Bet this is going to cause a nuclear meltdown. As a kind of federalist I can have some sympathy for their boldness.
Woman's Health and Life Protection Act?
Bill 1215 Prohibiting Abortion
Bill 1216 Standards of Care
:1pokeeye1
Printable View
Bet this is going to cause a nuclear meltdown. As a kind of federalist I can have some sympathy for their boldness.
Woman's Health and Life Protection Act?
Bill 1215 Prohibiting Abortion
Bill 1216 Standards of Care
:1pokeeye1
both links go to the same PDF :eek:
but as a quick glance : double :eek:
what ifs that spring to mind ......
pregnant woman, car crash, to keep the woman alive the baby dies. Do they arrest the medical team for an illegal abortion ??
born of rape
medical condition discovered that will kill child or mother [cancer, regarding the treatment of]
mother HAS to refuse the treatment, or would she be seen as a child killer ?
mother has treatment, baby miscarries, do they go for the mother for failing to deliver, or those pesky med teams again ??
they seem to think that children are a RIGHT
when they SHOULD be seen as a gift
and a bloody noisy, expensive [to you] one at that :p
No thats in there.Quote:
do they go for the mother for failing to deliver, or those pesky med teams again ??
But little else. The whole rape thing is a disaster. It is not only cruel to make a woman carry the baby of a man who beat and raped her, it is insanity.
Well 2 things come to mind right away....
1. It's the womens body for starters, so it should be their choice?
2. If this is upheld,will the Government provide the nescessary means to survive for the Mother and child, or if the child is placed in adoption, will the State ensure that the child won't be forgotten, if the child is abandoned , will the State step in and protect the child. Does the State really care about the person's personal choice to abort, or is it based upon ulterior motives?
okay 3 things
3. Why do they have to revisit Roe vs Wade everytime a new idiot is elected, and because of their belief's try to impose it on others through the legislature???
Most of these attempts at re-establishing control over a women's body is born out of emotion, and using the Church as a crutch, can't they just leave it alone????
Oh and number 4
4. The reintroduction to the back alley abortions, this will make women real happy, and the quacks they have to go to........ :mad:
Of course, it's possible an abortion may add guilt on top of it all.Quote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
No thats in there.
But little else. The whole rape thing is a disaster. It is not only cruel to make a woman carry the baby of a man who beat and raped her, it is insanity.
Jeeeezzzz - what's next, teaching intelligent design in schools?!? Oh... wait... never mind...
It'd be a nice experiment, though... I bet a stack of money that violent crime rates in SD will see a significant rise in about 15 to 20 years, because, as we all know (right?), Roe V. Wade is the main cause of violent crime seriously declining in the 1990's :)
Get rid of Roe V. Wade (SD's proposal is a good first step), and crime will explode...
With all due respect, do you seriously think that a women who has been violently raped is going to want to keep that child, what a life of grief this child and mother, will experience and love the child should recieve will not be there, as a result of the rape.Quote:
Of course, it's possible an abortion may add guilt on top of it all.
No one wins in a rape, not least the victim and her family, but to bear the perpetrators seed is abhorrent in the extreme......
:mad:
Actually these two things are really related. I won't go into the ins and outs of teaching Intelligent Design right now, but abortion and intelligent design are actually related. If you believe that there is a not a God who has designed the world and us then anything is acceptable. If man (and woman) is the ultimate judge of right and wrong than who's to say that abortion is wrong? If there is no God, who has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body? No one, of course. But if there is a God, who designed this world and even human bodies, than He does have the right to tell us what to do and how to do it. It all depends on where you begin. It's no big surprise that people who don't believe in God find abortion acceptable for the most part. If there is no right and wrong, why put yourself to the inconvenience of carrying for a child who will only bring disruption to your life (or who may end up being the greatest blessing you will ever know)? It all comes down to one question? Is there a God, or isn't there? If there is not a God who makes the rules, then what meaning does life really have anyway? If there is a God, then life does have meaning, even the life of a baby born as the result of a rape. My mother was not raped. But I was born in circumstances in which my mother could have easily justified the decision to have abortion. I'm glad she didn't.Quote:
what's next, teaching intelligent design in schools?!?
See above.Quote:
1. It's the womens body for starters, so it should be their choice?
All of these are good questions that need to be answered and addressed.Quote:
2. If this is upheld,will the Government provide the nescessary means to survive for the Mother and child, or if the child is placed in adoption, will the State ensure that the child won't be forgotten, if the child is abandoned , will the State step in and protect the child. Does the State really care about the person's personal choice to abort, or is it based upon ulterior motives?
One of the great things about the United States is that people are free to use any legal means at their disposal to work for change. The opponents of abortion have every right to do they legally can to oppose it.Quote:
3. Why do they have to revisit Roe vs Wade everytime a new idiot is elected, and because of their belief's try to impose it on others through the legislature???
I can't speak for everyone who opposes abortion, but my own opposition flows from what I believe the Bible teaches and what I believe is the nature of God.Quote:
Most of these attempts at re-establishing control over a women's body is born out of emotion, and using the Church as a crutch, can't they just leave it alone????
As to the level of care and safety at abortion clinics not everyone agrees that they are "safe."Quote:
4. The reintroduction to the back alley abortions, this will make women real happy, and the quacks they have to go to........
http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/unsafe.html
It's based upon a belief that at conception the fetus has the right to life. As do we all. It's that demarkation of when life begins that splits the ideology. But the whole desire for a state to force someone to have a child born of violance and most likely ****ed up genetics in the father is ... inhumane.Quote:
or is it based upon ulterior motives?
On the Intelligent Design issue I could care less. And RvW to me isn't about choice. It's about limiting government control. But I could also see it being a state run issue. Even in RvW she could have packed her ass in a car and gone to another state.
Abortion seems to be pretty violent to me. And there are women who could tell us about the emotional consequences of having an abortion.Quote:
It's based upon a belief that at conception the fetus has the right to life. As do we all. It's that demarkation of when life begins that splits the ideology. But the whole desire for a state to force someone to have a child born of violance and most likely ****ed up genetics in the father is ... inhumane.
Oh, I know - that's why I posted it ;)Quote:
Actually these two things are really related.
It's no surprise that those who favor this bill also believe in (intelligent) design ;) It defies all logic, it ignores all science... it's a nice pair.
That is an extremely close-minded view... I don't even know what's silier: that you believe that only god-fearing people know what is right or wrong, or that you imply that those who don't believe in god have no principles or morals... Thousands of religions cannot agree on that supposed natural law - they can't even agree on the concept of natural law itself...Quote:
f you believe that there is a not a God who has designed the world and us then anything is acceptable.
Is that also why people who believe in god find capital punishment acceptable for the most part?Quote:
It's no big surprise that people who don't believe in God find abortion acceptable for the most part.
If there was a God, then we wouldn't have rapists??? As to telling a women that it is against God's law to have an abortion is very arrogant to say the least.How can someone impose their will on someone else, this is okay for the Church??Quote:
Is there a God, or isn't there?
Maybe if the Church joined the 21st century and got off it's as* and assisted 3rd world countries in learning about "Birth Control" then the majority of these women around the globe, would not see a need to abort.
It took untill 2002 for Ireland to have Abortion Rights, the main stumbling block of course was the Catholic Church, how many children have been born, as a result of rape, and what of them now???
For a child to be truly a "blessing" then it should be as a result of two educated individuals who are ready to bring another life into this world, who are emotionaly and financialy capable of handling the responsibilities, far too many young adults (just older teens if anything) are bringing children into this world when they are not ready for such obligations, a result of this is a large increase in shaken baby syndrome, where the young father, because of the incessant crying, of the child loses control and tries to shake the baby to stop, meanwhile the brain at such an early stage is not able to handle the stress.
Unfortunately, not all anti-abortionists are peace loving folk, as they can resort to violence to try and stop those who have the legal right to have an abortion.So in fact it's okay for the Pro Lifers to use violence, but it's not okay for Doctors to perform legal abotions....?Quote:
The opponents of abortion have every right to do they legally can to oppose it.
These are what literally thousands of young African women have to look forward to, they don't have HMO's, but I am sure all of the Catholic Missionaries who preached procreate until you can't stop arn't even around anymore?Quote:
Some girls pour malaria pills down their throats, a dozen at a time. Traditional healers swear by a mixture of herbs and tree bark. Desperate women may sit in the very back of a vehicle as it roars along on a rough country road in hopes of shaking the embryo loose.
But sharp objects are the most common technique. Coat hangers are an old staple. So are bicycle spokes, tree branches and knitting needles. There are a hundred ways to end a pregnancy. Until recently, going to a health clinic was not one of them on this remote island in the middle of Lake Victoria.
http://www.piwh.org/articles/newyorktimes021702.htmlQuote:
I tell them that if their conscience does not allow them to do a termination, I respect that," Dr. Orero said later. "But don't turn the woman away. Don't send her back into the street. At least, link her to someone who can do it safely."
IMO I believe it's about choice, not wether I believe in God or not, or wether the women who want's to terminate believes in God or not, besides, if she does believe in God, then it's between Him/Her and her, not someone else who has an agenda, and is on a power trip, solely to impose their will on the other, it's all about control as well.
I suppose at some point the people on this planet will mature to the point where everyone is equal, under the eyes of the law, and that we are capable and responsible enough to make our own decisions. (maybe around the 3rd Millenium) :rolleyes:
Ok, that's fine. We have morals and principles. Where do you get your morals and principles? Based on what? Our own opinions? If there is no God, who is to say what is right? Maybe the next generation will decide that infanticide is really a good idea. A child really doesn't become a human until she can eat solid food.Quote:
hat is an extremely close-minded view... I don't even know what's silier: that you believe that only god-fearing people know what is right or wrong, or that you imply that those who don't believe in god have no principles or morals... Thousands of religions cannot agree on that supposed natural law - they can't even agree on the concept of natural law itself...
But I am interested to know where atheists get morals and principles from without God. How does one decide what is right and wrong? If we're all part of some accident with no Creator, isn't the concept of right and wrong absolutely absurd?
I can't speak for all people who believe in God. Not all Christians believe capital punishment is acceptable. God is the One who makes the rules. God has the right to say who lives and dies.Quote:
Is that also why people who believe in god find capital punishment acceptable for the most part?
Based on what moral principle does one decide that abortion is acceptable?
Quote:
If there was a God, then we wouldn't have rapists???
Aren't you putting God in a hard spot here? First, you say "If there was a God we wouldn't have rapists." Then you say:Quote:
As to telling a women that it is against God's law to have an abortion is very arrogant to say the least.How can someone impose their will on someone else, this is okay for the Church??
Then you say that someone can't impose their will on someone else. You charge God with not existing or being unjust by allowing rapists, then you say that God can't impose His will on someone else? Which is it?Quote:
As to telling a women that it is against God's law to have an abortion is very arrogant to say the least.How can someone impose their will on someone else, this is okay for the Church??
Maybe we should ask the children if they minded what the Catholic Church did. It could be that they appreciate the chance to be born.Quote:
It took untill 2002 for Ireland to have Abortion Rights, the main stumbling block of course was the Catholic Church, how many children have been born, as a result of rape, and what of them now???
If we were to look at the circumstances of many great individuals lives throughout history, we would find that many of them came from less than ideal circumstances. The best decision is for people not to have sexual relations outside of marriage. That would eliminate many problems right there. Sin brings about a lot of problems.Quote:
or a child to be truly a "blessing" then it should be as a result of two educated individuals who are ready to bring another life into this world, who are emotionaly and financialy capable of handling the responsibilities, far too many young adults (just older teens if anything) are bringing children into this world when they are not ready for such obligations, a result of this is a large increase in shaken baby syndrome, where the young father, because of the incessant crying, of the child loses control and tries to shake the baby to stop, meanwhile the brain at such an early stage is not able to handle the stress.
Hmmm,
That one is easy, atheists, pagans and humanists get there morals from what is acceptable in the society in which they live, because humans are basically social animals. Even simple creatures like crows have such social standards and will kill a member who violates them.Quote:
But I am interested to know where atheists get morals and principles from without God. How does one decide what is right and wrong? If we're all part of some accident with no Creator, isn't the concept of right and wrong absolutely absurd?
Morality is just one facet of social rules of which we have many. For example I would hardly describe jaywalking, trespass, littering or parking offences as moral issues.
Anyways, whether you believe in God or not, most of us have a conscience, which is our "personal settings" for what we consider to be morally acceptable personal behaviour?
But we might be inclined to refer certain cases to a higher court for sentencing :DQuote:
I can't speak for all people who believe in God. Not all Christians believe capital punishment is acceptable.
God gave us the guidelines and the tool of our conscience, but it is WE who make the rules, because he also gave us free will.Quote:
God is the One who makes the rules.
That implies that God interferes, which in turn implies predestination, which is total disaster for any organised religion; and flies in the face of any meaningful concept of free will.Quote:
God has the right to say who lives and dies.
Free will, individual conscience and the values of the society in which you live.Quote:
Based on what moral principle does one decide that abortion is acceptable?
:)
Hi Nihil,
You have a good answer for the atheist point of view (not saying you're an atheist, just than you gave the logical outcome of their position). I think I can reply to your post by speaking to this one statement.
Are you comfortable with that? Are you sure? Do we want morality to be according to popular opinion? If it is just our opinion (and that's what it comes down to without God (which was my point earlier), then anything goes. Hitler was wrong in 1933-45 but in 2117 he may be right. That seems to me to be the logical conclusion of what you are saying.Quote:
Free will, individual conscience and the values of the society in which you live.
So god is to say what is right? And how does he say it? Did he write it down in the bible? Did he tell a human to write it down for him? Did he implant it in the brains of all humans? In the brains of only those who believe in him? In the brains of only those who live in the Bible Belt? How does that work?
Scholars have tried to answer those questions for ages. A society has laws, based on the moral principles of that society. These principles change all the time, and so do the laws. They vary from era to era, they vary from region to region. Where is that natural, universal law? In the bible? Or is it in the Kuran?
Your principles of morals and law date from the 17th century, when Hugo Grotius wrote De Jure Belli ac Pacis:
If you believe that, you must also believe that law should be eternal, universal, and unchangeable - and again, where is that eternal, universal, and unchangeable law? In the bible? I hope not, because there are "laws" in there that even I, the heathen, amoral, immoral, find repulsive. In the middle ages, people did believe that the Bible was the Ultimate Lawmaker - we all know what it led to...Quote:
The law of nature is a dictate of right reason which points out that an act, according as it is or is not in conformity with rational nature, has in it a quality of moral baseness or moral necessity and that, in consequence, such an act is either forbidden or enjoined by the author of nature, God.
It seems to me that the answer for your objections is found in the following passage.Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
So god is to say what is right? And how does he say it? Did he write it down in the bible? Did he tell a human to write it down for him? Did he implant it in the brains of all humans? In the brains of only those who believe in him? In the brains of only those who live in the Bible Belt? How does that work?
Scholars have tried to answer those questions for ages. A society has laws, based on the moral principles of that society. These principles change all the time, and so do the laws. They vary from era to era, they vary from region to region. Where is that natural, universal law? In the bible? Or is it in the Kuran?
Your principles of morals and law date from the 17th century, when Hugo Grotius wrote De Jure Belli ac Pacis:
If you believe that, you must also believe that law should be eternal, universal, and unchangeable - and again, where is that eternal, universal, and unchangeable law? In the bible? I hope not, because there are "laws" in there that even I, the heathen, amoral, immoral, find repulsive. In the middle ages, people did believe that the Bible was the Ultimate Lawmaker - we all know what it led to...
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. 21 Because, knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. 28 Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.
It seems that because of human sin, even when people know the right thing to do, they do the best they can to suppress it. God has given laws throughout human history. Read the Bible and you will see. The problem isn't such much that people don't know right and wrong, it's because they don't want to know what is right and wrong.
Hi preacherman481 ,
I am not an atheist, I do believe in God. I was just taking a slightly more abstract view of the situation that we find ourselves in. A sort of devil's advocate if you like.
I don't know what things are like where you are, but they are certainly not clear cut over here. I see atheists, humanists, and agnostics on the side of the pro-life/anti-abortionists and members of religions taking an opposing view. My point would be that this is not a black and white, "us and them" situation.
For example, quite a few religious people I know would take the view that the life of the mother takes precedence, which is also the way English Law views things. Jehova's Witnesses would not take that view, as they don't even condone blood transfusions.
They "greyer" areas are children with massive deformities, and the product of rape.
From my personal observations and the media, it would seem that "unwanted babies" should not be aborted in the eyes of most religious and a fair number of non-religious. And of those who do support it, a lot would require sterilisation to be part of the process. ;)
As for my remark:
That is how I perceive things to currently be; and is consistent with society's approach to other moral issues. My point being that "morality" is both individual and collective, and the two may use quite different rulesets?Quote:
Free will, individual conscience and the values of the society in which you live.
:)
Preacherman > Ah yes, I forgot about that Argument of All Arguments... I especially like what a loving and forgiving god he seems to be... It's appropriately titled "God's wrath against mankind", isn't it? ... Romans has been used a lot - and especially the part you quoted - by what I call the modern Inquisition. Let's all be nice to each other - expect to those that aren't as close-minded as we are... history repeats itself, preacherman... if you want to be part of that history, feel free.
Where's the times where you could buy yourself out of hell for $100?
If I follow you correctly, yes it certainly is true.Quote:
That is how I perceive things to currently be; and is consistent with society's approach to other moral issues. My point being that "morality" is both individual and collective, and the two may use quite different rulesets?
I would dare to say this is the case here also. You would not be too hard pressed to find "members of religions" advocating abortion rights. I question their interpretation of the Scripture though. And I'm sure there are atheists and others who oppose abortion on moral grounds. I'm just not enthralled with moral grounds based on purely human reasoning which changes so quickly it seems.Quote:
I don't know what things are like where you are, but they are certainly not clear cut over here. I see atheists, humanists, and agnostics on the side of the pro-life/anti-abortionists and members of religions taking an opposing view. My point would be that this is not a black and white, "us and them" situation.
I am actually not that convinced that ideas change that rapidly. Over here we only repealed the death penalty for homosexuality in 1848, women did not get the vote until around 1920 and it is only in the last 35 years or so that the situation where you would be expected to fight and die for your country three years before you had the right to elect the people who sent you, was resolved.Quote:
I'm just not enthralled with moral grounds based on purely human reasoning which changes so quickly it seems.
This may sound corny, but when we are determining the "rules" of the societies in which we live, I feel that it is more important that we have dialogue rather than diatribe and consultation rather than confrontation. For example, if Christians pull back and entrench themselves, they are ignoring a very important instruction: "Go forth and preach the Gospel"
It is the responsibility of the truly religious to cogently argue their case and persuade other members of society to support them in determining collective "rules"? Histrionics and violence obviously have no part in this process.
:)
EDIT:Ah! interesting point............are we talking "rights" or "grounds" there is a difference is there not?Quote:
advocating abortion rights
Hi Negative,
Well, actually the Bible does speak a good deal about God's love and forgiveness-- it is there waiting-- for anyone who wants it.Quote:
especially like what a loving and forgiving god he seems to be... I
I suppose the question here is: "Does God have a right to punish sin?" Well, what would you do if you were God? How would you run the world? Would you be so loving and forgiving that you never enforce consequences for wrongdoing?
Let's say you are the police chief of a town. You allow criminals to steal, rob, rape and pillage. Citizens come to you and complain: "What are you doing? Why aren't you enforcing law and order?" You say, "Well, I'm just being loving and forgiving." Love does not mean letting the world run wild.
preacherman481
Are you aware that God is not a "just God" in fact he is extremely unjust ;)
Beware! that IS a trick question.
:halo:
Yes, I truly agree with this.Quote:
t is the responsibility of the truly religious to cogently argue their case and persuade other members of society to support them in determining collective "rules"? Histrionics and violence obviously have no part in this process.
Yes, I agree with this also. Actually, though, I believe working to change civil laws is a relatively small part of what is important. I did not turn cartwheels when Judge Alito was confirmed. The only truly moral behavior is that which springs from a love for God. If love for God was the ruling force in every person's life, we would not need laws and courts-- or abortions for that matter.Quote:
This may sound corny, but when we are determining the "rules" of the societies in which we live, I feel that it is more important that we have dialogue rather than diatribe and consultation rather than confrontation. For example, if Christians pull back and entrench themselves, they are ignoring a very important instruction: "Go forth and preach the Gospel"
[QUOTE] Originally posted here by nihil
[B]preacherman481
Are you aware that God is not a "just God" in fact he is extremely unjust
Beware! that IS a trick question.
Ok, Johnno, you need to explain this one to me. I freely admit I night the sharpest knife in the drawer.
For us, yes, but it is important that we get like minded persons on our side, whatever their motivations might be?Quote:
The only truly moral behavior is that which springs from a love for God
And you have not answered my trick question :D
EDIT: Sorry, I missed your post by one minute!
The argument is that if God were "just" by our standards, we would all be doomed? it is because he is unjust (biased towards us) that we have hope of salvation. Perhaps that is why we should be careful as to how we fashion our laws?
I can find you exactly the same in Islam, although I cannot remember the Hadith off the top of my head. Crudely translated it says "Oh! son of Adam, even if your sins stretch from the bottom of the deepest ocean up unto the seventh heaven, if you truly repent, I shall forgive you"
Yes... but the problem (and it really is a problem!) is that you, just like they used to do in the good old days of the Inquisition, will only quote what you see fit for the situation at hand. You'll quote god's wrath when you need to prove how powerful he is, you'll quote his love when you need to prove that he's a nice dude...Quote:
Well, actually the Bible does speak a good deal about God's love and forgiveness-- it is there waiting-- for anyone who wants it.
No, that's not the question. According to you, didn't he already punish sin (in the garden), thus punishing us for eternity?Quote:
I suppose the question here is: "Does God have a right to punish sin?" Well, what would you do if you were God? How would you run the world? Would you be so loving and forgiving that you never enforce consequences for wrongdoing?
And you shouldn't ask me what I would do if I were god... a supreme being surely should know how to solve a problem of that magnitude, no? Or is he just toying? Giving us free choice, but not really... if we do choose for ourselves, he'll smack us down... if we follow his pre-determined choice, we'll be fine... that's what you call free choice... I pity you...
Let's turn that into a scenario for you:Quote:
Let's say you are the police chief of a town. You allow criminals to steal, rob, rape and pillage. Citizens come to you and complain: "What are you doing? Why aren't you enforcing law and order?" You say, "Well, I'm just being loving and forgiving." Love does not mean letting the world run wild.
Let's say you are god. You don't want people to steal, rob, rape, or pillage. You could just tell them not to do it, and they'd obey your rules, but you're too lazy to tell them (or maybe, and this is what I think of the sort of god you seem to believe in, he's a sadist, he wants them to not follow his rules so he can smack them down)... someone steals an apple because you didn't really explain the rules and because he's hungry... What would you do?
I don't want to believe in the god you believe in, preacherman. I think I have better morals than he does, and that should tell you something. The god you believe in is not the god from the bible... it's something you created in your own mind, something that would justify your own little belief-system... you take a quote from the bible here, you take a quote from the bible there... context? Never heard of... You don't read the bible... you interprete it, in your own way, at your own disposal.
Well, I'm more than willing to listen to your interpretation of it. Please tell me about the God of the Bible as you see Him.Quote:
don't want to believe in the god you believe in, preacherman. I think I have better morals than he does, and that should tell you something. The god you believe in is not the god from the bible... it's something you created in your own mind, something that would justify your own little belief-system... you take a quote from the bible here, you take a quote from the bible there... context? Never heard of... You don't read the bible... you interprete it, in your own way, at your own disposal.
Please explain in what way you think your morals are better than God's.Quote:
I don't want to believe in the god you believe in, preacherman. I think I have better morals than he does, and that should tell you something.
What would you do if you were God? What is your plan for running the world? God knows what He is doing. But since you say He doesn't exist you must have some idea of how things ought to be. How would you deal with sin? How do you explain the problems of the world? What solutions do you have?Quote:
No, that's not the question. According to you, didn't he already punish sin (in the garden), thus punishing us for eternity?
And you shouldn't ask me what I would do if I were god... a supreme being surely should know how to solve a problem of that magnitude, no? Or is he just toying? Giving us free choice, but not really... if we do choose for ourselves, he'll smack us down... if we follow his pre-determined choice, we'll be fine... that's what you call free choice... I pity you...
I didn't say that. I think that my morals are better than the morals of the god you believe in, which is quite different. You turn god into a war-mongering, tight-assed, close-minded ******* - that's your god, that's the god you believe in. I have always hoped that if there were a god (I don't know if there is or not, so I'm not going to exlude it), that he'd be a nice one... forgiving... loving... the total opposite of what you believe him to be.Quote:
Please explain in what way you think your morals are better than God's.
There you go again... I don't say he doesn't exist. But if you are right about him, I'd say we're screwed big time, and I want to get out of here asap and have absolutely nothing to do with you and him...Quote:
What would you do if you were God? What is your plan for running the world? God knows what He is doing. But since you say He doesn't exist you must have some idea of how things ought to be. How would you deal with sin? How do you explain the problems of the world? What solutions do you have?
I explain the problems in the world by referring to people like you, btw. You take it literally, you're unforgiving, you're close-minded. There's a couple of million of you... and there's a couple of million of unforgiving, close-minded muslims... and voila: there's your problem.
You're an extremist... you're a danger to a civilized world.
I suppose this means I'm off your Christmas card list :) .Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
I didn't say that. I think that my morals are better than the morals of the god you believe in, which is quite different. You turn god into a war-mongering, tight-assed, close-minded ******* - that's your god, that's the god you believe in. I have always hoped that if there were a god (I don't know if there is or not, so I'm not going to exlude it), that he'd be a nice one... forgiving... loving... the total opposite of what you believe him to be.
It seems that you're saying that a loving and forgiving God would let us do anything we want to and live any way we want to. That is not love IMO but neglect. It leads to anarchy.
There you go again... I don't say he doesn't exist. But if you are right about him, I'd say we're screwed big time, and I want to get out of here asap and have absolutely nothing to do with you and him...
I explain the problems in the world by referring to people like you, btw. You take it literally, you're unforgiving, you're close-minded. There's a couple of million of you... and there's a couple of million of unforgiving, close-minded muslims... and voila: there's your problem.
You're an extremist... you're a danger to a civilized world.
Hi,
You seem to have missed my answer to the trick question?
To back it some way, I would cite the parable of the vinyard where the guys who were at it for 12 hours got the same pay as those who did it for one. Mix that with the prodigal son and you are about there?
;)
Nah... I like Christmas...
Santa Claus (Saint Nicholas) was a bishop in what is now Turkey. He gave everything he had to the poor. He was a true christian: forgiving, nice, and loving - just like Jesus a couple of centuries before him. Someone got confused along the way and started linking Nicholas to Christmas (they were only 19 days off... and 300-something years: Nicholas died on the 6th of December, in the 4th century AD).
Ain't that nice, and better than all that "wrath against mankind" crap?
Quote:
The argument is that if God were "just" by our standards, we would all be doomed? it is because he is unjust (biased towards us) that we have hope of salvation. Perhaps that is why we should be careful as to how we fashion our laws?
Sorry Nihil,Quote:
Hi,
You seem to have missed my answer to the trick question?
To back it some way, I would cite the parable of the vinyard where the guys who were at it for 12 hours got the same pay as those who did it for one. Mix that with the prodigal son and you are about there?
I seem to be bouncing all over the place here. Yes, I get it now :D Well, it's a good thing that God is not just in the sense that you have described. There would not be any hope for anyone if we got what we deserved.
Quote:
I didn't say that.
Yes, you're right. Please forgive me for misquoting and mischaracterizing what you said. I was wrong.Quote:
There you go again... I don't say he doesn't exist.
Yes, Jesus was loving and forgiving. But he also had some pretty strong words to say about those who rejected him. BTW--How do you define love?Quote:
He was a true christian: forgiving, nice, and loving - just like Jesus a couple of centuries before him
How do I define love, or how do I think Jesus would have defined love? :D
Love is, first and foremost, unconditional... There can't be such a thing as "I'll love you if you do this or that"...
Yes, and after he said those strong words, he then showed what was his biggest quality: forgiveness. "Forgive them, Father... for they know not what they do."Quote:
But he also had some pretty strong words to say about those who rejected him.
"Father" doesn't seem to want to forgive anyone, though...
He has forgiven me over and over....We're all sinners, and if we were't forgiven, then we wouldn't really be alive now would we :).Quote:
"Father" doesn't seem to want to forgive anyone, though...
Then that's not really a good foundation to build a law system on, is it?
I always wondered as kid why Catholics (I am Protestant) felt the need to "confess" their sins on a regular basis, like was it a free get out of jail card?? You more or less told some Priest your sins for the week, he absolved you in the name of the Lord, an thus you had another week to commit all the sins you wanted to...
Pretty neat little system, if you think about.......However we Prods just have to live with our sins and when we approach St Peter, he sort of goes through the list and well, we either get in or we get sent South... :p
Back OT, why do the religious right, feel it is nescessary to impose their will on another person (my earlier post must have made it sound like I was referring to God when I said imposing will on someone else which I wasn't), why do well intentioned people insist that their way is the only road to salvation, that a Mother who decides to abort the fetus is somehow damned in the eye's of the Lord, if he/she was as compassionate as religious folk would have you believe then he/she would have the Mother's best interests at heart???
I cannot for the life of me, understand how a religious organisation as large as the Catholic Church continue to hide behind verse and psalms.They went into Africa to preach the gospel and convert tribespeople to christianity, allowing these people to go forth and multiply, and they did, and they are still doing it so that now some of these Mothers have upwards of 6 children, and now we wonder why, thousands of children are dying in Africa because they cannot feed that many mouths on what they grow or if lucky purchase (other places as well), if God was a just person, he/she would ensure that the children would not suffer.
I said earlier I am protestant, that's because I was baptised as such, earlier in my life that may have meant something, now however after watching events unfold over the past 30 yrs, I have come to the understanding that we are on our own, I am not atheist, I am agnostic, and yes there is a difference:
I figured as some of you are quoting scriptures, well why not... AgnosticQuote:
'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good.' Socrates
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) came up with the word ‘agnostic’ while searching for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not consider himself “an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; [nor] a Christian…” and while he had much in common with freethinkers, he wanted a term to describe himself more accurately. His difference with the people who gave themselves the above labels was that he did not feel certain of his knowledge- or ‘gnosis’- that he “had successfully solved the problem of existence.”
The essential problem was that Huxley believed the problem was unsolvable. And thus far, despite the existence of famous thinkers like Emmanuel Kant and David Hume who philosophically agreed with him on the matter, there wasn’t a name for someone who believed you could never know the source of, nor reason for existence.
Huxley got the term “gnostic” from the early Christian Gnostics, whom he said, “professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant”, and created the word ‘agnostic’, with the prefix giving the new word the opposite meaning of the core word, which means, "knowing". This is close to the meaning that most modern day people associate with the word. It is used to mean a person who is not certain whether God exists or gods exist. It is subtly different from the original meaning in that the term started out to mean that knowledge of the cause and origin of existence is not only an uncertainty, but an impossibility, whether you’re considering that the origin may be God, science, or something else entirely.
Throughout his life, during which the word ‘agnostic’ caught on and became commonly used, Huxley tweaked his term, and adjusted its meaning. He ultimately came to describe agnosticism as a method of thinking, in the way science is a means of thinking, not a belief in and of itself. His ideal was that everyone should be able to give a reason for his faith, or simply not claim it as his own. He said it this way: “In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable”.
There was a moral edge to Huxley’s agnosticism. “That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.” There was an implied call for an honest intellectual decision in terms of belief. To put it into brief, modern words, he might have said, “Don’t claim it if you cannot explain it”.
Huxley understood and accepted that the new term would have different meanings depending on the understanding and intellect of the individual. Furthermore, he knew that the meaning for each individual would change as time goes on, to incorporate new findings in understanding or in science. He said, “That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow.”
Huxley defined agnositicism as follows, and this is perhaps, the truest definition of the term today: “… it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.” It is not merely a matter of whether or not one knows if God exists, but it is a matter of whether one can objectively define his belief, whether in God or in anything else.
Huxley was a gifted speaker, and was known, in the course of his many debates, to quietly state that he knew nothing about the supernatural about which his opponents claimed firm belief, then, somewhat louder, to add, “And neither do you.”
Now, there's a serious question. All BS aside, how can contentious issuesQuote:
Then that's not really a good foundation to build a law system on, is it?
like this ever be settled unless we all feel that the underlying system of
law is good and right. Some people say "you can't legislate morality"
but isn't all law a form of morality that has been enforced by the state?
A better question might be "does the gov't have jurisdiction?"
If they don't, or shouldn't have jurisdiction, that is an argument, but the
same people who want the state out of the business of regulating abortion
have no problem with the state regulating everything else under the
sun.
:cool: