|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2019 22:14:58 GMT
I remember reading some time ago about fetal brain development. At 26 weeks or so it seemed fairly impressive to me. So, that would be my two cents worth. Obviously that's negotiable. The point is to reach a wide consensus, so that the issue can be settled. It is indeed negotiable. I have read or heard that a human being can only attain personhood at about 18 months after birth (on average). Before that, the brain hasn't formed enough connections to even perform cognitive tasks; and therefore, the brain and personality of a newborn is less complex than of a grown pig or dog. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, if we consider the killing of grown animals ethical, and if we do not subscribe to discriminatory ethics, we should not be against the possibility to terminate the life of a fetus or a newborn. I know that this is not the consensus in most societies right now. But societies can change, and so can ethics. You’re a deranged imbecile. If you’re gonna compare the unborn’s value to that of an animal. Then there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 23, 2019 23:04:58 GMT
Humanity has always been wicked. Our Heavenly Father's Plan for humanity did not fail. Otherwise, we would not be here right to this very day. It’s an interesting opinion based on entirely unfounded assumptions. But I’m not sure how this qualifies is a defense against Gods demonstrable immorality (especially since none of it can even be demonstrated to be true). Yes, it is starting over. But, not by killing off the ENTIRE population. And I never said that, so....  You were the one who said there was no evidence that the Lord Went to His Passion Willingly. No, that’s not part of my argument. I mean there is no evidence that this ever happened, but that’s not particularly relevant to the overall point. It wouldn’t matter even if this story was true, and there was evidence of it. It’s still be immoral either way. The Father Is the Author of all that is moral. If you believe that the laws on how to deal with rapists was immoral thousands of years ago, it is because humanity --not God--that is immoral. God ENDORSED rape in the Bible. There is no punishment for the crime of “rape” anywhere in scripture. There is only punishment of the rape of a single woman, which is to pay the father and force the woman to live forever with her rapist. I am only explaining how the world worked thousands of years ago. Yes, due to the rules God set in place. The immoral commandments and the traditions of scociety that resulted from those commandments. God was the author of how the world worked. He failed! The world has long since, learned a greater way to deal with crime & criminals. Yes, which is to IGNORE the immoral commandments of the Bible, and replace it with something that is actually moral! No, God Did NOT Endorse rape in the Holy Bible. He Made it quite clear that rape is to be punished!! There is nothing immoral about the 10 Commandments, unless you believe that stealing, killing & adultery are moral. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 23, 2019 23:20:17 GMT
If you’re gonna compare the unborn’s value to that of an animal. Then there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals. Didn't you post a link to a "right to life" article? I believe that persons have a right to life. Born humans after a certain age are persons. Animals aren't persons. Newborn humans or fetuses aren't persons either. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2019 23:22:11 GMT
If you’re gonna compare the unborn’s value to that of an animal. Then there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals. Didn't you post a link to a "right to life" article? I believe that persons have a right to life. Born humans after a certain age are persons. Animals aren't persons. Newborn humans or fetuses aren't persons either. You say they’re not. I say they are. Prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 23, 2019 23:44:18 GMT
Didn't you post a link to a "right to life" article? I believe that persons have a right to life. Born humans after a certain age are persons. Animals aren't persons. Newborn humans or fetuses aren't persons either. You say they’re not. I say they are. Prove me wrong. Here you go. www.choc.org/neuroscience/developmental-services/ages-stages/Only at 18 months (on average) do babies recognize themselves in a mirror.
Or use Google. I found the above article by googling "neuroscience development cognitive abilities personalities newborns nine months".
Now, do you have any evidence that supports your opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jan 23, 2019 23:54:13 GMT
You say they’re not. I say they are. Prove me wrong. Here you go. www.choc.org/neuroscience/developmental-services/ages-stages/Only at 18 months (on average) do babies recognize themselves in a mirror.
Or use Google. I found the above article by googling "neuroscience development cognitive abilities personalities newborns nine months".
Now, do you have any evidence that supports your opinion? In her last years when my grandmother had Alzheimer's was she no longer a person when she was very far gone? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 24, 2019 0:09:15 GMT
Here you go. www.choc.org/neuroscience/developmental-services/ages-stages/Only at 18 months (on average) do babies recognize themselves in a mirror. Or use Google. I found the above article by googling "neuroscience development cognitive abilities personalities newborns nine months".
Now, do you have any evidence that supports your opinion? In her last years when my grandmother had Alzheimer's was she no longer a person when she was very far gone? A tricky issue, adressed by Peter Singer in his "Writings on an Ethical Life". If I remember correctly, he proposes that personhood (and therefore right to life) applies to beings who were persons at one point in their existence. This is true for people with dementia or Alzheimer's, but not for newborns. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 24, 2019 0:09:28 GMT
No, God Did NOT Endorse rape in the Holy Bible. He Made it quite clear that rape is to be punished!! There is nothing immoral about the 10 Commandments, unless you believe that stealing, killing & adultery are moral. Okay, I've already demonstrated who and where the bible endorses slavery, rape, and genocide! I've given scriptural references, and you've ignored all of them. If you're only comeback each time I demonstrate this is to put your fingers in your ears and say "no he doesn't", then this conversation can no longer serve a purpose. You're not making an argument anymore, you're making assertions about what God "clearly" does without providing a single shred of support for your assertions. Everytime I demonstrate why your assertions don't hold up via scripture, you pretend that it still does without offering a counter argument, and then introduce a red-herring to talk about something else. So this is no longer an honest discussion on your part, and you don't see to have anything to add other than opinions and assertions at this point. So we're done here. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2019 0:20:57 GMT
No, God Did NOT Endorse rape in the Holy Bible. He Made it quite clear that rape is to be punished!! There is nothing immoral about the 10 Commandments, unless you believe that stealing, killing & adultery are moral. Okay, I've already demonstrated who and where the bible endorses slavery, rape, and genocide! I've given scriptural references, and you've ignored all of them. If you're only comeback each time I demonstrate this is to put your fingers in your ears and say "no he doesn't", then this conversation can no longer serve a purpose. You're not making an argument anymore, you're making assertions about what God "clearly" does without providing a single shred of support for your assertions. Everytime I demonstrate why your assertions don't hold up via scripture, you pretend that it still does without offering a counter argument, and then introduce a red-herring to talk about something else. So this is no longer an honest discussion on your part, and you don't see to have anything to add other than opinions and assertions at this point. So we're done here. Ironic, that you just summed up the only possible atheist vs theist arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 24, 2019 0:48:54 GMT
No, God Did NOT Endorse rape in the Holy Bible. He Made it quite clear that rape is to be punished!! There is nothing immoral about the 10 Commandments, unless you believe that stealing, killing & adultery are moral. Okay, I've already demonstrated who and where the bible endorses slavery, rape, and genocide! I've given scriptural references, and you've ignored all of them. If you're only comeback each time I demonstrate this is to put your fingers in your ears and say "no he doesn't", then this conversation can no longer serve a purpose. You're not making an argument anymore, you're making assertions about what God "clearly" does without providing a single shred of support for your assertions. Everytime I demonstrate why your assertions don't hold up via scripture, you pretend that it still does without offering a counter argument, and then introduce a red-herring to talk about something else. So this is no longer an honest discussion on your part, and you don't see to have anything to add other than opinions and assertions at this point. So we're done here. No!!! You only demonstrated YOU'RE OWN understanding of the Holy Bible endorsing slavery, rape, & genocide. You gave your own understanding from Scriptural references, & I refuted them for you, but, you still refused to accept them. Nothing I gave was a red herring. They all proved your own POV to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 24, 2019 4:26:01 GMT
Okay, I've already demonstrated who and where the bible endorses slavery, rape, and genocide! I've given scriptural references, and you've ignored all of them. If you're only comeback each time I demonstrate this is to put your fingers in your ears and say "no he doesn't", then this conversation can no longer serve a purpose. You're not making an argument anymore, you're making assertions about what God "clearly" does without providing a single shred of support for your assertions. Everytime I demonstrate why your assertions don't hold up via scripture, you pretend that it still does without offering a counter argument, and then introduce a red-herring to talk about something else. So this is no longer an honest discussion on your part, and you don't see to have anything to add other than opinions and assertions at this point. So we're done here. No!!! You only demonstrated YOU'RE OWN understanding of the Holy Bible endorsing slavery, rape, & genocide. You gave your own understanding from Scriptural references, & I refuted them for you, but, you still refused to accept them. Nothing I gave was a red herring. They all proved your own POV to be wrong. You didn't "refute" anything. Ignoring the passage and refusing to offer an argument in support of it is not a refutation! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 24, 2019 4:28:48 GMT
Okay, I've already demonstrated who and where the bible endorses slavery, rape, and genocide! I've given scriptural references, and you've ignored all of them. If you're only comeback each time I demonstrate this is to put your fingers in your ears and say "no he doesn't", then this conversation can no longer serve a purpose. You're not making an argument anymore, you're making assertions about what God "clearly" does without providing a single shred of support for your assertions. Everytime I demonstrate why your assertions don't hold up via scripture, you pretend that it still does without offering a counter argument, and then introduce a red-herring to talk about something else. So this is no longer an honest discussion on your part, and you don't see to have anything to add other than opinions and assertions at this point. So we're done here. Ironic, that you just summed up the only possible atheist vs theist arguments. I actually disagree with you on this one. When I was a theist, I was certainly open to honestly exploring legitimate criticism of my faith and examining the positions the bible takes. I've also debated with several theists (as a current atheist) who are willing to re-examine what they think they knew about scripture, and have been in positions where they've had to alter or re-adjust their interpretation when presented with what it actually says. Though I will acknowledge many just bury their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't actually say what it does. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 24, 2019 4:39:24 GMT
Ironic, that you just summed up the only possible atheist vs theist arguments. I actually disagree with you on this one. When I was a theist, I was certainly open to honestly exploring legitimate criticism of my faith and examining the positions the bible takes. I've also debated with several theists (as a current atheist) who are willing to re-examine what they think they knew about scripture, and have been in positions where they've had to alter or re-adjust their interpretation when presented with what it actually says. Though I will acknowledge many just bury their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't actually say what it does. OK. How can you possibly assert that when we all know that scripture is bogus, overly translated, badly interpreted and basically untrue in the first place? If the basic premise or foundations of any arguments are false, it really doesn't matter what detail and red herring people drag out! |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 24, 2019 5:01:20 GMT
No!!! You only demonstrated YOU'RE OWN understanding of the Holy Bible endorsing slavery, rape, & genocide. You gave your own understanding from Scriptural references, & I refuted them for you, but, you still refused to accept them. Nothing I gave was a red herring. They all proved your own POV to be wrong. You didn't "refute" anything. Ignoring the passage and refusing to offer an argument in support of it is not a refutation! I responded to your arguments, I did not ignore them. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 24, 2019 19:23:02 GMT
But that much was true in the time of Augustus as well. Also, if God had made Adam a Jesus, then that would have been before the fall. Why, he could have made both Adam and Eve part God, like Jesus. Why couldn't Eve be the chosen one? I don't see how it's relevant whether they are virgins or not. And I couldn't understand your last sentence, there. First of all, the satan never tempted anyone except with God's express permission, even God's direct order. Second, if Satan is such a bad guy, why not destroy him, and then start over? Adam & Eve had to have free will. The reason Eve couldn't be the chosen one, was because she chose to disobey God. We live in a very hendonistic age, where few wait for marriage to lose our virginity. Leaving aside the debate of free will at the moment, didn't Jesus have free will? If Eve had been made to be the chosen one, she wouldn't have chosen to disobey God - that was kind of my point. There is nothing in Christian theology to support this. And indeed, if true, that would mean God can create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it. Also, isn't the devil supposed to be defeated in the Apocalypse? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 24, 2019 19:29:55 GMT
I actually disagree with you on this one. When I was a theist, I was certainly open to honestly exploring legitimate criticism of my faith and examining the positions the bible takes. I've also debated with several theists (as a current atheist) who are willing to re-examine what they think they knew about scripture, and have been in positions where they've had to alter or re-adjust their interpretation when presented with what it actually says. Though I will acknowledge many just bury their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't actually say what it does. OK. How can you possibly assert that when we all know that scripture is bogus, overly translated, badly interpreted and basically untrue in the first place? If the basic premise or foundations of any arguments are false, it really doesn't matter what detail and red herring people drag out! I’m not sure what it is you think I am asserting? I’m only asserting that there are multiple theist vs atheist arguments that exist independent of how the Bible is translated or interpreted. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 24, 2019 19:43:54 GMT
You didn't "refute" anything. Ignoring the passage and refusing to offer an argument in support of it is not a refutation! I responded to your arguments, I did not ignore them. I think you did. But let’s just test that. Respond to this: Leviticus 25:44-46“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.Is ^this one of God’s commandments, and does it say that the Hebrews are allowed to own people as property? Those are both yes or no questions. Exodus 21:20-21“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.Is ^this a commandment from God, and does it instruct the Hebrews that they are allowed to beat their slaves without punishment if the slave doesn’t die as a result? Again, it’s a yes or no question. Leviticus 20:13“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.Is ^this a commandment from God, and does it instruct the Hebrews to kill male homosexuals? Yes or no? Deuteronomy 22:28-29If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.Finally, is the above passage an instruction from God to his chosen people that if a man rapes a virgin, he is not to be punished at all, but rather has to pay the father and force his victim into a marriage? Yes or no? I don’t want to hear any excuses for why you think this is acceptable, fair, just, or moral.I only want to know if that’s what the scripture actually says. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jan 24, 2019 20:00:05 GMT
There is your first mistake... thinking you can improve on what God has already set.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 24, 2019 20:14:33 GMT
Adam & Eve had to have free will. The reason Eve couldn't be the chosen one, was because she chose to disobey God. We live in a very hendonistic age, where few wait for marriage to lose our virginity. Leaving aside the debate of free will at the moment, didn't Jesus have free will? If Eve had been made to be the chosen one, she wouldn't have chosen to disobey God - that was kind of my point. There is nothing in Christian theology to support this. And indeed, if true, that would mean God can create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it. Also, isn't the devil supposed to be defeated in the Apocalypse? Yes, Our Lord Jesus Had a Dual Nature, hence, He Had Free Will too, while He was on Earth. That is why, just after being Baptized by St. John in the wilderness, & shortly before beginning His Public Ministry, He Went off into the the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil. Our Lord Jesus Overcame those temptations, in order to show humanity that it is possible to resist the snares of the evil one!!! Defeated by the Apocalypse, yes. Doesn't mean that he is going to cease to exist, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 24, 2019 20:17:31 GMT
Leaving aside the debate of free will at the moment, didn't Jesus have free will? If Eve had been made to be the chosen one, she wouldn't have chosen to disobey God - that was kind of my point. There is nothing in Christian theology to support this. And indeed, if true, that would mean God can create a rock so heavy that not even he can lift it. Also, isn't the devil supposed to be defeated in the Apocalypse? Yes, Our Lord Jesus Had a Dual Nature, hence, He Had Free Will too, while He was on Earth. That is why, just after being Baptized by St. John in the wilderness, & shortly before beginning His Public Ministry, He Went off into the the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil. Our Lord Jesus Overcame those temptations, in order to show humanity that it is possible to resist the snares of the evil one!!! So what's the problem? Instead of Adam and Eve, create male and female Jesus. They would resist the temptation to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and all would be well. So defeat him before creating man, then. And again, problem solved. |
|
