Be careful with that religious stuff. There is not only one way to the promised land.
When he says through me it can mean his basic teachings which are the same teachings in most other religions.
Welcome
They way I look at this thread is that if I came in here one day and said -
If I said that, would the "religious" posters on this thread say "Well, you should respect this guy's beliefs"? Would people be quoting passages out of the Bible stating that we can't be sure that I'm not Jesus?
That's more accurately referred to as conviction.
FTR, I don't believe Obama is the anti-Christ, that being said, I have tremendous respect for Angel's adherence to the morality and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament.
And again DR, your own acknowledgement of being ignorant and close-minded about Scripture precedes you, and having admitted that, you are certainly among the least qualified in this forum to express an opinion of substance regarding what is written therein.
Good morning my chidren. Sleep well?
What is twoplustwo?
Four.
No, really, it's a poker forum. Someone posted a link in the last page where they were discussing this thread.
That's EXACTLY what I was just thinking. I love it! This forum is going in the right direction if we start getting more posters of the quality of MaryAnnKilledGinger and Extra. Granted, it is her/his first post, but what a first post
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/
Got a link? I can't find anything
I think Wonkette should know about this thread.
Welcome. Well thought out first post.This thread is so full of win, I had to register and post. As a rabid Hornets fan, it hurts me to post here and yeah, I was at Game 7. This thread beckoned me like a Chris Paul lob to the basket....
My problem with the fundamentalist at ude is not the belief structure itself but its conflict with our form of government. Representative democracy requires compromise to affect the best outcome for the most people. That is entirely possible using Christian principles, but not possible if following the Bible literally and inputting that into your politics. A Bible literalist can't compromise on anything as that would be going against God's Will. When applied to politics, there is only One Way. The Founding Fathers were big on rational debate, but that's not a viable option if your religious belief is tied directly to your voting habits. Christian principles have been the basis for many of this country's greatest triumphs. Christian literalist theology has not.
What confounds me is the literlists' desire to legislate their belief system. Faith is a personal relationship with the Almighty. When actively pushing for laws that mandate active fealty to matters of Faith, you remove that option from the non-believers/unbeleivers. Forcing people by writ of law to ACT in a manner 'pleasing to God' without the underlying belief structure is a wasted effort and a defeat of the theology. It cheapens Faith.
See yall in the playoffs. We wont choke next time
Some conservative posters will tell you this forum is going in the left direction.That's EXACTLY what I was just thinking. I love it! This forum is going in the right direction if we start getting more posters of the quality of MaryAnnKilledGinger and Extra. Granted, it is her/his first post, but what a first post
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
