(April 1, 2013 at 6:51 pm)SHIN KAIRI Wrote:

(April 1, 2013 at 6:29 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: What makes you think that this book has more authority to tell people what to do

Because of this :

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, & your ways are not my ways, says ADONAI. 9 As high as the sky is above the earth are my ways higher than your ways, & my thoughts than your thoughts.

Then why doesn't God provide a detailed guidance to us all? Why doesn't he tell us the exact amount of taxes we should have, how much x income should be taxed, etc? What we should do with regards to health care...etc?

Why doesn't he constantly guide us with Prophets and Guides through out the ages all up to this age? Where is the continuous guidance of God?

Why show us laws that are no longer applicable to our times, and ones that we don't understand and are rather against, while God's ways are higher then our ways?

The fact there is no full theocracy out there. Iran comes closest to a theocracy, but even they get majority of their laws from other then revelation.

So tell me my friend, where is God's judgement and guidance right now? Why does he leave us to judge most things but then wants us to submit to trivial things?

Why is it he didn't tell us how to set up government, what is just government, how to implement justice, etc...?

(April 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote:

(April 1, 2013 at 6:51 pm)SHIN KAIRI Wrote: Because of this :

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, & your ways are not my ways, says ADONAI. 9 As high as the sky is above the earth are my ways higher than your ways, & my thoughts than your thoughts.

And how does this in any way prove that the authority described in your book exists in any kind of way?

Let alone that mankind is obliged to follow it, in case of it`s existance?!

Your heart convicts you. You shall all surely answer to what your hearts will say in Judgment Day. They will speak in your place. And you shall all fear and be terrified, for The Lord searches the hearts.

(April 1, 2013 at 7:04 pm)SHIN KAIRI Wrote: Your heart convicts you. You shall all surely answer to what your hearts will say in Judgment Day. They will speak in your place. And you shall all fear and be terrified, for The Lord searches the hearts.

I think my hearts an idiot. I never hear it make any sounds that I consider language. I remember 'searching' pig hearts in school. Mine had some blood still in it. We ended up cooking and eating them. I miss my double science lessons.

(April 1, 2013 at 7:04 pm)SHIN KAIRI Wrote: Your heart convicts you. You shall all surely answer to what your hearts will say in Judgment Day. They will speak in your place. And you shall all fear and be terrified, for The Lord searches the hearts.

The muscle which pumps blood through the boddy?

You do know that a heart can neither think nore talk!?



Again! Can you give any evidence which proves that your god has the right to absolute authoritarian power!?

(April 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: lol


a liberterian who opposes an individuals claim to her right for self determination.

No, I oppose the killing of the individual who cannot express their rights. The issue of abortion is a tough one, because there are two individuals involved, and the rights of each one needs to be heard since they come into conflict (the right of the mother to control her womb versus the right to life of the baby).

There are plenty of Libertarians who oppose abortion, and plenty who do not. It's not an issue that is as obvious to Libertarian principles as others.

(April 1, 2013 at 6:43 pm)festive1 Wrote: Are you against all abortion, period?

No. Each case is different. Whilst I would rather not see an innocent life put to death, there are acceptable instances where abortion doesn't violate Libertarian principles of non-aggression. For instance, when the baby is killing / hurting the mother, or when that baby is the product of a non-aggression violation (i.e. rape).

I do not, however, think abortion should be legal for people who have consensual sex and become pregnant. I'm not saying they have to keep the baby; but they do not have the right to end its life just because they don't want it.

a 3 month old piece of tissue which had just come out of the stage in which it still had gills (evolutioatry leftover from the ancestors) is not an individual.

Oh yes it is (/ends argument)

No it isnt.


It has no personality, hasnt een reached the stage of being a human, and it wouldnt survive without it`s mother.

Most importent of all, it cuts the mothers right for selfdetermination and has the potential to throw the mother into a state of poverty or even outright social discrimination.
Especialy in a conservative sociaty.

Ah ok that's fine then. (*must remember that for every other being which can't represent itself that gets in the way of my self interests)

(April 1, 2013 at 8:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ah ok that's fine then. (*must remember that for every other being which can't represent itself that gets in the way of my self interests)

How is it in the interest of the unborn child to grow up inpoverty or amongst social standerds which will lead it into criminality or poverty!?


The mothers interests are also the childs interests!


And it is more than just disgusting to see how those who oppose abortion also always oppose social investments which can provide a mother with the basic needs required to raise a child alone or despite coming out of impoverished circumstances.

Plus! YES!!! A womans interests and rights to selfdetermination should not be limited!!! If the birth of a child shouldnt limit a womans right to self determination, limit what she can achieve or put her into a situation where she is discriminated - then it is for sociaty to change and not for the law to force her to accept that situation no matter what!!!!