Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Varqanir · January 31, 2015, 1:46am

[quote]confusion wrote:

I’ve got nothing to hide. I’ve said alreadh that I am an American living in Australia since 2008. I am from Pennsylvania and also spent 14 years in South Carolina. I don’t understand why you think I am lying about guns. Athiests are pussys and don’t like guns? I am not anti gun. I don’t think christians shoukd own guns when they have god to protect them. How can you not agree with this? May e there is no god that will protect them. Mayb e,just in case their faith breaks down,they can shoot someone,because God didn’t protect them in time? I have no reason to lie about anything. You may relate to this however,I never bought a gun that would be registered with the government. Hello! bad idea. FYI,the glock and a ruger p89 came from a tenant that owed me $ for collateral. I bought the mauser for $90 from a guy that didn’t want to pay $1 a round back then. This frankly is one of the reasons I don’t believe in God. If I did.I know he would protect me always. That is what a christian should think. Their omnipotent God,who loves them and is involved with them daily,will be their protector. If they don’t think so,they don’t trully believe in god . Imo. Confusion
[/quote]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. And I’m not entirely convinced you do either. I don’t care what your personal beliefs are about firearms. I just didn’t think it was very likely that you owned an SKS rifle in Australia. I hadn’t realised you were American, but I guess your spelling and syntax should have been a clue.

confusion · January 31, 2015, 1:49am

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

I have never debated these things before. I have no practice. Of course I am doing my best to lrove my point using your own scriptures. Lets be real for a moment. Ok? If I use the book you live by,quoting things it tells you,please refute it with scripture. I also don’t lime being called a liar or some kind of phoney. Again,go back and read my posts. They get put in late and you boys are 2 pages ahead of me. Let me say also,although it should be clear by my posts,I am being respectful,and citing scripture and have gotten 1 scripture in rezponse. If a person without bias,read the new testament,what conclusion would they come to? The word of God says…what does it mean? Do the words not mean what they say? Why? No challenges on the 10 commandments thing? Confusion
[/quote]

Well, I can say I have never called you phony or a liar. I don’t think you are either, but I do see a lack of understanding why what you are doing is misdirected and wrong. Also, it is very annoying to me–although this is not your fault personally. This just happens to be the 5 billionth time I’ve had people attempt the same kind of argument style and it really wears on you after that many attempts at explanation of why it is incorrect.

It is good to practice debating things, practice only comes by doing and reading (and then applying by doing). I would warn you down the road to get a thick skin because it gets pretty sharp in this forum, but it is never personal. That said, your generally congenial attitude has been refreshing.[/quote]

thank you. I hope you find some of my arguments less annoying,I honestly mean that,and hope to show you some thoughts on your faith you may not have considered. Confusion. Ps. Please remember to look back. My posts are slow in showing up and are sometimes pages behind.
[/quote]

Well, it is the weekend and I am just getting ready to leave work, so I don’t know that I will respond for a while. Honestly SM’s critiques have been pretty well placed.

Look, you don’t go to a physicist and tell them what their equations or theories or hypotheses mean without reading a lot of commentary by other physicists who came up with the theories first do you? No, because they’d look at you like you were crazy. Same goes for biology, chemistry.

Same goes for philosophy. You don’t tell a philosophy prof “well I read Kierkegaard and he says this on page 112, so you must be wrong”. You don’t do that because 1) you will get academically bitch slapped even if the conversation is ONLY on Kierkegaard and whether or not this professor is an adequate follower of his philosophy. 2) you don’t do that because besides just reading the text on a surface level you have to analyze it. Then, after that, you look at the criticisms and commentaries on it by other philosophers. Maybe you agree with their commentaries and maybe you don’t but then at least you know what the consensus among educated philosophers is on the subject.

You also don’t do the same with zen buddhism or taoist buddhism, or hinduism do you? No, because there is a large pool of accumulated knowledge on the topic that has been accepted as the general school of thought. The general canon if you will. Even with physics and other fields in science this is true among people of competing perspectives (string theorist vs. multiverse advocate).

You are doing this same thing with the Bible verses. You have made claims. These claims have been critiqued based on simple context, which is indeed a valid form of critique, and with context to back it up. Furthermore the vast vast majority of the reliable and accepted canon of biblical commentaries affirms our position. But you are saying, “no, that is not acceptable because you need to quote a verse”. As sexmachine has said, now the burden of proof is in fact on you.
[/quote]

Don’t worry brother. " the word of the Lord shall not return void". I will continue to use scripture to present the word of God. I would hope that the believer will receive it in the way God intended,examine their heart,and see if they are trully if the faith. This should be an easy thing. I would think some Christians could show me the WAY,using the scriptures. Have great weekend. Confusion

confusion · January 31, 2015, 1:52am

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

I’ve got nothing to hide. I’ve said alreadh that I am an American living in Australia since 2008. I am from Pennsylvania and also spent 14 years in South Carolina. I don’t understand why you think I am lying about guns. Athiests are pussys and don’t like guns? I am not anti gun. I don’t think christians shoukd own guns when they have god to protect them. How can you not agree with this? May e there is no god that will protect them. Mayb e,just in case their faith breaks down,they can shoot someone,because God didn’t protect them in time? I have no reason to lie about anything. You may relate to this however,I never bought a gun that would be registered with the government. Hello! bad idea. FYI,the glock and a ruger p89 came from a tenant that owed me $ for collateral. I bought the mauser for $90 from a guy that didn’t want to pay $1 a round back then. This frankly is one of the reasons I don’t believe in God. If I did.I know he would protect me always. That is what a christian should think. Their omnipotent God,who loves them and is involved with them daily,will be their protector. If they don’t think so,they don’t trully believe in god . Imo. Confusion
[/quote]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. And I’m not entirely convinced you do either. I don’t care what your personal beliefs are about firearms. I just didn’t think it was very likely that you owned an SKS rifle in Australia. I hadn’t realised you were American, but I guess your spelling and syntax should have been a clue.[/quote]

Ah well…I had pegged you for a different animal. The christians are you friends,as you have said…anyhoo,no one in Australia owns an sks. I have,when living in the USA owned one. I think my 13 beers should be a better clue…I see you don’t like my style…Confusion

SexMachine · January 31, 2015, 1:54am

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Voltaire, Spinoza, Paine, Einstein… nihilists, in your esteemed view?[/quote]

Not just my view. Did you know the word “Spinozaist” was actually a euphemism for atheist/nihilist? Although technically, if one’s deism entails an afterlife then you’re not a nihilist.[/quote]

Well, that settles it. I must be a nihilist, then. Which is fine, as the only afterlife I’d be interested in is one in which I could carry on eternal conversations with the above gentlemen, and Socrates, Jefferson–and with Dr Skeptix, who (along with most Jews who have studied such things) didn’t believe in an afterlife, either.[/quote]

Well, my beliefs are quite unconventional as far as Abrahamic monotheism goes. And they’re not set in stone(no pun intended) either. I fully realise I may be wrong about everything. When I die I might return as a slug or a cockroach or even a Democrat as far as I know. In a way my beliefs(hopes may be a better word) are kind of a Pascal’s Wager. And if I’m wrong, well at least I tried to believe that life has meaning and purpose and tried to live according to an objective, moral order(something I do believe in quite firmly).[/quote]

and did you honestly seek the truth? Or did you think you knew it early into the game?[/quote]

I was an atheist for the first 30 years of my life. However, I always believed in an objective, moral order and in “good” and “evil” as real forces; abstract but nonetheless real. After watching a lot of people close to me die and facing death myself I found myself confronted with an existential crisis after the horrific death of my mother a few years ago. I then became very concerned with the “meaning of life” as they say and I explored everything from Nietzsche to the bible and in between(although I was already familiar with philosophy). But as I said above, certainty is what I lack. But I think that goes with the game. Doubt is an inescapable component of faith.

confusion · January 31, 2015, 1:59am

I like you SM,even tho you make statements that you know are controversial. It takes a certain amount of balls,even tho its online. Good luck debating others,and me. Confusion

confusion · January 31, 2015, 2:02am

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

I’ve got nothing to hide. I’ve said alreadh that I am an American living in Australia since 2008. I am from Pennsylvania and also spent 14 years in South Carolina. I don’t understand why you think I am lying about guns. Athiests are pussys and don’t like guns? I am not anti gun. I don’t think christians shoukd own guns when they have god to protect them. How can you not agree with this? May e there is no god that will protect them. Mayb e,just in case their faith breaks down,they can shoot someone,because God didn’t protect them in time? I have no reason to lie about anything. You may relate to this however,I never bought a gun that would be registered with the government. Hello! bad idea. FYI,the glock and a ruger p89 came from a tenant that owed me $ for collateral. I bought the mauser for $90 from a guy that didn’t want to pay $1 a round back then. This frankly is one of the reasons I don’t believe in God. If I did.I know he would protect me always. That is what a christian should think. Their omnipotent God,who loves them and is involved with them daily,will be their protector. If they don’t think so,they don’t trully believe in god . Imo. Confusion
[/quote]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. And I’m not entirely convinced you do either. I don’t care what your personal beliefs are about firearms. I just didn’t think it was very likely that you owned an SKS rifle in Australia. I hadn’t realised you were American, but I guess your spelling and syntax should have been a clue.[/quote]

I think you will understand this…grammer and syntax aside…I am quoting scripture to debate Christians. You have posted pictures and names of a young woman you slept with…grammer and syntax maybe lacking,but kissing and telling is NEVER cool. Confusion

Aragorn · January 31, 2015, 2:10am

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And speaking of my good friend, and thinking now wistfully of all the brilliant conversations I will never have with him again, I’ll let him speak for me in saying goodbye to this wacky roller-coaster of a thread.

[i]Now that this thread is almost dead–dissolving past name-calling and counterpointed challenges of minutiae–an observation.

Maimonides, almost one thousand years ago, tasked himself with the reconciliation Aristotle (“science”) and the Bible (“faith.”) As he reasoned it, the boundary of faith and science was mobile. Faith is the belief in the unprovable; science is he rigor of empiric observation and applied reason.

If men are created with powers of observation and reason, they are obliged to use those faculties to expand knowledge, to explain what can be explained. It is through this process that faith is strengthened, and knowledge increased, and not presumably through border skirmishes. It is therefore the obligation of the faithful to expand science.

A thousand years and we are still having the same discussion?

Some, here on this forum, deny or misunderstand the scientific method at its core, and so “theories” aren’t static enough, or do not explain every little perceived “fact.” Others feel that scientists must be elitists because they do not respect opinion in the absence of rigor. Real faith is harder work than this.

In short, a society that respects neither philosophers nor plumbers will have neither ideas nor pipes that hold water. [/i]

Amen.

Shalom.[/quote]

And as always and ever, the good doctor was correct. I’ve taken Maimonides’ position for many a year now, and although I don’t think the border is ever truly smooth, it doesn’t bear the animosity that either extreme seems to bear.

Man I miss hearing that guy’s thoughts.

SexMachine · January 31, 2015, 2:46am

[quote]confusion wrote:
I like you SM,even tho you make statements that you know are controversial. It takes a certain amount of balls,even tho its online. Good luck debating others,and me. Confusion[/quote]

Thanks, welcome to PWI. By the way, the SKS was very popular here before the gun buyback in '96 and a lot of people didn’t hand their guns in so although it’s now illegal for pretty much everyone, there’d still be quite a few owned privately. There’s a lot of Enfield .303’s around too.

Aragorn · January 31, 2015, 2:47am

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Voltaire, Spinoza, Paine, Einstein… nihilists, in your esteemed view?[/quote]

Not just my view. Did you know the word “Spinozaist” was actually a euphemism for atheist/nihilist? Although technically, if one’s deism entails an afterlife then you’re not a nihilist.[/quote]

Well, that settles it. I must be a nihilist, then. Which is fine, as the only afterlife I’d be interested in is one in which I could carry on eternal conversations with the above gentlemen, and Socrates, Jefferson–and with Dr Skeptix, who (along with most Jews who have studied such things) didn’t believe in an afterlife, either.[/quote]

Well, my beliefs are quite unconventional as far as Abrahamic monotheism goes. And they’re not set in stone(no pun intended) either. I fully realise I may be wrong about everything. When I die I might return as a slug or a cockroach or even a Democrat as far as I know. In a way my beliefs(hopes may be a better word) are kind of a Pascal’s Wager. And if I’m wrong, well at least I tried to believe that life has meaning and purpose and tried to live according to an objective, moral order(something I do believe in quite firmly).[/quote]

and did you honestly seek the truth? Or did you think you knew it early into the game?[/quote]

I was an atheist for the first 30 years of my life. However, I always believed in an objective, moral order and in “good” and “evil” as real forces; abstract but nonetheless real. After watching a lot of people close to me die and facing death myself I found myself confronted with an existential crisis after the horrific death of my mother a few years ago. I then became very concerned with the “meaning of life” as they say and I explored everything from Nietzsche to the bible and in between(although I was already familiar with philosophy). But as I said above, certainty is what I lack. But I think that goes with the game. Doubt is an inescapable component of faith.[/quote]

I find that I agree with you, at least in the majority. Regarding your experiences in coming to that point, I have always found that CS Lewis’s books “A grief observed” & “the problem of pain” are books which spoke deeply. I do not say this in any attempt to help the long finished grieving process, or anything like that. Merely to say that I value them highly, as with most things Lewis wrote. The Great Divide is another phenomenal book. If you havent read any of them I would humbly suggest you pick them up, the theological or philosophical differences you amd Lewis have notwithstanding.

SexMachine · January 31, 2015, 2:52am

^^ Actually I’ve been meaning to read some of C S Lewis’s writings on religion for a while now. He was good friends with Tolkien of course and I’m interested in reading about what they thought. Thanks for reminding me.

Aragorn · January 31, 2015, 2:56am

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ Actually I’ve been meaning to read some of C S Lewis’s writings on religion for a while now. He was good friends with Tolkien of course and I’m interested in reading about what they thought. Thanks for reminding me.[/quote]

No problem! I think he is a very deep thinker, although not a philosopher in the academic sense and his arguments do not take the formal presentation. But regardless of the differences I know you and he have already, a very good writer and thinker.

I would also very much recommend “Mere Christianity” which I think is an excellent overall commentary

SexMachine · January 31, 2015, 3:06am

^^ Thanks I’ll check it out. I remember reading that Tolkien was disappointed that when Lewis finally came around he returned to Anglicanism and not Catholicism. But their views were very similar from what I understand.

Aragorn · January 31, 2015, 4:22am