Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
According to the Bible,Adam was not alive until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,and man became a living soul”. So,it appears that is the requirement for life straight from the scriptures[/quote]

Fun fact:

Both of the words for “soul” in the Hebrew Bible, nepesh and ruach (which correspond to the words psyche and pneuma in the Greek New Testament), both mean “breath”.

So yes, if we are to take the Bible literally, unless you breathe, you don’t have a soul.[/quote]

C’mon man, you can’t conclude that. You can state the fun facts but can’t come up with that fun conclusion.[/quote]

Since God is pure spirit, and his breath refers to the holy spirit, we aren’t exactly talking about respiration.

483

[quote]pabergin wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

So when god aborts a fetus it is ok, when we do it it is an abomination?

[/quote]

Yep.

Your difficulty in comprehending this is that you have fallen for the premise first used a long time ago in the Garden where the first woman was assured she could become like God.

You think you (we) have become gods and as such can taunt our fellow God about what we perceive to be His inconsistencies. This has been going on for a long time. You think we can create “Gotcha” scenarios with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of the Universe.

You can’t. You’re a fucking pipsqueak. I’m a fucking pipsqueak. Get over yourself.
[/quote]

OK, so god commanding Saul to commit genocide upon the Amalekites is ok because god is infallible.

Our all knowing, all seeing, all powerful god who kills us and damns us to eternal torture in hell, because he loves us.

Sounds like an abusive stepfather.[/quote]

Just another perspective on your comments.

In regard to your comment on genocide, the Christian might say: “Nothing that happens now, will happen in the future, or has happened in the past, occurs without God allowing for it. Everything happens according to a purpose. For everything that happens around you, out of your control, the only thing that matters are your intentions and your response.”

In regard to your comment on hell and the love of God: God has given you free will, God allows you choose your ultimate destiny, though he may prefer for all to be saved.

[/quote]

That would be a completely rambling non answer to why god commanded genocide. Not that you made it (I don’t think).

484

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

…because Push happens to believe something much more complex to defend. [/quote]

It is complex to defend.

There’s defenses out there and the Great Denigrators and the Genuinely Curious are encouraged to seek them out but I can’t/won’t tap enough keys to make it happen here on these pages.[/quote]

Ah the old I could explain insane claims but can’t be arsed.

485

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varq knows this stuff. He used to believe. [/quote]

He gave it up completely?

486

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Morals are social constructs we created. There is no good or evil, they are ever changing, ever being redefined.

That does not mean I can’t think any of the social constructs are a good idea or useful. I just recognise we are matter like evrything else, we gained consciousness and we as animals with the ability to think designed moral constructs to make our enviorment safer, more prosperous.

There is no force of good and evil or an absolute right or wrong, the universe does not care, carbon has no reason.

[/quote]

I understand this position.

Do you think you can be “wronged”?
If someone were to “wrong” you (according to legal standards), do you respond with total passivity/acceptance?
Stupid example: Your best friend manages to steal your downpayment for your home right before closing, this results in you becoming broke and homeless. He proceeds to lose the entire sum gambling. He will not be able to repay you due to his other gambling losses. What do you feel? How do you behave?

EDITED to make the scenario more outlandish

488

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

The difference, of course, being that you don’t have to take the scientists’ word for it. You can always go and look at the evidence yourself, and see whether they are honestly representing the facts.

[/quote]

I am not the one comparing religion to science here. Nor am I claiming I don’t live on faith.
They are not the same discipline. They study different things and you don’t have to reject one to accept the other. The very notion is absurd to me.

However, I do disagree that you can take the evidence and find out for yourself. Certainly, you can do some of that at some basic level. But the vastness and breadth of what the term science covers is extremely large.
Sure you can make a baking soda volcano, but can you yourself compile all the evidence you need to validate the existence of a black hole without relying on the research of others? Could you, without taking the word of other scientists, but only rely on your own knowledge that you have gathered all by yourself, known and tested every part to create a nuclear isotope?

Most of what we know about anything requires faith in your fellow man, faith in the repeatability of experience, faith that the future will resemble the past, faith in accuracy of our faculties, faith in our ability to interpret our environment, faith that we are not compromised, faith that our cognitive ability will not fail, faith in information, faith in controls, etc.
Behind all our knowledge, there is a whole lot of faith.

489

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re missing the word, “kind.”

Do me a favor. Google “How could all the animals have fit on the Ark” and go to a creationist website and read the explanation. Now you may end up agreeing or disagreeing but at least do yourself the service of understanding where creationists come up with a solution to this seemingly unconquerable dilemma.[/quote]

I’ll do that.

490

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Oh god… Bigflamer, is that you under a new screen name?[/quote]

hmmmm, could be but BF has gotten nicer over the years. He could sneak in under a new username and be snarkier, just doesn’t seem as his style. He’s mellowed out.

492

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re missing the word, “kind.”

Do me a favor. Google “How could all the animals have fit on the Ark” and go to a creationist website and read the explanation. Now you may end up agreeing or disagreeing but at least do yourself the service of understanding where creationists come up with a solution to this seemingly unconquerable dilemma.[/quote]

I’ll do that. [/quote]

I recommend not doing as it is ridiculous. Claims that the earth is thousands of years old and that dinosaurs and humans lived together.

So juvenile.

493

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Oh god… Bigflamer, is that you under a new screen name?[/quote]

hmmmm, could be but BF has gotten nicer over the years. He could sneak in under a new username and be snarkier, just doesn’t seem as his style. He’s mellowed out.[/quote]

Also is very good about sourcing his arguments, “newguy” not so much.

494

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varq knows this stuff. He used to believe. [/quote]

He gave it up completely?

(Sorry for the personal question man, but PM’s don’t work lol.)[/quote]

Hell hath no fury like a former believer who feels he has been scorned in the sense that his faith was misplaced.

Now I love Varq like a brother and the next time I see him which is soon I hope I will embrace him so but if he kicks sand in the face of Christianity on this forum I will give him a good ol’ fashioned Old Testament eye for an eye whoopin’.

Now it could be argued that I should instead give him some New Testament lovin’ and by me not doing so I am the one in error. So be it.[/quote]

Don’t do as Saul did.

495

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.

Comparing that to religion if moronic.[/quote]

Yet, when the science contradicts your belief you reject it, is particularly hilarious. Then you claim no faith. The conflict is blaring.

And since you seem to be the only one comparing religion to science, you are calling yourself a moron.

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

This is so silly.

I am trusting a bunch of scientists? No, you can look at scientific data and check the validity of the claim, or you can look at an invention and see it working, you can do neither for the insane religious claims.[/quote]

No you are not. First, you are ignoring the science. You are trusting neither the scientists nor gathering the data on your own.
So you are making a mockery of science, or trying to. You’re claiming to be all scientifical but ignoring the unequivocal, undeniable evidence that demonstrates that the life of a human being begins at conception. This is not a religious claim, this is not a historical claim, this is not a literary claim, this is not an athletic endeavor, this is pure science.

While claiming this adherence to science and it’s process, principles and underlying philosophy, you are contradicting the scientific data stating that an autonomous human life begins at conception, based on… well nothing at all.

Your argument is this in a nutshell: Abortion is fine because science. Science says that a human life begins at conception, so religion is stupid.

You are the one who keeps bringing up religion. This issue is so simple, so elementary, so black and white, so clear I don’t even have to mention it.

It seems to me the only science you are engaging in is finding how many ways you can hang yourself with your own rope. You apparently got a lot of rope and you don’t mind swinging.

496

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
According to the Bible,Adam was not alive until God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,and man became a living soul”. So,it appears that is the requirement for life straight from the scriptures[/quote]

Fun fact:

Both of the words for “soul” in the Hebrew Bible, nepesh and ruach (which correspond to the words psyche and pneuma in the Greek New Testament), both mean “breath”.

So yes, if we are to take the Bible literally, unless you breathe, you don’t have a soul.[/quote]

Thank you. Someone actually agreed with me and acknowledged a valid argument. what better source for a Christian to refer to than Gods own word? Now,I can arise and go hence…
[/quote]

…in a continuing state of confusion.[/quote]

Of course…Have fun big buddy :slight_smile:

497

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.

Comparing that to religion if moronic.[/quote]

Yet, when the science contradicts your belief you reject it, is particularly hilarious. Then you claim no faith. The conflict is blaring.

And since you seem to be the only one comparing religion to science, you are calling yourself a moron.

Life requires faith, you don’t know anything. You think you do, but your just trusting a bunch of people who are scientists aren’t lying to you. You’re not working the science, you’re not working the equations, you’re not interpreting results. You’re trusting people are telling you the truth. That’s the very definition of faith.

[/quote]

This is so silly.

I am trusting a bunch of scientists? No, you can look at scientific data and check the validity of the claim, or you can look at an invention and see it working, you can do neither for the insane religious claims.[/quote]

No you are not. First, you are ignoring the science. You are trusting neither the scientists nor gathering the data on your own.
So you are making a mockery of science, or trying to. You’re claiming to be all scientifical but ignoring the unequivocal, undeniable evidence that demonstrates that the life of a human being begins at conception. This is not a religious claim, this is not a historical claim, this is not a literary claim, this is not an athletic endeavor, this is pure science.

While claiming this adherence to science and it’s process, principles and underlying philosophy, you are contradicting the scientific data stating that an autonomous human life begins at conception, based on… well nothing at all.

Your argument is this in a nutshell: Abortion is fine because science. Science says that a human life begins at conception, so religion is stupid.

You are the one who keeps bringing up religion. This issue is so simple, so elementary, so black and white, so clear I don’t even have to mention it.

It seems to me the only science you are engaging in is finding how many ways you can hang yourself with your own rope. You apparently got a lot of rope and you don’t mind swinging. [/quote]

Yet again you did not show evidence for your claim personhood starts at conception or as a fetus. You merely rambled your way around it, demanding I disprove of a non truth.

I can’t prove unicorns dont exist, I say that the ones who claim they do show me proof, or else I won’t believe them.

499

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith

[/quote]

LOL
[/quote]

Groan.[/quote]

Everyone has faith, in something. You know this lol. [/quote]

No, I was groaning at Perlenbacher’s inadvertent self-contradiction, and Push picking up the fumble and gaining a yard. I mean, the goalposts are hundreds of miles apart, but it was still a yard.[/quote]

A yard, huh? LOL

I deserve more than a yard.

Shit, I get a first down every time I run the ball on you. Or pass. I even get first downs when I throw interceptions because then I tackle the fucker so hard he fumbles and I regain the ball.[/quote]

Can you please tell me I have faith similar to yours in religion? I don’t, nor do i believe in anything without evidence.

This whole you have faith too its just I admit it bullshit has no basis.

Your entire world view is shaped by something for which there is no proof at all. My world view is shaped by what it is possible to know and nothing else.

I don’t have faith in the prophet of science, I look at scientific findings and if there is overwhelming evidence I believe it. Not believing in something like god is not having faith that I know there is no god, it is simply not believing because there is no proof for it.[/quote]

I’ll let Pat kick your ass on this one.

I’ve done it to others so many times it’s getting boring.

He does it better than me anyway.
[/quote]

Considering he’s ignoring the science of embryology all together on this topic and putting in faith in some glimmer of hope that by some miracle he might be right after all, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, I would agree he has no faith along the same vein as religious faith. What he believes in is far more ridiculous and takes a lot more faith than any religious nut job.
He seems only to have faith in his hatred for religious people and hoping to ride that dilapidated pony to victory in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

He has faith in his extreme hatred of religion and that seems to be about it. It’s not rational, it’s purely emotional.

500

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You’re missing the word, “kind.”

Do me a favor. Google “How could all the animals have fit on the Ark” and go to a creationist website and read the explanation. Now you may end up agreeing or disagreeing but at least do yourself the service of understanding where creationists come up with a solution to this seemingly unconquerable dilemma.[/quote]

I’ll do that. [/quote]

http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

Genesis 6:19â??20:
‘And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.’

The first verse is pretty clear. The article (from a creation site) takes great effort to talk about why certain things don’t need to be brought on board. Like insects or planets for example:

“Noah did not need to take plants eitherâ??many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well.”

Well, that’s not what Genesis 6:19 says. It says “every living thing of all flesh.”

'The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton."

That’s an interesting interpretation of Genesis 7:22 ‘Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.’

Re: You’re missing the word, “kind.”

It’s an interesting read. I see a whole lot of assumptions in the analysis though. I also don’t believe even the author thinks all of the variations we see today from all of the original “kind” occurred in about 3,000 years. http://creation.com/the-date-of-noahs-flood