14 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompJust for the record... sticks and stones my friend. Sticks and Stones.
you got a very perverse view of God , and I don't care two whitsthat makes you think you know God, because you obviously don't.
Try again silly man, and you might learn something about that Ox-goad god of yours.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckeryou are so easy to jump to conclusions and , sigh all you want but you have a god that hates you whether you like it or not.
I suppose reading half of Joshua gave him the revelation that only he knew God and that everybody else don't know anything. Sigh...
remind me to explain hyperbole to you someday,,if and when you can understand that God had nothing to do with "inspiring" the OT.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompI ask again. What God are you talking about?
you are so easy to jump to conclusions and , sigh all you want but you have a god that hates you whether you like it or not.
remind me to explain hyperbole to you someday,,if and when you can understand that God had nothing to do with "inspiring" the OT.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompAre you talling about Bhuddha or Allah or is it some other statue?
you are so easy to jump to conclusions and , sigh all you want but you have a god that hates you whether you like it or not.
remind me to explain hyperbole to you someday,,if and when you can understand that God had nothing to do with "inspiring" the OT.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckeryou're not ready for it. You need to grow in spirit first. when you can see the Spirit doesn't order mass murders or do them. then you might be ready.
So you read half the book of Joshua and then you formed your own religion? What is it called? That's all we're asking for.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrMost Americans who would protect an immature embryo have few qualms about killing, when the victim is a foreign enemy, a serial rapist, or a common housefly.
The Bible clearly associates life with breath. So, the anti-abortion position must rest its ethical statements on some other grounds.
If you fail to ejaculate, your sperm dies. If your egg is not fertilized, it dies. If a fertilized egg is not properly implanted, it dies. Life dies. The only real question concerns the boundaries that determine when life i ...[text shortened]... qualms about killing, when the victim is a foreign enemy, a serial rapist, or a common housefly.
Excellent point Wul. This isn't about "preservation of life".
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWe already do kill (humans) to solve social problems when we make war and inflict capital punishment.
Quite right. The abortion debate has long since passed the point whether the unborn child is human or not. The main point of debate is whether a social issue of an unwanted pregnacy is valid for the taking of human life.
But once you cross that line that you are willing to kill to solve a social problem, what prevents the killing of the mentally insane, ...[text shortened]... hy not make the cut-off date 7 days after birth, to clearly see if the child has defects or not?
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by HalitoseSo I guess that means only M.D.'s should be weighing in on this abortion debate, eh?
So don't keep argueing about something you know nothing about or haven't even gone to the effort to fully understand. Leave the Biblical perspective to those who are really interested in it.
14 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, the main point of the debate is whether an organism's possession of the property of being a human is sufficient for it being morally wrong to kill that organism. I see no reason to think that a human organism in a persistent vegetative state, for instance, is harmed by dying. This is because such an organism lacks a crucial criterion for moral considerability, and that is the capacity for consciousness. Early fetuses also lack such a capacity, and in virtue of this they cannot suffer. Such creatures have no point of view; there is nothing it is like to be such a creature (in the same way there is nothing it is like to be a table or a rock), and hence nothing can go better or worse for such a creature. In short, they cannot be harmed. The destruction of such a creature is simply morally irrelevant, in the same way that it is morally irrelevant to scrape skin off of your hand. There is no slippery slope here leading to the denial of moral considerability to the mentally insane or the terminally ill. These human organisms are persons, early fetuses are not persons, but merely human organisms.
Quite right. The abortion debate has long since passed the point whether the unborn child is human or not. The main point of debate is whether a social issue of an unwanted pregnacy is valid for the taking of human life.
But once you c ...[text shortened]... days after birth, to clearly see if the child has defects or not?