[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Aha.
So I take it SS guards in concentration camps are free of sin?
[/quote]
No, I doubt it.[/quote]
Not generally, because of the whole forbidden fruit thing, but as far as the whole forcing people into gas chambers or working them to death stuff-
After all, they were obeying their governments that were totally ordained by God.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Aha.
So I take it SS guards in concentration camps are free of sin?
[/quote]
No, I doubt it.[/quote]
Not generally, because of the whole forbidden fruit thing, but as far as the whole forcing people into gas chambers or working them to death stuff-
After all, they were obeying their governments that were totally ordained by God.
[/quote]
As, I told you before government is ordained, but sins are not ordained. Just because someone is ordained in such fashion does not make their sins ordained. God permits their sins, as opposed to smiting them on the spot or not giving them free will, but he does not ordain their sins.
As well, God gave us freedom, not to do as we wish but as we ought to do. When we go against what we ought to do, that is against divine laws which are above earthly laws, then we have sinned. And, if an earthly law goes against a divine law, man has the right or better yet responsibility to go against earthly laws in that situation.
So, yes the SS guards are culpable for their actions. They are a duty to listen to their leaders, but not when it goes against Divine law and authority.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Aha.
So I take it SS guards in concentration camps are free of sin?
[/quote]
No, I doubt it.[/quote]
Not generally, because of the whole forbidden fruit thing, but as far as the whole forcing people into gas chambers or working them to death stuff-
After all, they were obeying their governments that were totally ordained by God.
[/quote]
As, I told you before government is ordained, but sins are not ordained. Just because someone is ordained in such fashion does not make their sins ordained. God permits their sins, as opposed to smiting them on the spot or not giving them free will, but he does not ordain their sins.
As well, God gave us freedom, not to do as we wish but as we ought to do. When we go against what we ought to do, that is against divine laws which are above earthly laws, then we have sinned. And, if an earthly law goes against a divine law, man has the right or better yet responsibility to go against earthly laws in that situation.
So, yes the SS guards are culpable for their actions. They are a duty to listen to their leaders, but not when it goes against Divine law and authority.[/quote]
But Paul said to obey and a lot of what the Romans did went very much against divine law.
Which brings us back to give unto Caesar and whatnot, the Lord has made very clear that all the gold, all the silver and all the land are His.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Aha.
So I take it SS guards in concentration camps are free of sin?
[/quote]
No, I doubt it.[/quote]
Not generally, because of the whole forbidden fruit thing, but as far as the whole forcing people into gas chambers or working them to death stuff-
After all, they were obeying their governments that were totally ordained by God.
[/quote]
As, I told you before government is ordained, but sins are not ordained. Just because someone is ordained in such fashion does not make their sins ordained. God permits their sins, as opposed to smiting them on the spot or not giving them free will, but he does not ordain their sins.
As well, God gave us freedom, not to do as we wish but as we ought to do. When we go against what we ought to do, that is against divine laws which are above earthly laws, then we have sinned. And, if an earthly law goes against a divine law, man has the right or better yet responsibility to go against earthly laws in that situation.
So, yes the SS guards are culpable for their actions. They are a duty to listen to their leaders, but not when it goes against Divine law and authority.[/quote]
But Paul said to obey and a lot of what the Romans did went very much against divine law.
Which brings us back to give unto Caesar and whatnot, the Lord has made very clear that all the gold, all the silver and all the land are His.
[/quote]
Yes, and he gave authority to the Church and the Church gives authority to the governments.
The Protestants thought it best to kill Christian kings and set themselves up a democracy.
Nevertheless, authority is still with most governments, but that does not detract from the country’s and individual’s responsibility to act in accordance with Divine Law even if it goes against the country’s law.
So, it is not either/or, but both/and. Don’t worry, I know it is difficult to understand, most Protestants can’t get passed the both/and thing either.
Just remember, you’re required to obey and have responsibility for your actions. If those laws go against Natural or Divine Law, one should not obey them. One can be obedient and use his intellect and reason to make his choices at the same time, just like one can use faith and use reason at the same time. Unless of course you’re obedient only to disobedience.
Blah blah blah, everytime i masturbate i kill all those poor babies, im a murderer i suppose.
fuck all of you who are against stem cell research, honestly, the future for stem cell is bright, i have my own experiences with it as well; im about 80% hearing impaired in both ears, ive gone through my whole life like this, 3 years ago my mum had my baby sister and we planned to get the Stem Cells out of the umbilical cord which could then be used to grow into the type of nerve needed to actually give me ‘normal’ hearing, so in my case, how the fuck is extracting cells from an umbilical cord wrong?
all you dickheads preaching about god should definetly get off your high horse as well. i dont care what it says in the bible, the bible says alot of things that man kind has betrayed (for lack of a better word), pretty sure our modern day lifestyle does not operate around god, were on a roll now.
dont even know how you all got to talking about marriage and arguing against IVF in the first place either… my uncle had brain cancer, 2% chance TO LIVE, he lived, but after all that chemo he was told he couldnt have children, IVF changed this… and they absolutely love their child, who is my cousin and isnt even a year old yet, are you trying to say that because they had IVF they chose their child and thats wrong even though they love her more then half of the scummy banged up pregnant teens out there or addict junky mothers etc…
fuck maybe i went on a useless rant there but seriously, arguing against technology that were so accustomed to nowadays is stupid, especially from my point of view when something like Stem Cell research could change my life in such a drastic amazing way, and has changed my uncles life…
[quote]Ace92 wrote:
Blah blah blah, everytime i masturbate i kill all those poor babies, im a murderer i suppose.
[/quote]
Well unless you’re ejaculating fertilized eggs, I don’t suppose that you are a murder.
No one said it was wrong. And, I am definitely not against Stem Cell Research. Embryonic Stem Cell Research is always Stem Cell Research, but not all Stem Cell Research is Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Well, I won’t say I am perfect, but I can speak for myself: I do keep His commandments most of the time, I fall, but I get back up and try again.
Yes, having IVF is wrong and so is choosing to kill the rest of his children. Having the one child is still a blessing though as God can bring good out of any evil. You bring up scummy banged up pregnant teens. If you uncle wanted children so bad he could have adopted one of those scummy banged up pregnant teens’ children that was put up for adoption. Pregnancy is a gift, so are children. It is never bad to be pregnant, what is wrong is that which is outside of the marital act or that frustrates the procreative aspect.
[quote]fuck maybe i went on a useless rant there but seriously, arguing against technology that were so accustomed to nowadays is stupid, especially from my point of view when something like Stem Cell research could change my life in such a drastic amazing way, and has changed my uncles life…
[/quote]
Like I said, all Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Stem Cell Research, but not all Stem Cell Research is Embryonic Stem Cell Research. If you notice the title, the Vatican, who is against Embryonic Stem Cell Research, gave money to Adult Stem Cell Research in order to help with disease and viruses and cancers, &c.
I am glad your sister’s umbilical cord stem cells could help your hearing and I am glad your uncle is blessed with a child, children are always a blessing. I hope to have a few of my own one day and hope to adopt many more.
However, just because we are accustomed to something doesn’t make it right. I am accustomed to seeing dead bodies in the street, doesn’t mean that arguing about how to stop violence is stupid just because we’re accustomed to it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Ace92 wrote:
Blah blah blah, everytime i masturbate i kill all those poor babies, im a murderer i suppose.
[/quote]
Well unless you’re ejaculating fertilized eggs, I don’t suppose that you are a murder.
No one said it was wrong. And, I am definitely not against Stem Cell Research. Embryonic Stem Cell Research is always Stem Cell Research, but not all Stem Cell Research is Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Well, I won’t say I am perfect, but I can speak for myself: I do keep His commandments most of the time, I fall, but I get back up and try again.
Yes, having IVF is wrong and so is choosing to kill the rest of his children. Having the one child is still a blessing though as God can bring good out of any evil. You bring up scummy banged up pregnant teens. If you uncle wanted children so bad he could have adopted one of those scummy banged up pregnant teens’ children that was put up for adoption. Pregnancy is a gift, so are children. It is never bad to be pregnant, what is wrong is that which is outside of the marital act or that frustrates the procreative aspect.
[quote]fuck maybe i went on a useless rant there but seriously, arguing against technology that were so accustomed to nowadays is stupid, especially from my point of view when something like Stem Cell research could change my life in such a drastic amazing way, and has changed my uncles life…
[/quote]
Like I said, all Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Stem Cell Research, but not all Stem Cell Research is Embryonic Stem Cell Research. If you notice the title, the Vatican, who is against Embryonic Stem Cell Research, gave money to Adult Stem Cell Research in order to help with disease and viruses and cancers, &c.
I am glad your sister’s umbilical cord stem cells could help your hearing and I am glad your uncle is blessed with a child, children are always a blessing. I hope to have a few of my own one day and hope to adopt many more.
However, just because we are accustomed to something doesn’t make it right. I am accustomed to seeing dead bodies in the street, doesn’t mean that arguing about how to stop violence is stupid just because we’re accustomed to it.[/quote]
i suppose i may have overreacted and went off your point track, but i still fail to see how u think IVF is wrong considernig, he not exactly was ‘choosing’ the sex of his baby he merely did it to get ANY baby at all due to the chemo killing his chances of impregnating… also adopting is a good idea, they had that idea at first too, however its a different matter all together, i was merely pointing out the scummy ones that get pregnant without even trying and do not even care about their child, its alot better having parents choosing their baby then it is havnig a child raised in a crappy environment.
also what are your thoughts on being able to choose your babies overall health, for example… if u could choose wether or not your baby would be born with Down Sydrome / some other form of mental retardation, do u think if u chose not to have one of these types of babies that its wrong? i suppose it kind of is, but dont u think if they are born with mental retardation that their life is going to be shit anyway? (in a wheelchair all their life etc etc?)
[quote]Ace92 wrote:
i suppose i may have overreacted and went off your point track,[/quote]
No worries.
It is wrong for multiple reasons but two of the reasons:
Well, I have a few cousins and close friends that have children with downs and other mental handicaps and almost all of the children are happy campers. But, even if they weren’t I am sure they’d much appreciate living, even if it wasn’t the best life, rather than not being alive.
As well, because humans aren’t objects we can’t just dispose of them.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You didn’t make a point except that you wanted to make fallacious statements. You didn’t address any point in my argument, so I guess it was also a straw man argument.
It is ALWAYS wrong to use IVF, I already explained that it takes the marital unitive act out of the procreative act and it also treats human beings as objects and commonly kills several humans in the process.
Now, if someone wants a child so much that they can’t possible wait for hormonal therapy to work or to naturally conceive, then there is always adoption.[/quote]
Just because the argument makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it a non-sequitur or fallacious.
IVF is not immoral just because you claim it is. Couples that are infertile will want this option. I could very easily argue that adoption treats humans as objects.
IVF was brought up because it creates many embryos that will otherwise be destroyed. It is therefore relevant to the thread. You brought up contraception for whatever reason, do not blame others for a derailment.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Just because the argument makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it a non-sequitur or fallacious.
[/quote]
No, but it being a non sequitur and fallacious makes it so.
[quote]
Never said it was immoral because I said it was, straw man. You could very well argue that adoption treats humans as objects, but I am not arguing about adoption I am talking about IVF. Adoption was merely an alternative to IVF. And, couples wanting that option has not basis on it being immoral or not.
Yes, embryos being destroyed is one of the reason why IVF is in fact immoral. It is the purposeful, willful, and planned destruction of human life, murder.
Like I said before, I am not blaming anyone for derailment, I was trying to steer the conversation back to embryonic stem cell research and claims of the Catholic Church ‘hating’ science.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
claims of the Catholic Church ‘hating’ science.[/quote]
They hate science that doesn’t fit with their predetermined rules about the universe.
Unless you can come up with actual evidence instead of hand wringing and pleading, you have no case. You talk a big game, but you can’t back it up. If you actually want there to be no controversy you have to be able to back up your statements irrefutably, and not fall back on bullshit arguments like the age of your church, the bible, the “because i’m older and wiser” (not saying you do this) and other forms of bullshit that people who are irreligious or of a different faith will simply NOT LISTEN TO.
You want to say life starts at conception? Cool, now prove it.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Just because the argument makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it a non-sequitur or fallacious.
[/quote]
No, but it being a non sequitur and fallacious makes it so.
[quote]
Never said it was immoral because I said it was, straw man. You could very well argue that adoption treats humans as objects, but I am not arguing about adoption I am talking about IVF. Adoption was merely an alternative to IVF. And, couples wanting that option has not basis on it being immoral or not.
Yes, embryos being destroyed is one of the reason why IVF is in fact immoral. It is the purposeful, willful, and planned destruction of human life, murder.
Like I said before, I am not blaming anyone for derailment, I was trying to steer the conversation back to embryonic stem cell research and claims of the Catholic Church ‘hating’ science.[/quote]
@Mak:
Focusing on IVF for a moment: I may be missing your point here, but in the other thread I thought you has pretty well conceded that abortion is a bad thing (by extension admitting that pro-life opponents of abortion do indeed have a point in that there is no discernible break in the life cycle from conception to death; ie, a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/toddler and on up the chain are all the exact same organism. They are all “a human life,” the destruction of which should be considered wrong. Care to argue otherwise?
If so, then what is your issue with Chris’s assertion that IVF is always wrong? IVF necessitates the harvesting and eventual destruction of embryos. In other words, the taking of human life.
Again, if I am missing something here please let me know, but I don’t get where you have much of a leg to support your argument, being that we’ve already been through this elsewhere.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You want to say life starts at conception? Cool, now prove it.[/quote]
Great, I wasn’t reading you wrong.
So, when does it start?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
claims of the Catholic Church ‘hating’ science.[/quote]
They hate science that doesn’t fit with their predetermined rules about the universe.[/quote]
By predetermined rules you mean morals?
Life starts at conception is evident because of the characteristics of the baby starting at conception (this is compared to dead things):
Reacts to stimuli. Dead things don’t react to stimuli and since the baby is growing it is reacting to some kind of stimuli.
Metabolism. Dead things don’t metabolism energy, and the baby does metabolize nutrients.
Unique DNA genome. This is contrast to a finger nail or a tumor, which would have the same DNA as the ‘host.’ A baby doesn’t have a matching DNA with its mother, but a unique DNA of its own.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
claims of the Catholic Church ‘hating’ science.[/quote]
They hate science that doesn’t fit with their predetermined rules about the universe.[/quote]
By predetermined rules you mean morals?
Life starts at conception is evident because of the characteristics of the baby starting at conception (this is compared to dead things):
Reacts to stimuli. Dead things don’t react to stimuli and since the baby is growing it is reacting to some kind of stimuli.
Metabolism. Dead things don’t metabolism energy, and the baby does metabolize nutrients.
Unique DNA genome. This is contrast to a finger nail or a tumor, which would have the same DNA as the ‘host.’ A baby doesn’t have a matching DNA with its mother, but a unique DNA of its own.
[/quote]
Sperm reacts to stimuli.
Sperm metabolizes nutrients.
The DNA is the only thing that had merit, except that a great deal of pregnancies end in abortion without the mother ever knowing. Should we hold a funeral for these events?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sperm reacts to stimuli.
Sperm metabolizes nutrients.[/quote]
That is because it is not dead.
It has merit, not had merit. The reason I point those three things out is to prove two things, that it is in fact a human and it is in fact a live. Therefore, at conception there is a living human being.
Well, I would like to know how a mother has an abortion without knowing she is pregnant, most mothers wouldn’t schedule an abortion unless they are pregnant. Even if this was the case, this has no affect on the fact that life starts at conception, mother’s knowing they are pregnant doesn’t determine if someone is a human being, so mentioning it is a red herring.
If it is a living human being it is a living human being, acknowledgement is not necessary.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
claims of the Catholic Church ‘hating’ science.[/quote]
They hate science that doesn’t fit with their predetermined rules about the universe.[/quote]
By predetermined rules you mean morals?
Life starts at conception is evident because of the characteristics of the baby starting at conception (this is compared to dead things):
Reacts to stimuli. Dead things don’t react to stimuli and since the baby is growing it is reacting to some kind of stimuli.
Metabolism. Dead things don’t metabolism energy, and the baby does metabolize nutrients.
Unique DNA genome. This is contrast to a finger nail or a tumor, which would have the same DNA as the ‘host.’ A baby doesn’t have a matching DNA with its mother, but a unique DNA of its own.
[/quote]
Stones react to stimuli, if I push them they roll.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Just because the argument makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t make it a non-sequitur or fallacious.
[/quote]
No, but it being a non sequitur and fallacious makes it so.
I think abortion is bad for the following reasons:
It is unnecessary surgery. There reasons for this being bad should be fairly obvious.
It fosters the mindset that human life is a commodity when allowed for reasons other than medical intervention. Contraception does not do this, before it is suggested. Contraception, in normal people, fosters bonding via sexual contact while allowing people to delay pregnancy until they are capable of raising a child (the common factors are finance and housing).
It diminishes personal responsibility. If you are stupid enough to engage in sex without the pill or a condom etc. then you don’t get a “get out of jail free card”. Diminishing personal responsibility is one of the first steps to societal decay.
Now IVF doesn’t fall into this, because despite embryos being destroyed, the primary purpose of IVF is to CREATE life, not dispose of it. By doing what you seems to be doing and equating IVF with abortion, you imply that the couples who turn to IVF are viewing their children as commodities. Go up to a couple who has used IVF, tell them that, and get back to me how they respond.
It also does not remove responsibility, the couple are investing a lot into just making a child. It stands to reason that it is very likely they will be responsible for their child.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You want to say life starts at conception? Cool, now prove it.[/quote]
Great, I wasn’t reading you wrong.
So, when does it start? [/quote]
Life started several billion years ago and has continued in a continual cycle since. Or at least that’s what I think.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
By predetermined rules you mean morals?[/quote]
No, I mean the nonsense they spout and label as morals.