(November 28, 2013 at 12:04 pm)apophenia Wrote:


According to Drich's theology, sin is "how you appear to God."

Well then I'm not going to worry about any mote I may have in my eye until the big guy gets the sin out of His.

Everytime I read Drich's use of the word "morality," I am left with less brain cells than with which I started. The ignorance and stupidity produced is so potent that it oozes from my screen, saturating me in a fog of idiocy that deprives my brain of oxygen.

I'd be better off huffing paint.

(November 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I bolded part of your post to demonstrate this. Even when it is obviously right to make an exception to a rule, god won't allow for it.

That is why our righteousness/morality is not dependant on our ablity to follow the rules. With attonement righteousness/morality comes through Christ apart from our ablity to follow the rules.

Quote:One cannot have absolutes. I mean, you can, you'll just be wrong whenever an exception to the rule should be made.

Not true. Right can be right an wrong can always be wrong so long as there is grace and attonement.

Quote:Then they're just living by a cruel double-standard.

Just like in Nazi Germany or currently in the west with the war against the unwanted unborn. they/we can be cruel, but at the same time completely oblivious to it because of the propaganda used and the dehumanization of the targeted indivisuals.

Quote:They are clearly breaking the golden rule, unless they themselves would want to be dehumanized.

Which is an absolute is it not? (The golden rule?) Yet just in the US Just in the death and destruction we have committed against the unwanted/unborn we are well over a million this year.
http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Quote:I did not think that a baby could be aborted at birth.

That what partial birth abortion is. The mother is dialated, and the child is pulled/ripped out of the mother (all except the head) then a pair of scisors are inserted at the base of the child's skull, and then his brain is scrambled, and then suction is added to suck out the child's brain. (if everything goes as planned.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6vnOaq7nWU

Here are some pics of when things don't go as planned: http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Abort...on_Photos/
(Just take my word on this one.)

Quote: Only a very small portion of abortions are late term.

AHHH A Perfect example of Man's Morality at work, It always selects the lessor of two evils rather than identifing an absolute like it is always wrong to kill babies.

Quote: Regardless, one could ask "If I were a fetus, how would I feel if people decided to abort me?" Well, you wouldn't feel anything, you wouldn't think anything, you wouldn't even be aware of your own existence.

Here is a sonigram video of a baby screaming as he is being ripped from his mother. It looks like he is pretty aware of the pain.
http://www.silentscream.org/

Quote:Don't get me wrong, I can see where you're coming from (on this particular issue). It would be better to try to prevent the pregnancy in the first place rather than have an abortion (which is why I don't understand why the church won't just cut its losses and allow birth control).

The 'Church' does, the Roman Catholic church is another story. they would have to revisit too many well established doctrine to do that. Pride is a terriable thing.

Quote:I have to ask, though, how far back do we go? If we call a fetus, which has no self-awareness and is not conscious a person, should we go back another step and call the egg a person?

Life starts with a heart beat.

Quote: Wow, I can't believe this just happened! It never even occurred to me that you would assume I read ahead first! (I really didn't read ahead but I don't know how this didn't occur to me)

I did not assume anything I said 'forsight' is only foresight when one has no way of knowing what could come. You had the option of reading ahead.
The example was just a possiablity.

Quote:That, then, is not a failure of the golden rule itself, but a failure of people to adhere to it.

I totally agree. What you fail to see is the reasoning people adhere to it is because they are 'morally' justified in their other options. If morality is not an absolute then it can be used to justify anything.

Do you see what I am saying? The Golden rule is not morality. It is an absolute. One that God gave us. The use of the golden rule upto a certain point (where it becomes bothersome or one is looking at an 18 year prision sentence with a kid in tow) and abortion is justified is the point the golden rule becomes apart of morality.

---

(November 27, 2013 at 4:56 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(November 27, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Drich Wrote: You guys or rather you specifically tend to lead with your strongest bit-o-evidence. (which maybe why you are so caught off gaurd when I lead with truth, but maybe not my best example of it.) When one is taught to think and do things the way you do, it may seem illogical to think or do things anyother way. The 'otherway' is what I specialize in.

This is your own specific conceit which I simply pay no mind. If you believe this, then you have chosen to willingly, gullibly, believe the lies that your own mind tells you. As both a long time student of Sun Tzu, Asian martial and non-martial philosophies, as well as a student of the nature of psychology and cognitive bias, I realize all too well the emptiness and self-congratulatory nature of such excuses. The goddess will not permit me such sophistic self-comforts. She demands that I deliver, whether I experience it as pleasant or not. That you settle for less tells you all you need to know about the difference in our reputations.

Do you think you would have the reputation on a 'Christian' web site if you held your same views? No of course not, not unless "you have chosen to willingly, gullibly, believe the lies that your own mind tells you."

Surely you must know that any and all your 'reputation' reflects your ablity to pander to what the majority of the people want to hear, or what they want to see on this website. If you took your wares and tried to sell them at a Christian market, do you seriously think you would be received in the same way?

As far as members go, why don't you have the reps of a minnie or a rhythm? If indeed your reps are completely merrit based? No offence to them, nor am I looking to prop you up, but your work, content and effort far exceeds their own efforts, yet someone like Minnie completely destroys you in reps, (more than doubles your efforts) and some of his best offerings are one line disparriaging remarks, and obsene rants. Could it be that he is just pandering to the crowd, giving the people on this site what they want to hear?

If that is the case and well thought out and the well supported content that someone like you offers, isn't received with as much respect and fanfare as someone doleing out (popular) vulger one liners, then your standard, your way of measuring content on this website ceases to be any real standard at all. It becomes a simple popularity contest. And if you are truly trying to use a popularity contest to say your arguements are some how are more contextually valid than my own, on that premise alone then I would like to introduce you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I know you want to dismiss this as my 'crazy' logic, but seriously look at what company your "standard" up lifts. Now honestly ask yourself does your reps say anything at all about you or your actual content, or is it just away to determine how well you can play to what your peers want to hear...

I bet because you are female, if you droped hindu/spiritual/budhist thing, went totally humanist/anti-theist and put a sexy cos-play [/i][/b]avatar pic up you would own this web board, in the way of rep points, if that is what you really want.

Playing the Nazi card. How fucking original [/sarcasm]

There was one (count 'em) one Adolf Hitler and he has been dead for almost seventy years. I did a video on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnHfMkBbmEE

You shall know them by their fruits.

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote: Here is a sonigram video of a baby screaming as he is being ripped from his mother.

I'm sold. Where do I sign up to be the type of loving Christian who would
use shock, hurt, and death to sell his self-righteous point of view?

(November 28, 2013 at 3:30 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Everytime I read Drich's use of the word "morality," I am left with less brain cells than with which I started. The ignorance and stupidity produced is so potent that it oozes from my screen, saturating me in a fog of idiocy that deprives my brain of oxygen.

I'd be better off huffing paint.

Filthy apologists. They are scum - willing to twist any and every word until logic and reason are a distant memory and all that's left is a ... well, you said it, a fog of idiocy.

Sorry to disappoint you Drich, but isn't Christian morality based on our Lord's Justice and Mercy more than an idealized moral standard?

(November 29, 2013 at 9:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Sorry to disappoint you Drich, but isn't Christian morality based on our Lord's Justice and Mercy more than an idealized moral standard?

Yeah, because that's where god shines.

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

(November 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Even when it is obviously right to make an exception to a rule, god won't allow for it.

That is why our righteousness/morality is not dependant on our ablity to follow the rules. With attonement righteousness/morality comes through Christ apart from our ablity to follow the rules.

So the rules are essentially pointless?

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:One cannot have absolutes. I mean, you can, you'll just be wrong whenever an exception to the rule should be made.

Not true. Right can be right an wrong can always be wrong so long as there is grace and attonement.

Only if you redefine 'right' as 'what god wants'.

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:They are clearly breaking the golden rule, unless they themselves would want to be dehumanized.

Which is an absolute is it not? (The golden rule?)

In a sense, I suppose. But it gets trickier when figuring out how to treat wrongdoers. For example, someone might want to get away with doing something bad, so they should let others also get away with it?

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I did not think that a baby could be aborted at birth.

That what partial birth abortion is. The mother is dialated, and the child is pulled/ripped out of the mother (all except the head) then a pair of scisors are inserted at the base of the child's skull, and then his brain is scrambled, and then suction is added to suck out the child's brain.

I should clarify: I did not think that a baby could be aborted at birth legally. And they can't.

wikipedia Wrote:Though the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000, according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal in most circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: Only a very small portion of abortions are late term.

AHHH A Perfect example of Man's Morality at work, It always selects the lessor of two evils rather than identifing an absolute like it is always wrong to kill babies.

What if that baby were patient zero for the next zombie apocalypse? I don't actually mean to suggest that any such thing is likely, but rather that even this judgment is technically not absolute. I would not argue that "killing babies is generally not immoral" but rather that a partially developed fetus isn't what one might consider a baby. (A fetus that, if born naturally at that moment, could survive outside the womb, is a different story.)

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote: Regardless, one could ask "If I were a fetus, how would I feel if people decided to abort me?" Well, you wouldn't feel anything, you wouldn't think anything, you wouldn't even be aware of your own existence.

Here is a sonigram video of a baby screaming as he is being ripped from his mother. It looks like he is pretty aware of the pain.

This only is true for late term abortions.

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:I have to ask, though, how far back do we go? If we call a fetus, which has no self-awareness and is not conscious a person, should we go back another step and call the egg a person?

Life starts with a heart beat.

If I took this at face value, does that mean that a fetus that does not yet have a heartbeat can be aborted? Also, does this mean that organisms without a circulatory system (or more specifically, a heart within said system) are not really alive? Personally, I think that the brain should also be alive before an organism (as a whole) is considered truly alive (unless
it does not develop a brain normally).

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote:

Quote:That, then, is not a failure of the golden rule itself, but a failure of people to adhere to it.

I totally agree. What you fail to see is the reasoning people adhere to it is because they are 'morally' justified in their other options. If morality is not an absolute then it can be used to justify anything.

Under the right circumstances, yes. And no, I don't mean WWII concentration camps. I mean exceptions to general rules of thumb that are not in blatant contradiction to the golden rule (other than in dealing out 'justice' to wrongdoers, however you might define that.)

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote: Do you see what I am saying? The Golden rule is not morality. It is an absolute. One that God gave us.

I'm pretty sure it existed before Christianity. It also basically seems like common sense.

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote: The use of the golden rule upto a certain point (where it becomes bothersome or one is looking at an 18 year prision sentence with a kid in tow) and abortion is justified is the point the golden rule becomes apart of morality.

I am pondering whether you actually meant 'apart', or have again made 'a part' into one word. Opposite meanings, really. I would agree that if you merely think the golden rule is inconvenient, then it would be apart of morality. On the other hand, I wouldn't say that the existence of abortion shows how all of society is immoral (though the illegal partial birth method is rather sickening, and I personally would not encourage late term abortions unless absolutely necessary).