You Libs keep 'dancing around the issue'

by Shining One 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  just2sheep

  u-b,

  he doesn't "pick fights", he whines. and having whined his little whine he moves on...to whine about some new subject. unfortunately for the whining one his watchtower education is the only thing about him that "shines" lol

  j2s
• 

  PrimateDave

  (Psalm 137:9) 9 Happy will he be that grabs ahold and does dash to pieces Your children against the crag.
  
  Does this scripture represent a liberal or conservative view?
  
  Dave (still a primate, but I don't need no education)
• 

  Hellrider

  I'm anti-abortion as well as anti-death penalty. I'm still and Atheist with absolute moral standards. Still no god needed.

  That sums me up pretty well too, Jstalin.
• 

  Forscher

  I am basically against both abortion and the death penalty.
  I won't say anything about my reasons other than they are a little more complicated than "God condemns it". When I think about it, I don't recall any direct condemnation of abortion in the Bible anyway. I am aware that Exodus orders the death penalty for one who causes the loss of an unborn child in a fight note how the bOrg takes that one verse and expands on it in the insight Book:
  

  *** it-1 p. 28 Abortion ***
  
  Deliberately to induce abortion or miscarriage by artificial means, by the use of drugs, or by medical operation, the sole purpose of which is to avoid the birth of an unwanted child, is an act of high crime in the sight of God. Life as a precious gift from God is sacred. Hence God’s law to Moses protected the life of an unborn baby against more than criminal abortion, for if in a fracas between men a pregnant woman suffered an accident fatal to her or the child, “then you must give soul for soul.” (Ex 21:22-25) Of course, before applying that penalty, the circumstances and degree of deliberateness were taken into consideration by the judges. (Compare Nu 35:22-24, 31.) But emphasizing the seriousness of any deliberate attempt to cause injury, Dr. J. Glenn comments: “The viable embryo in the uterus IS a human individual, and therefore destroying it, is a violation of the sixth commandment.”—The Bible and Modern Medicine, 1963, p. 176.

  
  They simply make a sweeping statement and then use apples to prove oranges. I wonder if the doctor they quoted did any better a job.
  One thing that got me thinking was on an episode of CSI. The lead character was asked his thought on abortion. He said that he would allow it up to about the 7-8th week. When asked why, he quoted Lev. 17:14 "For the life of every creature is the blood of it"(RSV). He pointed out that blood is present by about the eighth week, so the embryo is not alive until about then (the Bible uses the word nephesh, which also means soul). That gave me pause for thought. Much of the debate around abortion centers around the question of when life begins. The fundies take an uncompromising position that it begins at conception, despite a lack of biblical support for that position as evidenced by the verse cited. I ended up concluding that the position stated in CSI is biblically reasonable.
  That, though, still doesn't get around the contention that abortion is nowhere directly forbidden in the Bible. To conclude it to be one must go the kind of route illustrated by the quote from the Insight Book.
  Forscher
• 

  wanderlustguy

  The point isn't about abortion as much as it is any person or group of people's right to tell someone else what they have to do.

  Unless it's you in the circumstances that put you in the position of making a decision to abort a pregnancy, what right do you have to say what is or isn't the "moral" thing to do?

  When does "majority rule" override a persons right to make decisions about thier own body? If this is ok, what's next? Holding people accountable for their actions also means letting them make choices we may not agree with, and then live with the consequences.

  WLG
• 

  DanTheMan

  Society is on the downward grade and just like Rome, this civilization is headed for a fall

  Again, I repeat, and will keep repeating, your rant makes absolutely no sense in light of your religious beliefs! None!

  Why does it upset you that civiliation is "headed for a fall"? If the point of this life is to find salvation so as to avoid hell, what does it matter whether civilization exists or not? Are you upset that so many people are going to hell when they die? Is that what this is about? Is God losing his soul-catcher game that he's got going with Satan?

  And regarding abortions, where do the "souls" of aborted fetuses go?
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  lol,

  Again I ask, if their is no absolute truth then how can you justify any law? How can there be any moral law when you refuse to admit there must be a Divine Arbiter to set that moral law?

  okay rex, technically, i agree with you. if morals are relative, and do not exist somewhere out there in the universe apart from ourselves, then all law is relative, including any laws that benefit large groups of homo sapiens trying to make their way through life by guessing. if there is no god(s), or a big old stone tablet in the sky with morals and laws chiseled into it, then there is nothing wrong with killing someone else, including a baby, except to those who *choose* to decide that these things are "wrong", AND those who, like you, feel that morals exist outside of ourselves.

  sure, many atheists will quickly beg to differ with me. and i think that most atheists have very similar moral codes, and for all intents and purposes they work really well for us h saps. but in the end, as far as we can tell, no one pays. not hitler, not the catholics or the protestants, the hutu or the tutsi. sad, and tragic, but realistic. unlike you rex.

  so, there, did you get what you wanted rex? was i able to demonstrate the inherent moral depravity that godless folk are in denial about? is this what you have been trying to achieve with thread after thread. that "hey look at me! i get my morals from daddy in the sky, and atheists just make their own up and can't say if they are 'right' or 'wrong'"!! well, if that is all it is, then take a bow and a courtsey there old boy. because yes: in my worldview, i could kill anyone i wanted. and if i were able to evade the dudes in blue with big guns (you know, in god we trust), then i would have gotten away scott-free. no dues to pay after i die. a bad person, like me, gets away with bad things and does not pay for them.

  but at this point, i must ask: is this what you are so afraid of rex? is this why you rant on and on about the sketchiness of godless morals? that the very thought that "bad" people get away with "bad" things, and "good" people suffer without recompense is too much to bear psychologically? that is the impression you are giving.

  peace out home-boy,

  TS
• 

  mkr32208

  You have got to be the biggest ass clown on this or any other forum I visit! You keep getting pounded on this question so you resolve your lack of intelligent argumentation with a new thread!

  LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU!

  LAWS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH UNIVERSAL,ABSOLUTE,DEVINE, TRUTH! LAWS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE PEOPLE OR PERSON IN POWER THINK IS RIGHT! PURE AND F*#$ING SIMPLE YOU NIMROD!

  Now stop starting new threads about this!

  Damn!
• 

  Forscher

  The point isn't about abortion as much as it is any person or group of people's right to tell someone else what they have to do.

  
  Not really. Even those who argue in favor of unrestricted abortion and other left-wing issues believe that one group, theirs, has the right to tell another group, their opponents, what to do. "Hate speech" laws, which are being adopted in some locales, are nothing more than the political left using the government to tell some on the political right what they can and cannot say. In order for a society to function and not descend into chaos somebody or group has to be able to tell the rest of society what they can or cannot do. The only argument is really over who is going to do the telling and who must do what they are told. Government in the U.S. is based on limits on how much the government may do so. Unfortunately, both sides of the debate want ther government to impose their own desire on the other side, with no compromise. That is the real problem here, and the danger.
  

  Unless it's you in the circumstances that put you in the position of making a decision to abort a pregnancy, what right do you have to say what is or isn't the "moral" thing to do?

  
  Well, it is hard to argue against an emotional position. I guess that is why the left has abandoned rationality in favor of emotional debate. I guess the best way to handle that one is to ask you what gives you the right to tell me that I am wrong? The fact that you feel that I am somehow wrong? Do you really believe that only one who has been in that position has the moral standing to have an opinion on the issue? What would you say to the many thousands who've been there and still believe that unrestricted abortion is morally wrong and bad for society? By the way, is it best to decide what is right or wrong in so important an issue solely on emotion, as your question implies?
  

  When does "majority rule" override a persons right to make decisions about thier own body?

  
  Once again, you resort to an emotional appeal rather than reason. It is a fact of life that one can be compelled by the majority to do many things. The majority has decided to sex restrict at ages when people are perfectly capable of engaging in it. By your reasoning those youngsters should be allowed to decide the matter for themselves. However, both the right, and the left, have decided they don't have the right "to make decisions about their own bodies". And we accept the right of the majority to make that decision. Before you try to tell me that I am comparing apples and oranges here because those youngsters are too young to make such a decision, let me remind you that before those age restrictions were imposed people married at those ages and lived normal lives. I knew a women who was married at twelve, a mother by the time she was 13, and a war widow by the time she was 14 (the first World War).
  I am not in favor of total restriction on abortion Wanderlustguy. But I would like to see some reason and sanity on the issue. Compromise is what makes our society work. The current division is not the fault of only one side here, as the left claims. Both sides are responsible for the division among us and the sooner we face up to that fact, the better off we'll all be in the long run. But that isn't going to happen as long as emotion, rather than reason, rules the day.
  Forscher
• 

  Shining One

  >Who is the more hypocrite? The one who allows an unwanted child to be raised in an environment that is proven to spawn a higher crime rate, that leads to crimes that warrant the death penalty, or the one who allows it to never happen?
  Oh, so we just encourage all of the riff-raff, the single moms, to 'kill off that horrible creature before it harms someone else or costs me money'? You would fit right in with the Nazis and the Marxists! So, are you also saying that we should help the black and hispanics kill off all of the criminals coming from their women?
  Rex