Reply With Quote
Angel may have found Jesus but she hasn't found common sense.
Well there's certainly a lot of goddamn room in there for it. Jesus H. Christ.
Angel may have found Jesus but she hasn't found common sense.
Please, please let this be true ....
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
Good post. I agree. You can't legislate morality.
Too bad there aren't any fiscally conservative secularists. That would get my vote.
McCain and Obama are both socialists -- Obama moreso.
I'm going to church to pray for Angelluv.
From conception, the child is a separate human life with its own unique DNA.
I am on the same page here.
If I consider a fetus a human being (which I do) then it is not arrogance to oppose killing that fetus. It is moral consistency. I do not believe that I have to wait for a consensus in order to have strong moral beliefs. I do have to wait for some kind of a consensus in order to effect real change.
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'm not primarily interested anymore in overturning Roe v. Wade. That would just make abortions subject to state laws. It would be legal in some and illegal in others. It probably would not stop the behavior as effectively as dealing with the reasons women get into the situation in the first place.
McCain's views do look more like mine. I see hope that if Obama were elected that groups interested in reducing the number of abortions could work with his administration to bring services to women.
My goal is to have a society where protecting life is a priority. Stem cell research at least has protecting life through better medicine as its purpose. If we can get the same quality of research through things like adult stem cells, then we should do that instead. Otherwise, it is a gray area on which I do not feel as strongly.
With rape and incest, I do not want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Ideally I would want abortion to go away in those instances too, but let's deal first with the 99% of abortions that don't involve those situations.
On pretty much all other issues, I either have changed my mind on who handles them the best right now (such as economics and foreign policy), or I've come to believe that Democrats do a better job at upholding my principles than Republicans do (such as fiscal responsibility). I've also resolved that I cannot be on the side of formerly-respectable acquaintances and colleagues who are hoping Obama gets assassinated. So it's either third-party or Obama at this point.
I'd say its more of a symbiotic relationship, the mother feeds the fetus and the fetus propagates the speciesYou, like many others, consider a fetus a human being. I consider it a lump of cells that behaves very much like a parasite.
Before I start insulting people today I wanted to point out an Angel Warrior line on page 20
Its hard to swallow that with all the warriors out there that so few if any have refused to utilitize common sense over blind faith. To instruct masses to vote solely based on gods eyes is ing disturbing and probably has directly attributed to the short-comings and failure of this Country.They tell us that we are responsible to vote according to our consciences before God and that what we do is between us and God.
If God isn't the Anti-Crist I don't know what is.
- removes your ability to be rational
- affects judgement
- creates bigotry
- incites war
- justifies your short-comings
- removes your ability to exercise free will
- removes your ability to utilize self control
I could go on and on
It disables the true essence of being a human. Cults are an amazing tool for control.
does God do that, or the people who teach his message?
If God isn't the Anti-Crist I don't know what is.
- removes your ability to be rational
- affects judgement
- creates bigotry
- incites war
- justifies your short-comings
- removes your ability to exercise free will
- removes your ability to utilize self control
I believe in God and Jesus Christ and have no problems with those who do not. No forum could ever change that. Vaya con Dios.
My whole problem with the "Heaven only through me" God is... doesn't that sound a little weird? I mean, assume you are a Christian. what if someone came up to you and said you were going to burn in fire or be placed in limbo or some horrible eternal fate if you didn't believe in his specific God?
It's like having a wife or husband who demands that you're not allowed to go out with your friends. Just a little bit weird.
You would think that the first qualifier for getting into Heaven would be "doing good deeds" or "being a good person", not just faith (or, to be more truthful, submission.)
For all those who reply, "Jesus died for your sins!", that conversation is a non-starter. Wow, Jesus died for sins I don't think I committed, when I didn't ask him to? How great! Look, I can say that I didn't eat a muffin this morning to help with the problem of world hunger, but I'm not going to expect Ethiopians to start bowing down to praise me for it.
Welcome to the Libertarian Party
Reading some of the posts in here just crack me up.And I'm not even talking about Angel's posts.
If god created everything and everything is gods plan then god did it.
How many times have we heard "if its meant to be then its meant to be" or "if its not meant to be then its not meant to be" or "well I guess it wasn't in gods plan". Faith removes your ability to act with free will and 99% of the warriors out there feel that nothing is random or spontaneous and its all in gods plan.
So yeah their god is effectively taking a first hand approach to breaking down the human genetic makeup. Definitely the Anti-Christ.
I like your way of thinking.
[quote=Extra Stout;2840584]From conception, the child is a separate human life with its own unique DNA.
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?
[quote]
I'll give you my answer to that. Viability outside the womb. I'll include in that viability the ability to be kept alive through artificial means. At what exact point this occurs, I dont know. I'll leave that to better minds than mine.
The objective definition of 'life' includes the ability to perpetate itself. It also has other attributes, but the tough part is finding a definition that excludes fire and includes single-cell organisms. Its a pretty thin line.
Having a rational dicussion on this issue is welcome and, considering its gravity, it should continue. What it is, though, is established law that has been upheld in almost every instance. The burden of proof to change that law is now on the pro-life side of the debate. Personally, I wont listen to any argument that boils down to 'sin'. Convince me logically, please.
God gave us free will. he has a plan for us, but whether or not we follow it is our choice. So if something random happens maybe you're not following your own vocation
Exactly. Lets have a nice long conversation about predestination versus free-choice. If 'its all in gods plan', than there is no choice involving either faith or sin! God planned for me to sin. No accountability whatsover, even before God.
Well this is how they should look at it but many don't I'd go so far as to say most don't. Look at their lack of rational thought process. Doing things not based on their own ability to think it out but more on their crutch of faith. Faith based thinking guiding their choices instead of common sense and free will being utilized above and beyond their faith.
But because God is not bound by time, God already knows (and in fact has always known) whether or not we will "choose" his plan, so how can it really be considered a free choice?
Why would god gives us free will if he wanted us to follow his plan for us? I mean, if his will for humans was that we can make a choice to follow his plan or not, aren't we fulfilling his will no matter what choice we make?
god knows what we'll choose, but he doesn't make us choose it.
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? 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. 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. 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. 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.
Last edited by MaryAnnKilledGinger; 10-22-2008 at 09:11 AM.
If thats true then his plan is for you to completely abandon all rational thought and common sense to follow his word?
You just supported my Anti-Christ theory.
I don't believe just in the Word of God
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
