27 Feb 04
Originally posted by huntingbear
Ivanhoe, please ...
'...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with [b]gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience...' 1 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added
I'm saying to you now as a brother, out of love, and in the name of your Lord and mine: p ...[text shortened]... evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called...' 1 Peter 3:9[/b]
Thanks for your post huntingbear. I could do a better job. I admit. On the other hand I am a human person. Sometimes I get angry because of what's happening. What made me angry in this thread were Bbarr's reactions, who should know better.He was taken advantage of this thread in making remarks that would fit into his political agenda. I've explained in a previous post on this thread that I will oppose every attempt of taking advantage of this film either to express anti-semitic notions or anti-christian notions. bbarr was expressing his anti-christian notions in the same way as other people would ventilate their anti-semitic feelings. That's why I got angry. Especially because bbarr wants to present himself to us as a very ethical person.I take bbarr and his ideas seriously. He should be more careful not to arouse these underbellyfeelings.
There is another thing that bothers me. I know there are a lot of people on this site that do not advocate abortion and euthanasia ( Christian, Muslim, Jew and secular people). I so seldom feel supported by them. It sometimes feels so lonely. Sometimes I'm debating four or more people at the same time and nobody is supporting the (general) views I want to advocate. It sometimes makes me feel desperate. Are Christians (and others) indeed the meek sheep as they are so often described by their opponents ? Or are people afraid of being associated with the mistakes I make on the debating front to which you are referring ?
Again, thanks for your post. I've read Peter. Thanks, it is very supporting.
27 Feb 04
Originally posted by pcaspian
With all due respect BBarr. If you want to have a 'go' at Ivanhoe, your choice, but when you call everyone offended by your comment pig-headed, lets just say you come across as a dumb arse.
In much the same way I would not poke fun of an ancestor of yours thats passed away, or someone you look up to and respect, try gain a insight into why people might ...[text shortened]... rage and shock of a sign on a church, keep in mind that bumper sticker is equally offensive.
Thanks for the support.
27 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoe
On the other hand I am a human person.
there is no need to be if you don't want to 😀
in any case, what's important is to be humane.
there are a lot of people on this site that do not advocate abortion and euthanasia
i think bbarr is one of them. if you give him a chance you may find that you are not so lonely (as you plainly saw in the ar thread).
huntingbear's words are wise.
your stamina and commitment are admirable and could be of even greater value when guided by the ideas he presented.
in friendship,
prad
27 Feb 04
2 edits
Originally posted by pradtfIvanhoe: "there are a lot of people on this site that do not advocate abortion and euthanasia"
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]On the other hand I am a human person.
there is no need to be if you don't want to 😀
in any case, what's important is to be humane.
there are a lot of people on this site that do not adv ...[text shortened]... lue when guided by the ideas he presented.
in friendship,
prad
Pradtf: "i think bbarr is one of them."
That comes as a surprise to me as you can understand. Maybe he can clarify himself. About the point you made of giving him a chance: He is welcome to elaborate on the things you are claiming.
27 Feb 04
Originally posted by garyminfordSadly you don't understand a Christian mind. When your boss comes to check up on you and you haven't been working, you might get a funny look or a call to his office. When Christ comes back, those that have not been saved will go to Hell.
I didn't feel that he came across as a 'Dumb arse'
bbar's comment was a joke, (indeed not even his), and a light hearted jest regarding the fact that when people see their boss coming 'look busy'. It is actually saying that Jesus is 'the boss'.
Where is the offense in that? Unless there is a reactionary element who cannot take any form of h ...[text shortened]... hell for his evil acts of being rational and intelligent, and you will spend eternity in heaven?
Do you think its a comforting thought that close friends or family might suffer this fate ? Something to poke fun at ? If a man of logical mind, which BBarr claimes to be, can't figure out when he offends others, that is acceptable. We all are insensitive at times. When however he chooses to further berate those that find him offensive, a 'polite' rebuke seems in order.
27 Feb 04
Originally posted by garyminfordGaryminford: "Where is the offense in that? Unless there is a reactionary element who cannot take any form of humour about their religion."
I didn't feel that he came across as a 'Dumb arse'
bbar's comment was a joke, (indeed not even his), and a light hearted jest regarding the fact that when people see their boss coming 'look busy'. It is actually saying that Jesus is 'the boss'.
Where is the offense in that? Unless there is a reactionary element who cannot take any form of h ...[text shortened]... hell for his evil acts of being rational and intelligent, and you will spend eternity in heaven?
Again an assumption that entails an insult. Please be more careful, Gary.
.
27 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeyou have already acknowledged that he advocates killing "under certain circumstances". therefore he cannot be an advocate for abortion and euthanasia as you have tried to present him.
That comes as a surprise to me as you can understand. Maybe he can clarify himself. About the point of giving him a chance: He is welcome to elaborate on the things you are claiming.
i think most here are advocates for providing support and doing everything reasonable within our limited powers to preserve life. on what basis can you claim bbarr runs contrary to this?
in friendship,
prad
27 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfI think it would be best if bbarr himself would clarify the claims you are making about him. This will be the best way to follow in order to avoid any misinterpretations or misunderstandings. Do you agree ?
you have already acknowledged that he advocates killing "under certain circumstances". therefore he cannot be an advocate for abortion and euthanasia as you have tried to present him.
i think most here are advocates for providing suppo ...[text shortened]... can you claim bbarr runs contrary to this?
in friendship,
prad
27 Feb 04
4 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoesure.
I think it would be best if bbarr himself would clarify the claims you are making about him. This will be the best way to follow in order to avoid any misinterpretations or misunderstandings. Do you agree ?
but, since i thought he had already done so on many occasions, i have taken the liberty of putting together a few of the things he written.
however, if this does not satisfy you, then of course you will need to ask him again.
in friendship,
prad
pixelated profundity from the bbarr:
Freethought, as an ideology, isn't committed to any particular stance on euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, etc. As an ideology, all Freethought is committed to is the rejection of dogmatism and religious authority. There is nothing contradictory in a Freethinker arguing that euthanasia, abortion, and capital punishment are morally wrong.
I have always claimed that as the pregnancy progresses, there are increasingly serious moral problems with abortion
But it is morally wrong to kill mentally ill persons (Christ, I can't believe I have to write this again; what is this, like the 10th time I've had to specify that according to my view killing a mentally ill person is morally wrong?)
I think all persons have a right to live, and because they have that right we are obligated 1) not to kill them unless they are threatening our life or the lives of others, and 2) to save them from death unless doing so requires the sacrifice of our own life or the taking of another's life. In other words, it is morally wrong to either kill persons or fail to render aid when their lives are threatened.
Again, on my view it is MORALLY WRONG TO KILL MENTALLY ILL PERSONS.
Just as in my position on euthanasia, where I argued that in cases where we cannot determine the mental status of a patient we must err on the side of caution, so in abortion if it is unclear whether a fetus has the neural structures necessary to support the capacities for suffering, rationality, and self-awareness, then we must err on the side of caution and treat such a fetus as a person and rights-holder.
Again: If a mentally ill person has 1) the capacity to suffer, 2) at least a rudimentary ability to reason, 3) at least rudimentary self-awareness, then they are persons. If a mentally ill person has 1 but lacks 2 and 3, then we are still obligated not to inflict suffering upon them.
I think fetuses have rights as soon as they are persons. In fact, I think fetuses have to taken into account in our moral deliberations as soon as they have the physiology sufficient to allow them the capacity to suffer, and this occurs before they are full persons.
27 Feb 04
All this talk about the contoversy surrounding the movie and nobody has brought up Mel Gibson's father. Mel's father (Hutton Gibson) gave an interview recently in which he denied the holocaust ever occured, amongst other things. I have excerpted a portion of that story from http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072756433.html
In his interview on WSNR radio's Speak Your Piece, to be broadcast on Monday, Hutton Gibson, argued that many European Jews counted as death camp victims of the Nazi regime had in fact fled to countries like Australia and the United States.
"It's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is," he said, adding that the gas chambers and crematoria at camps like Auschwitz would not have been capable of exterminating so many people.
"Do you know what it takes to get rid of a dead body? To cremate it?" he said. "It takes a litre of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million of them? They (the Germans) did not have the gas to do it. That's why they lost the war."
During his lengthy radio interview, Hutton Gibson, 85, said Jews were out to create "one world religion and one world government" and outlined a conspiracy theory involving Jewish bankers, the US Federal Reserve and the Vatican, among others.
Since Mel is trying to combat accusations that his movie may be anti-semitic, it seems like it would be prudent for him to publicly denounce his father's views. He has said that he does not agree with those views, but he has not distanced himself sufficiently from them to satisfy many people.
28 Feb 04
Originally posted by rwingettSometimes its truely difficult to be a Christian. HEHEHE. I think we share a common interest in the redwings rwingett , but your Christian hating is almost worst than your Avalanche hating. 😀
All this talk about the contoversy surrounding the movie and nobody has brought up Mel Gibson's father. Mel's father (Hutton Gibson) gave an interview recently in which he denied the holocaust ever occured, amongst other things. I have excerpted a portion of that story from http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072756433.html
[b]In his int ...[text shortened]... th those views, but he has not distanced himself sufficiently from them to satisfy many people.