Religion on the Left and Right

Alias said:
Weird, huh. King David also sent a woman's husband to the front line to be killed after he got her pregnant, yet God blessed him and Jesus was descended from David and God called David the apple of his eye. Go figure.
Click to expand...

So you admit you were wrong?
 
poet said:
Ah, which gives you the freedom to hate and treat people badly, which you excuse by your "alleged" faith. Hypocrisy at its' height.
Click to expand...

You're confusing me with your guilty conscience, Mr. Christian. Your argument is with your God, not me. I didn't write the scriptues.
 
Damocles said:
I always wonder what made him so righteous. He was a jealous freak who offered his virgin daughters to be raped by a huge group of men who wanted to rape his visitors instead, which visitors he clearly knew were VIPs and was making the offer to ingratiate himself. He later got drunk and had sex with his daughters (supposedly unknowingly), impregnating them.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote from Mark Twains' Letters from the Earth that Damocles' post recalls...


"I will tell you a pleasant tale which has in it a touch of pathos.


A man got religion, and asked the priest what he must do to be worthy of his new estate.


The priest said, "Imitate our Father in Heaven, learn to be like him."


The man studied his Bible diligently and thoroughly and understandingly, and then with prayers for heavenly guidance instituted his imitations.


He tricked his wife into falling downstairs, and she broke her back and became a paralytic for life; he betrayed his brother into the hands of a sharper, who robbed him of his all and landed him in the almshouse; he inoculated one son with hookworms, another with the sleeping sickness, another with gonorrhea; he furnished one daughter with scarlet fever and ushered her into her teens deaf, dumb, and blind for life; and after helping a rascal seduce the remaining one, he closed his doors against her and she died in a brothel cursing him.


Then he reported to the priest, who said that that was no way to imitate his Father in Heaven.


The convert asked wherein he had failed, but the priest changed the subject and inquired what kind of weather he was having, up his way."



http://www.classicreader.com/book/1930/8/
 
Dixie said:
I set em up, and bravo knocks them outta the park! poet, your own source consistently refers to 'the process' but fails to acknowledge it is talking about the process of human life. It is absurd to suggest that something happens along the process which has already begun, to define the process itself. After conception, nothing more is added to make the organism human. A living human organism in the state of existence or being, is a human being. Distinction may certainly be made as to precisely when that process begins, but it is clear that once it has begun, the organism is human life, and can't possibly be anything else. Again, your own argument supports this fact of the matter.

As for your educational accolades, save those for someone who gives a shit... I want to see some biological evidence that the product of a conception that is living, is not a human life. If you can not produce such evidence, you have not established your point. Education never trumps FACT!
Click to expand...

Every day fertilized cells wash out during menstruation. (Excerpt) It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. (End) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

Up to half. Do we know if those cells contained the necessary ingredients to become human beings? We do know babies are born missing limbs, having defective organs and, in some cases, born with a defect known as Anencephaly. Is it not both logical and reasonable to conclude some fertilized cells are deficient to the degree they do not have the potential to become a human being?

What about a baby born with DiGeorge syndrome? Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. A baby born with DiGeorge syndrome is missing a package of genes that are supposed to be part of a chromosome.

How many and/or to what degree does a chromosome have to be defective before we can conclude something is not a human being?
 
Alias.
Once again your education has failed you. Righteousness does NOT require faith. Righteousness is simply the adherence to moral principles. I, as completely non religious, have moral principles as do most people.
I would further suggest that one, who has conciously researched and decided to forego belief in the non-existent, will be more able to adhere to his or her principles than one unable to tell fact from fiction.
Your behaviour in this forum suggests that moral principles do not even enter your sphere of being. I have seldom come across a person whose words brand them as less religious and certainly less christian than you. If you hold christianity to be dear I strongly suggest you go and talk to someone because your hatred of people who do not share your narrow view point will, or is already, affecting your sanity.
 
Dixie said:
The facts are self evident, in every argument presented, we begin with the logical fact that something does exist. The thing is an organism, and it is living, otherwise it defies logic that it would need to be terminated. This organism which is living, has to be classified as some kind of living organism, this again, is logical. Every living organism is definable as some form of living organism, otherwise, it can't be determined it is an organism or living. I have interrupted the intellectual process at this point to query, what form of living organism do you believe this thing is? You are free to offer any evidence to support whatever you believe it to be, but biology indicates it is human.

You ask me to present some fact, well logic is presented, does your understanding require illogical explanation? A fetus is an organism, it is a living organism, and it has to be some kind of living organism. It is illogical to consider it might not be a living organism, because it meets every scientific criteria for a living organism, and is in the process of growing, otherwise, there would be no debate on what should be done to stop or alter the process. Again, this relies on logical thinking, are you capable of that? Science and biology pretty much universally supports the fact a fetus is a living organism, this leaves the question as to what kind of organism it can possibly be. Biology also indicates, since it was the product of conception from a male human sperm with a female human egg, it is logically a human organism. Do you have anything to offer to contradict any of this so far? If not, the next step of logic is to acknowledge whether or not the living human organism is, or is not, in a physical state of being? Again, it is self-evident this is a positive, else we wouldn't be having a debate about it.
Click to expand...

Organism: a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes. (Dic.com)

If a fertilized cell or zygote or embryo or fetus spontaneously aborts it's reasonable to conclude it did not have the necessary parts to maintain various vital processes, otherwise, it would have. So, the obvious conclusion is some fertilized cells and zygotes and embryos and fetuses are not organisms.
 
Lowaicue said:
Alias.
Once again your education has failed you. Righteousness does NOT require faith. Righteousness is simply the adherence to moral principles. I, as completely non religious, have moral principles as do most people.
I would further suggest that one, who has conciously researched and decided to forego belief in the non-existent, will be more able to adhere to his or her principles than one unable to tell fact from fiction.
Your behaviour in this forum suggests that moral principles do not even enter your sphere of being. I have seldom come across a person whose words brand them as less religious and certainly less christian than you. If you hold christianity to be dear I strongly suggest you go and talk to someone because your hatred of people who do not share your narrow view point will, or is already, affecting your sanity.
Click to expand...

Even in his own sphere his education has failed him, as righteousness is not achieved through faith, but rather is a gift from God though Christ.
That he could descibe Lot as righteous indicts him as a hypocrite.
 
apple0154 said:
Every day fertilized cells wash out during menstruation. (Excerpt) It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die (then they must be living) and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. (End) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm

Up to half. Do we know if those cells (which were living, but died) contained the necessary ingredients to become human beings? (yes, they were a living human organism and they died.) We do know babies are born missing limbs, having defective organs and, in some cases, born with a defect known as Anencephaly. Is it not both logical and reasonable to conclude some fertilized cells (which are a living organism of some kind) are deficient to the degree they do not have the potential to become a human being? Again, regardless of whether they meet a certain threshold or survive, while they are living they are alive, and are a living organism of some kind, most likely [sarcasm], human.

What about a baby born with DiGeorge syndrome? (It's still human) Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. A baby born with DiGeorge syndrome is missing a package of genes that are supposed to be part of a chromosome. (Yet, they are still a living human organism.)

How many and/or to what degree does a chromosome have to be defective before we can conclude something is not a human being? (doesn't matter, as you just pointed out, babies are born missing chromosomes, they are still humans.)
Click to expand...

REFUTED. PWNED. AGAIN!
 
Lowaicue said:
Alias.
Once again your education has failed you. Righteousness does NOT require faith. Righteousness is simply the adherence to moral principles. I, as completely non religious, have moral principles as do most people.
I would further suggest that one, who has conciously researched and decided to forego belief in the non-existent, will be more able to adhere to his or her principles than one unable to tell fact from fiction.
Your behaviour in this forum suggests that moral principles do not even enter your sphere of being. I have seldom come across a person whose words brand them as less religious and certainly less christian than you. If you hold christianity to be dear I strongly suggest you go and talk to someone because your hatred of people who do not share your narrow view point will, or is already, affecting your sanity.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking of things that you have no idea of and clearly you do not understand biblical righteousness. Stick to topics you understand. Thanks.
 
Return of Dune said:
Even in his own sphere his education has failed him, as righteousness is not achieved through faith, but rather is a gift from God though Christ.
That he could descibe Lot as righteous indicts him as a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

You are right about righteousness being a gift of God through Christ, and it is by FAITH that you are made righteous. Romans 3:22. "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

You really should quit trying to make me look stupid because you're only making a case against yourself. You're in over your head. I keep telling you that, but your arrogance keeps you going.
 
Alias said:
I'm speaking of things that you have no idea of and clearly you do not understand biblical righteousness. Stick to topics you understand. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Righteousness has a non-biblical definition as well, and be assured, you do not fit it.
 
Dixie said:
I am arguing PRO-LIFE and you are arguing NON-SCIENCE!

I'll save the readers a lengthy cut and paste, but this sums it up fairly well...

http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm
Click to expand...

(Excerpt)Chemical Uniqueness. Fertilized eggs possess their own unique DNA from conception. (End)

Or unique DNAs. Fertilized cells can possess two types/sets of DNA just as people can possess two distinct types/sets of DNA.

(Excerpt) Possession of a genetic program. Francis Beckwith (1994) confirms that from conception, the fertilized egg has "its own unique genetic code." The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed. (End)

BUZZ!!! Wrong. If that was the case sick babies wouldn't be born. Babies with defective immune systems, for one. Or those born with illnesses which result in children dying before they reach kindergarten age. And, of course, there's the thousands of fertilized eggs that spontaneously abort. And then there's the embryos and fetuses that miscarry. Unless by the author stating, "The 46 chromosomes present at conception provide all of the genetic information that will ever be needed", he means that's all that's needed to live a day or a month or maybe three months after conception before spontaneously aborting.

I'd say that's being short changed. What say you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top