|
On June 30 2013 08:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 08:53 Henk wrote:On June 30 2013 08:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:I don't care what you base your personal decisions off. I care when you think your religious views should dictate personal decisions of someone who is not you. Republicans are all about freedoms until it runs cross with their religion You don't care but you do care because opinions influenced by religion are automatically less valid, that 1. is bigoted and 2. makes no sense thanks to the bigoted, ignorant view of religious thought that is responsible for it. You should care - if this is what you really believe - when anyone thinks personal views should dictate the decisions of someone else, but you don't, because you don't think through the implications of what you say and are satisfied with shallow group-bashing because you've got in your head somewhere that it's ok to be bigoted against people you've convinced yourself are somehow so bad that they deserve it. And really, everyone is all about freedoms until they run across some kind of personal belief that tells them 'this freedom should have restrictions or not be allowed at all.' So please don't try that bs. Many Democrats as well believe in restrictions on abortion, most people think that there should be some restrictions. They don't deserve hostile sarcasm because they're not Republicans right? But hey, four legs good, two legs bad - except when four legs good, two legs better! - and some animals are more equal than others. In a few generations religion will be a thing of the past anyway (if it isn't, already). Abortion should always be an option, especially if the woman was raped or isn't able to support the child. However, the law of not being able to abort something like a 39-week old foetus should obviously be kept. lolol Keep on dreaming, religion has been around for 50,000 years and it isn't going to be a thing of the past "in a few generations" or a hundred generations or a thousand generations either. Look around you. Religion is crumbling. Perhaps not so much in America -yet-, but in Europe religious people are a minority. And the world is comprised of America and Europe?
Aight fair enough - perhaps I should've said 'Western world'.
|
Deb If you have nothing to add on my opinion that religion shouldn't dictate the lives of people who don't share that religions views we have nothing worth talking about.
|
This whole conversation is so stupid. Women wouldn't need abortions if they weren't allowed to dress like sluts. I propose we make a law that would enforce real christian values. Women's arms, legs, and faces should be covered at all times in public to avoid enticing men.
I think this picture of three of Nazgul's cousins provides a sufficient model:
![[image loading]](http://theagenda.tvo.org/sites/default/files/Niqab_BBC_0.jpg)
#americandream
#freedom
|
On June 30 2013 07:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 07:28 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:37 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:24 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 05:47 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Joe Biden said: Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others
That is so wrong on so many levels. Why? Sounds pretty good to me. According to Catholic doctrine, abortion is both an intrinsic evil, and a mortal sin. Basically, abortion is so evil and heinous in the eyes of God that, committed without repentance, it will result in the damnation of the person who procured it. In fact, procuring an abortion itself is singled out as a cause for automatic excommunication. Thus, it is considered the duty of every Catholic politician to do everything within their power to limit and eventually eliminate abortion. For a politician to recognize and accept the Catholic teaching on abortion (to do otherwise publicly would be heresy, arguably worse) but still support it's legalization is considered to be a grave sin itself, much akin to the actions of Pontius Pilate, who condemned Christ despite knowing his innocence. For Joe Biden to say he refuses to "impose" his belief on others through legislation is, according to the beliefs he espouses, the same thing as a Catholic politician claiming that he refuses to impose upon others his own belief in the evil of lynching blacks. According to Catholic doctrine, they are similar moral statements.I am of the opinion (shared by many Catholics, including the Bishop in Biden's hometown of Scranton, Penn.) that Biden and other Catholic pro-choice politicians should be denied access to communion and publicly repudiated. I am also of the opinion that any Catholic politician claiming that his pro-choice stance does not run counter to the doctrine of abortion should be publicly excommunicated. I mean, it's a bit off-topic, but it holds a particular relevance to me, being a devout Catholic myself. lol. So it's wrong in the eyes of the church. Well, it's exactly in line with US law and constitution. I'd much rather my politicians stay true to the country then their religion. We don't live in a theocracy. Being that I assume your are not Catholic, that is perfectly understandable. For a Catholic, however, the hypocrisy and moral weakness of the statement, combined with the absolute disregard for the mortal danger of which Biden has placed his own soul (and the danger in which he inadvertently places others through his actions and example) is appalling, and as disturbing as anything I can think of. To see a man willingly and knowingly place himself against his own God and Church is very troubling to me. There is a difference between witnessing your faith and literally making it the law to follow what the bible says. I'm glad your not the vice president of the US. Most people would be glad that I'm not the vice-president or the president. I place myself firmly in that group. That being said, the Catholic church, the church and faith Mr. Biden belongs to, says that there is no difference between witnessing one's faith and practicing one's faith. As I said, none of this will mean much to someone who is not Catholic, however, to those who are Catholic this quite literally means everything. I understand what you are saying. Would you rather have leaders that are not Catholic, Catholic but don't enforce it with laws, or Catholic and make laws that agree with them? Obviously I would rather have Catholic leaders who pass laws that largely agree with the Church's positions, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. I would least like having leaders who are Catholic but actually legislate against their own (and my) beliefs and morality. Being that legislation in general (and this legislation in particular) is all moral/philosophically based, I prefer having those in power who share my own moral/philosophical views and hold to them.
You are going to live your life how you believe God intends regardless of the law of the land. Further, everyone else is already in need of repentance/redemption even if every law was based off of biblical teaching. So why would you care if laws reflect your biblical/moral code? As long as my religious freedoms are preserved and people aren't being harmed** I'm going to focus my vote on things that impact the country more like education and economy. (Getting really off topic, but I've gotten really sick of all the "religious" politicians who are against helping the needy.)
(** on topic - I think the abortion debate comes down to when you think human life begins... after you draw that line there should be no exceptions. PERIOD.)
|
On June 30 2013 07:56 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 07:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:28 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:37 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:24 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 05:47 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 05:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
That is so wrong on so many levels.
Why? Sounds pretty good to me. According to Catholic doctrine, abortion is both an intrinsic evil, and a mortal sin. Basically, abortion is so evil and heinous in the eyes of God that, committed without repentance, it will result in the damnation of the person who procured it. In fact, procuring an abortion itself is singled out as a cause for automatic excommunication. Thus, it is considered the duty of every Catholic politician to do everything within their power to limit and eventually eliminate abortion. For a politician to recognize and accept the Catholic teaching on abortion (to do otherwise publicly would be heresy, arguably worse) but still support it's legalization is considered to be a grave sin itself, much akin to the actions of Pontius Pilate, who condemned Christ despite knowing his innocence. For Joe Biden to say he refuses to "impose" his belief on others through legislation is, according to the beliefs he espouses, the same thing as a Catholic politician claiming that he refuses to impose upon others his own belief in the evil of lynching blacks. According to Catholic doctrine, they are similar moral statements.I am of the opinion (shared by many Catholics, including the Bishop in Biden's hometown of Scranton, Penn.) that Biden and other Catholic pro-choice politicians should be denied access to communion and publicly repudiated. I am also of the opinion that any Catholic politician claiming that his pro-choice stance does not run counter to the doctrine of abortion should be publicly excommunicated. I mean, it's a bit off-topic, but it holds a particular relevance to me, being a devout Catholic myself. lol. So it's wrong in the eyes of the church. Well, it's exactly in line with US law and constitution. I'd much rather my politicians stay true to the country then their religion. We don't live in a theocracy. Being that I assume your are not Catholic, that is perfectly understandable. For a Catholic, however, the hypocrisy and moral weakness of the statement, combined with the absolute disregard for the mortal danger of which Biden has placed his own soul (and the danger in which he inadvertently places others through his actions and example) is appalling, and as disturbing as anything I can think of. To see a man willingly and knowingly place himself against his own God and Church is very troubling to me. There is a difference between witnessing your faith and literally making it the law to follow what the bible says. I'm glad your not the vice president of the US. Most people would be glad that I'm not the vice-president or the president. I place myself firmly in that group. That being said, the Catholic church, the church and faith Mr. Biden belongs to, says that there is no difference between witnessing one's faith and practicing one's faith. As I said, none of this will mean much to someone who is not Catholic, however, to those who are Catholic this quite literally means everything. I understand what you are saying. Would you rather have leaders that are not Catholic, Catholic but don't enforce it with laws, or Catholic and make laws that agree with them? Obviously I would rather have Catholic leaders who pass laws that largely agree with the Church's positions, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. I would least like having leaders who are Catholic but actually legislate against their own (and my) beliefs and morality. Being that legislation in general (and this legislation in particular) is all moral/philosophically based, I prefer having those in power who share my own moral/philosophical views and hold to them. Then you prefer a Catholic theocracy to a secular free republic. I think it is pretty clear that that would be a step backwards from even our admittedly dysfunctional current democracy.
No, I support a free republic that chooses to follow Catholic moral teachings. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we can only have a completely secular republic or an absolute theocracy.
Besides, now we've gotten off-topic.
|
On June 30 2013 09:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 07:56 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:28 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:37 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:24 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 05:47 ZackAttack wrote:
[quote]
Why? Sounds pretty good to me. According to Catholic doctrine, abortion is both an intrinsic evil, and a mortal sin. Basically, abortion is so evil and heinous in the eyes of God that, committed without repentance, it will result in the damnation of the person who procured it. In fact, procuring an abortion itself is singled out as a cause for automatic excommunication. Thus, it is considered the duty of every Catholic politician to do everything within their power to limit and eventually eliminate abortion. For a politician to recognize and accept the Catholic teaching on abortion (to do otherwise publicly would be heresy, arguably worse) but still support it's legalization is considered to be a grave sin itself, much akin to the actions of Pontius Pilate, who condemned Christ despite knowing his innocence. For Joe Biden to say he refuses to "impose" his belief on others through legislation is, according to the beliefs he espouses, the same thing as a Catholic politician claiming that he refuses to impose upon others his own belief in the evil of lynching blacks. According to Catholic doctrine, they are similar moral statements.I am of the opinion (shared by many Catholics, including the Bishop in Biden's hometown of Scranton, Penn.) that Biden and other Catholic pro-choice politicians should be denied access to communion and publicly repudiated. I am also of the opinion that any Catholic politician claiming that his pro-choice stance does not run counter to the doctrine of abortion should be publicly excommunicated. I mean, it's a bit off-topic, but it holds a particular relevance to me, being a devout Catholic myself. lol. So it's wrong in the eyes of the church. Well, it's exactly in line with US law and constitution. I'd much rather my politicians stay true to the country then their religion. We don't live in a theocracy. Being that I assume your are not Catholic, that is perfectly understandable. For a Catholic, however, the hypocrisy and moral weakness of the statement, combined with the absolute disregard for the mortal danger of which Biden has placed his own soul (and the danger in which he inadvertently places others through his actions and example) is appalling, and as disturbing as anything I can think of. To see a man willingly and knowingly place himself against his own God and Church is very troubling to me. There is a difference between witnessing your faith and literally making it the law to follow what the bible says. I'm glad your not the vice president of the US. Most people would be glad that I'm not the vice-president or the president. I place myself firmly in that group. That being said, the Catholic church, the church and faith Mr. Biden belongs to, says that there is no difference between witnessing one's faith and practicing one's faith. As I said, none of this will mean much to someone who is not Catholic, however, to those who are Catholic this quite literally means everything. I understand what you are saying. Would you rather have leaders that are not Catholic, Catholic but don't enforce it with laws, or Catholic and make laws that agree with them? Obviously I would rather have Catholic leaders who pass laws that largely agree with the Church's positions, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. I would least like having leaders who are Catholic but actually legislate against their own (and my) beliefs and morality. Being that legislation in general (and this legislation in particular) is all moral/philosophically based, I prefer having those in power who share my own moral/philosophical views and hold to them. Then you prefer a Catholic theocracy to a secular free republic. I think it is pretty clear that that would be a step backwards from even our admittedly dysfunctional current democracy. No, I support a free republic that chooses to follow Catholic moral teachings. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we can only have a completely secular republic or an absolute theocracy. Besides, now we've gotten off-topic.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the political groups who want to choose to follow christian teachings largely the same groups who denounce countries which choose to follow muslim teachings?
Furthermore, which are the christian values which we are going to follow? I mean a startlingly large percentage of our population is REALLY bad about the whole gluttony thing. Isn't that supposed to be a 'killer sin' or something?
|
On June 30 2013 10:11 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 09:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:56 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:28 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:37 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:24 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
According to Catholic doctrine, abortion is both an intrinsic evil, and a mortal sin. Basically, abortion is so evil and heinous in the eyes of God that, committed without repentance, it will result in the damnation of the person who procured it. In fact, procuring an abortion itself is singled out as a cause for automatic excommunication. Thus, it is considered the duty of every Catholic politician to do everything within their power to limit and eventually eliminate abortion. For a politician to recognize and accept the Catholic teaching on abortion (to do otherwise publicly would be heresy, arguably worse) but still support it's legalization is considered to be a grave sin itself, much akin to the actions of Pontius Pilate, who condemned Christ despite knowing his innocence. For Joe Biden to say he refuses to "impose" his belief on others through legislation is, according to the beliefs he espouses, the same thing as a Catholic politician claiming that he refuses to impose upon others his own belief in the evil of lynching blacks. According to Catholic doctrine, they are similar moral statements.
I am of the opinion (shared by many Catholics, including the Bishop in Biden's hometown of Scranton, Penn.) that Biden and other Catholic pro-choice politicians should be denied access to communion and publicly repudiated. I am also of the opinion that any Catholic politician claiming that his pro-choice stance does not run counter to the doctrine of abortion should be publicly excommunicated.
I mean, it's a bit off-topic, but it holds a particular relevance to me, being a devout Catholic myself. lol. So it's wrong in the eyes of the church. Well, it's exactly in line with US law and constitution. I'd much rather my politicians stay true to the country then their religion. We don't live in a theocracy. Being that I assume your are not Catholic, that is perfectly understandable. For a Catholic, however, the hypocrisy and moral weakness of the statement, combined with the absolute disregard for the mortal danger of which Biden has placed his own soul (and the danger in which he inadvertently places others through his actions and example) is appalling, and as disturbing as anything I can think of. To see a man willingly and knowingly place himself against his own God and Church is very troubling to me. There is a difference between witnessing your faith and literally making it the law to follow what the bible says. I'm glad your not the vice president of the US. Most people would be glad that I'm not the vice-president or the president. I place myself firmly in that group. That being said, the Catholic church, the church and faith Mr. Biden belongs to, says that there is no difference between witnessing one's faith and practicing one's faith. As I said, none of this will mean much to someone who is not Catholic, however, to those who are Catholic this quite literally means everything. I understand what you are saying. Would you rather have leaders that are not Catholic, Catholic but don't enforce it with laws, or Catholic and make laws that agree with them? Obviously I would rather have Catholic leaders who pass laws that largely agree with the Church's positions, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. I would least like having leaders who are Catholic but actually legislate against their own (and my) beliefs and morality. Being that legislation in general (and this legislation in particular) is all moral/philosophically based, I prefer having those in power who share my own moral/philosophical views and hold to them. Then you prefer a Catholic theocracy to a secular free republic. I think it is pretty clear that that would be a step backwards from even our admittedly dysfunctional current democracy. No, I support a free republic that chooses to follow Catholic moral teachings. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we can only have a completely secular republic or an absolute theocracy. Besides, now we've gotten off-topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the political groups who want to choose to follow christian teachings largely the same groups who denounce countries which choose to follow muslim teachings? Furthermore, which are the christian values which we are going to follow? I mean a startlingly large percentage of our population is REALLY bad about the whole gluttony thing. Isn't that supposed to be a 'killer sin' or something?
If you want to have a discussion about the role of religion in politics, go ahead and make a thread or a blog about it. This thread is about justifications for/against abortion, focusing on rape/incest. I'm not going to defend my own personal political/religious beliefs when the thread has literally nothing to do with any of that. I made a post explaining why Biden's personal reasons for supporting abortion are not in line with his other beliefs and are not in line with my beliefs, nor with the beliefs of his church. This is on-topic because the entire abortion argument is based on morality/philosophy. Whether or not the establishment of Sharia law is the same as a politician allowing their religion to inform their political choices is absolutely irrelevant to that discussion or to any discussion about abortion.
Whether religion has any role whatsoever in politics or not is somewhat on-topic, but on that note your argument is incredibly weak. Religion does and always will have a role in politics, whether we like it or not, whether it should or not. It is foolish to think that the religious will even be able to ignore their most deeply held moral beliefs when discussing legislation based on morality. If we say that religion has no place in a debate about whether a flat-tax or a progressive tax is preferable, than that is more valid because that argument is largely based on determinable factors (economic effectiveness), and not so heavily on moral arguments. However, with abortion, the argument is almost entirely moral, and thus someone's particular and personal moral beliefs will necessarily be a determiner in how they perceive the subject and how they propose to deal with it.
To my knowledge, the Church has never declared that gluttony is something that should or shouldn't be addressed with legislation. Gluttony, being a class of sin (there are many types of gluttony), is not comparable with abortion, which is a specific action, a specific sin. No one is guilty of "gluttony" in of itself. They are guilty of specific sins of gluttony. Just as no one is guilty of simple "jealousy", they are guilty of being jealous of a particular person or thing.
|
I'm not sure about incest. Is there really a scientific basis against incest?
User was warned for this post
|
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies.
edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded.
|
On June 30 2013 10:37 Orangered wrote:
I'm not sure about incest. Is there really a scientific basis against incest?
You're being sarcastic, right?
|
On June 30 2013 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:11 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 09:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:56 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:28 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:37 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:24 ZackAttack wrote:
[quote]
lol. So it's wrong in the eyes of the church. Well, it's exactly in line with US law and constitution. I'd much rather my politicians stay true to the country then their religion. We don't live in a theocracy.
Being that I assume your are not Catholic, that is perfectly understandable. For a Catholic, however, the hypocrisy and moral weakness of the statement, combined with the absolute disregard for the mortal danger of which Biden has placed his own soul (and the danger in which he inadvertently places others through his actions and example) is appalling, and as disturbing as anything I can think of. To see a man willingly and knowingly place himself against his own God and Church is very troubling to me. There is a difference between witnessing your faith and literally making it the law to follow what the bible says. I'm glad your not the vice president of the US. Most people would be glad that I'm not the vice-president or the president. I place myself firmly in that group. That being said, the Catholic church, the church and faith Mr. Biden belongs to, says that there is no difference between witnessing one's faith and practicing one's faith. As I said, none of this will mean much to someone who is not Catholic, however, to those who are Catholic this quite literally means everything. I understand what you are saying. Would you rather have leaders that are not Catholic, Catholic but don't enforce it with laws, or Catholic and make laws that agree with them? Obviously I would rather have Catholic leaders who pass laws that largely agree with the Church's positions, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. I would least like having leaders who are Catholic but actually legislate against their own (and my) beliefs and morality. Being that legislation in general (and this legislation in particular) is all moral/philosophically based, I prefer having those in power who share my own moral/philosophical views and hold to them. Then you prefer a Catholic theocracy to a secular free republic. I think it is pretty clear that that would be a step backwards from even our admittedly dysfunctional current democracy. No, I support a free republic that chooses to follow Catholic moral teachings. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we can only have a completely secular republic or an absolute theocracy. Besides, now we've gotten off-topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the political groups who want to choose to follow christian teachings largely the same groups who denounce countries which choose to follow muslim teachings? Furthermore, which are the christian values which we are going to follow? I mean a startlingly large percentage of our population is REALLY bad about the whole gluttony thing. Isn't that supposed to be a 'killer sin' or something? If you want to have a discussion about the role of religion in politics, go ahead and make a thread or a blog about it. This thread is about justifications for/against abortion, focusing on rape/incest. I'm not going to defend my own personal political/religious beliefs when the thread has literally nothing to do with any of that. I made a post explaining why Biden's personal reasons for supporting abortion are not in line with his other beliefs and are not in line with my beliefs, nor with the beliefs of his church. This is on-topic because the entire abortion argument is based on morality/philosophy. Whether or not the establishment of Sharia law is the same as a politician allowing their religion to inform their political choices is absolutely irrelevant to that discussion or to any discussion about abortion. Whether religion has any role whatsoever in politics or not is somewhat on-topic, but on that note your argument is incredibly weak. Religion does and always will have a role in politics, whether we like it or not, whether it should or not. It is foolish to think that the religious will even be able to ignore their most deeply held moral beliefs when discussing legislation based on morality. If we say that religion has no place in a debate about whether a flat-tax or a progressive tax is preferable, than that is more valid because that argument is largely based on determinable factors (economic effectiveness), and not so heavily on moral arguments. However, with abortion, the argument is almost entirely moral, and thus someone's particular and personal moral beliefs will necessarily be a determiner in how they perceive the subject and how they propose to deal with it. To my knowledge, the Church has never declared that gluttony is something that should or shouldn't be addressed with legislation. Gluttony, being a class of sin (there are many types of gluttony), is not comparable with abortion, which is a specific action, a specific sin. No one is guilty of "gluttony" in of itself. They are guilty of specific sins of gluttony. Just as no one is guilty of simple "jealousy", they are guilty of being jealous of a particular person or thing.
I would argue that their 'most deeply held beliefs' are created by the political institution itself. Good propaganda and whatnot.
Anyway, the christian approach is a great reason for instituting a christian state that ends abortion. Unfortunately that is not the goal of abortion legislation. Abortion bills will only end legal abortion. This means that based on the basic principles of supply and demand, illegal abortions will rise. You know, the things that were so horrific they overturned all anti-abortion laws in the first place? Yeah.
But no, go ahead. Implement the laws of Y'golonac or whatever, see if it helps.
|
On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies.
You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation.
+ Show Spoiler +In fact, I think I should try to deconstruct the argument (I use the term loosely) you seem to be providing here:
P1: The Bible tells us what is right and wrong.
P2: It applied thousands of years ago.
C: It does not apply today.
Does not follow from premise.
P1: Basing arguments on books written thousands of years ago is stupid.
P2: The Bible was written thousands of years ago. (kind of incorrect, but whatever)
C: Basing arguments on the Bible is stupid.
Better in that it's somewhat logical, yet still pretty weak in that you've not said WHY basing argument on books written thousands of years ago is stupid, and you misunderstand what the Bible is (not a singular book, but rather a collection of books and stories).
edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded.
This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it.
God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject.
|
On June 30 2013 10:46 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:37 Orangered wrote:
I'm not sure about incest. Is there really a scientific basis against incest? You're being sarcastic, right?
Actually, scientific consensus is pretty fair from popular opinion on this matter. Yeah sibling-sibling / parent sibling incest has been found to be slightly risky. But once you get out to cousins it's not that bad. Most incest fear comes from old aristocratic families with a tradition of inbreeding (and failing).
|
On June 30 2013 10:49 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:11 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 09:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:56 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 07:28 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 07:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 06:37 ZackAttack wrote:On June 30 2013 06:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
Being that I assume your are not Catholic, that is perfectly understandable. For a Catholic, however, the hypocrisy and moral weakness of the statement, combined with the absolute disregard for the mortal danger of which Biden has placed his own soul (and the danger in which he inadvertently places others through his actions and example) is appalling, and as disturbing as anything I can think of. To see a man willingly and knowingly place himself against his own God and Church is very troubling to me. There is a difference between witnessing your faith and literally making it the law to follow what the bible says. I'm glad your not the vice president of the US. Most people would be glad that I'm not the vice-president or the president. I place myself firmly in that group. That being said, the Catholic church, the church and faith Mr. Biden belongs to, says that there is no difference between witnessing one's faith and practicing one's faith. As I said, none of this will mean much to someone who is not Catholic, however, to those who are Catholic this quite literally means everything. I understand what you are saying. Would you rather have leaders that are not Catholic, Catholic but don't enforce it with laws, or Catholic and make laws that agree with them? Obviously I would rather have Catholic leaders who pass laws that largely agree with the Church's positions, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. I would least like having leaders who are Catholic but actually legislate against their own (and my) beliefs and morality. Being that legislation in general (and this legislation in particular) is all moral/philosophically based, I prefer having those in power who share my own moral/philosophical views and hold to them. Then you prefer a Catholic theocracy to a secular free republic. I think it is pretty clear that that would be a step backwards from even our admittedly dysfunctional current democracy. No, I support a free republic that chooses to follow Catholic moral teachings. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we can only have a completely secular republic or an absolute theocracy. Besides, now we've gotten off-topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the political groups who want to choose to follow christian teachings largely the same groups who denounce countries which choose to follow muslim teachings? Furthermore, which are the christian values which we are going to follow? I mean a startlingly large percentage of our population is REALLY bad about the whole gluttony thing. Isn't that supposed to be a 'killer sin' or something? If you want to have a discussion about the role of religion in politics, go ahead and make a thread or a blog about it. This thread is about justifications for/against abortion, focusing on rape/incest. I'm not going to defend my own personal political/religious beliefs when the thread has literally nothing to do with any of that. I made a post explaining why Biden's personal reasons for supporting abortion are not in line with his other beliefs and are not in line with my beliefs, nor with the beliefs of his church. This is on-topic because the entire abortion argument is based on morality/philosophy. Whether or not the establishment of Sharia law is the same as a politician allowing their religion to inform their political choices is absolutely irrelevant to that discussion or to any discussion about abortion. Whether religion has any role whatsoever in politics or not is somewhat on-topic, but on that note your argument is incredibly weak. Religion does and always will have a role in politics, whether we like it or not, whether it should or not. It is foolish to think that the religious will even be able to ignore their most deeply held moral beliefs when discussing legislation based on morality. If we say that religion has no place in a debate about whether a flat-tax or a progressive tax is preferable, than that is more valid because that argument is largely based on determinable factors (economic effectiveness), and not so heavily on moral arguments. However, with abortion, the argument is almost entirely moral, and thus someone's particular and personal moral beliefs will necessarily be a determiner in how they perceive the subject and how they propose to deal with it. To my knowledge, the Church has never declared that gluttony is something that should or shouldn't be addressed with legislation. Gluttony, being a class of sin (there are many types of gluttony), is not comparable with abortion, which is a specific action, a specific sin. No one is guilty of "gluttony" in of itself. They are guilty of specific sins of gluttony. Just as no one is guilty of simple "jealousy", they are guilty of being jealous of a particular person or thing. I would argue that their 'most deeply held beliefs' are created by the political institution itself. Good propaganda and whatnot.
I suppose that's possible... but I would argue the opposite.
This means that based on the basic principles of supply and demand, illegal abortions will rise. You know, the things that were so horrific they overturned all anti-abortion laws in the first place?
Your conception of the history on the subject is a little shady here.
|
On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. Show nested quote +edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject.
Therefore, god supports abortion. Because he has the control over human life. The ones who were meant to live, lived. The ones who were meant to die, died.
|
On June 30 2013 10:46 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:37 Orangered wrote:
I'm not sure about incest. Is there really a scientific basis against incest? You're being sarcastic, right?
Im serious. Are there actually biological defects suffered by offsrpings due solely to the fact that their parents are blood related? Because think about it, there are 2 things I can think about that opposes this convincingly, 1. are we not all related in some way or another if we believe that we all had a common ancestor, and 2. even if we assume that it the defects only occur to couples within the third or fourth degree, there are millions of cases of abnormalities in offsprings whose parents are not related. So?
Why was my question warned? Can the mods delete it after reading this elaboration of my question?
|
On June 30 2013 10:54 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Therefore, god supports abortion. Because he has the control over human life. The ones who were meant to live, lived. The ones who were meant to die, died.
The Church (largely) teaches that God does not force actions upon people, but allows them to make choices of their own free-will. "Control over human life" would be more accurately stated as "Authority over human life/death". He doesn't make the girl have the abortion, she makes that decision. He (God) just doesn't accept it as righteous.
|
On June 30 2013 11:10 Orangered wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:46 armada[sb] wrote:On June 30 2013 10:37 Orangered wrote:
I'm not sure about incest. Is there really a scientific basis against incest? You're being sarcastic, right? Im serious. Are there actually biological defects suffered by offsrpings due solely to the fact that their parents are blood related? Because think about it, there are 2 things I can think about that opposes this convincingly, 1. are we not all related in some way or another if we believe that we all had a common ancestor, and 2. even if we assume that it the defects only occur to couples within the third or fourth degree, there are millions of cases of abnormalities in offsprings whose parents are not related. So? Why was my question warned? Can the mods delete it after reading this elaboration of my question?
It is very easy to google that, and yes there is a high chance that the kid has mental disabilities and other stuff.
The difference is "probability".
|
On June 30 2013 11:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:54 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Therefore, god supports abortion. Because he has the control over human life. The ones who were meant to live, lived. The ones who were meant to die, died. The Church (largely) teaches that God does not force actions upon people, but allows them to make choices of their own free-will. "Control over human life" would be more accurately stated as "Authority over human life/death". He doesn't make the girl have the abortion, she makes that decision. He (God) just doesn't accept it as righteous.
You completely negated the post I was responding to. Bulletproof. Furthermore, where has god defined where life begins? Does he put the soul in at conception or after it takes breath?
|
On June 30 2013 11:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 11:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:54 Jormundr wrote:On June 30 2013 10:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 30 2013 10:39 zbedlam wrote:
Christians please go away or pose arguments that have some logic to them. Basing arguments on the basis that a book tells you what is right and wrong which applied several thousand years ago in today's society is stupid, nonsensical and infuriating to anyone that doesn't share your fantasies. You tell me to use logic, yet use none of your own? Tossing around strawman arguments and insults along with a conclusion not backed up by a premise or any kind of logical syllogism is pretty much the height of illogical argumentation. edit: Besides, god isn't even pro life according the bible so even by christian standards your beliefs are unfounded. This misconception is largely irrelevant, but somewhat on-topic so I feel okay in shortly addressing it. God, in the Bible, claims many things for His own. Control over human life is one of those things. Hence, it is logical for the believing Christian to accept that God can take life yet forbid us humans from doing so. And, if you're using the argument from the one scriptural passage from the Old Testament that mentions abortion, understand that the interpretation of the Scripture is a very complex subject, and it is fully in-line with logic for the practicing Catholic to accept the Church (and Christ himself) as the correct authorities on the subject. Therefore, god supports abortion. Because he has the control over human life. The ones who were meant to live, lived. The ones who were meant to die, died. The Church (largely) teaches that God does not force actions upon people, but allows them to make choices of their own free-will. "Control over human life" would be more accurately stated as "Authority over human life/death". He doesn't make the girl have the abortion, she makes that decision. He (God) just doesn't accept it as righteous. You completely negated the post I was responding to. Bulletproof. Furthermore, where has god defined where life begins? Does he put the soul in at conception or after it takes breath?
No... I didn't negate anything. I said the same thing as before, just changed the word "control" over to "authority" because you were using the wrong definition of "control" to make an argument.
The Church defines life as beginning at conception. Also, the idea that it begins at conception is supported by the miraculous conception of Jesus, that from the moment of conception Jesus was God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
