namelesstavern.net

Donnel wrote:My word woman. Learn to follow a conversation!

Shall I repeat for you or can you scroll up?

Brin* wrote:actually your bible doesn't ever mention abortion

Me wrote:He did say "Thou shalt not kill"

Kizzy wrote:I enjoy not paying attention and going on non sequitors

Yes it is very clear that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, God thinks that abortion is killing. So in the context of the preceding conversation, I'm right, you are wrong.

Now whether you choose to agree or disagree is your own right. Just because it's YOUR belief that killing babies is a-ok and a woman's right to choose, doesn't mean I should. Stop trying to force your beliefs on me. (see what I did there?)

I think what your statment is missing is "I Beleive". Any person who says they "know" what the bible means, doesn't know jack. They can have faith that they understand it, they can beleive they understand it, but unless you wrote it, you dont "know" (as in fact) that your take on it is actually correct.

Anytime somone says the bible says X or the bible says Y, unless its actually in there word for word, it should be replaced with IMO the bible implies this or IMO, this is what is meant by what the bible says.

Thou shalt not kill isn't a belief system. It is actually part of our societies ethics, also.

The fact human life begins at conception is and will always remain a fact.

Notice, no beliefs. Just truths.

Your analogy of what Donnell is saying misses the simple light of what he represented.

Arguing for killing human life at it's beginning is part of that rather simple right and wrong thing.

You don't have to infer things from the Bible when they are stated clearly.

Thou shalt not kill isn't a belief system. It is actually part of our societies ethics, also

"Thou shalt not kill" Doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Even in the bible, there are many instances where it says you should kill. Many people are for the death penalty, which is killing. Many people are for war which involves killing.

The fact human life begins at conception is and will always remain a fact.

Acutally thats only a fact if you define the start of human life as the moment of conception. This in itself has been debated for some time.

Donnel wrote:You don't have to infer things from the Bible when they are stated clearly.

Give an example of something that isn't actually written word for word that you dont need to infer.

Okay but my point was that there are things that ARE written word for word, that you don't need to infer.

No, ones life began at conception. No earlier or later.

Killing is killing. We aren't discussing moral ambiguities or tangenting as you are, but representing simple truths. Killing the innocent leaves even less wiggle room.

Oh and I forget. I keep saying "Thou shalt not kill" but it's more properly translated "Thou shalt not murder".

Big difference there. A subtle difference, but important at any rate.

God murders quite a few people in the same bible that gives thou the commandments. and i'm sure more than one was innocent. so does that damn God?

more or less so than a single woman getting an abortion? more or less so than a soldier who kills an enemy trying to shoot him? more or less so than the pilots who dropped atomic bombs on Japan? more or less so than a district attorney who gets the death penalty for an admitted mass murderer?

edit - maybe this should be moved to Holy Discussion btw

If you say something like, Abortion is wrong based on how I interpret the bible, which is all well and good, I may disagree but that’s your opinion. However if you say abortion is wrong because the bible says it is, then I will dispute that because the bible doesn't say abortion is wrong, you are the one who says abortion is wrong based on how you have read and understand different passages in the bible.

Now if you say something like, based on the killing is wrong. Then I would say you are making a factual statement because the bible does clearly say killing is wrong which is clearly understood word for word in “Thou shalt not killâ€

Thon wrote:God murders quite a few people in the same bible that gives thou the commandments. and i'm sure more than one was innocent. so does that damn God?

more or less so than a single woman getting an abortion? more or less so than a soldier who kills an enemy trying to shoot him? more or less so than the pilots who dropped atomic bombs on Japan? more or less so than a district attorney who gets the death penalty for an admitted mass murderer?

edit - maybe this should be moved to Holy Discussion btw

God is justified in whatever he does, so no, it doesn't damn God.

I second the call to move into Holy Discussion.

All in favor?

lyion wrote:No, ones life began at conception. No earlier or later.

Again that is your opinion, which very many will disagree with. Entire books have been written on this debate.

Man trying to understand God is akin to an insect trying to comprehend quantum mechanics. For me I'll stick to things in my personal search for truth, and learn and grow as a simple but educated man.

Broad tangents and someones spiritual search do not change the simple moral question of should the innocent be protected. Feel free to throw questions for God his way, and not any of ours. Equivocation is not a solution, answer, or excuse.

In regards to why things happen, as the Supreme Being in Time Bandits says, it has something to do with free will.

OMG! I thought that was a real spell for a second... Maybe I am afflicted by it too?

sooooo, it's not quite so simple as wrong and right, or black and white. there are exceptions. or at the very least there is 1 admitted exception. doesn't seem much like a Law to me

lyion wrote:No, ones life began at conception. No earlier or later.

Killing is killing. We aren't discussing moral ambiguities or tangenting as you are, but representing simple truths. Killing the innocent leaves even less wiggle room.

this is a rediculous comment, you are putting forth an opinion and claiming it's a fact, thats the kind of bs mindia does.

killing is an act, there is no ethical or moral angle to it, I can kill a bug, kill a switch or kill a person, it all depends on what is being killed. There are also a lot of people who consider the death penalty (killing somebody) morally wrong and others don't have a problem with it. There really is no universal right and wrong, it's all shades of gray depending on situations and beliefs.

gah, that death penalty thing is a great point.

how are all y'all conservatives (more than) okay with the death penalty, but raise such a stink about abortion? honestly, if you take "thou shalt not kill" literally, then killing is killing is killing, whether or not you believe there is a just "reason."

if a person has a "reason" for administering the death penalty, then couldn't another person have just as valid a "reason" for getting an abortion? who are we to say who is allowed to kill whom, based on society's warped version of morals? there is no right or wrong answer.

just for the record: i personally would never get an abortion, and furthermore think that putting a baby up for adoption is a much more morally driven option than abortion; i am also firmly against the death penalty.

Apples and oranges leah.

What did the baby do to deserve death other then be conceived in the womb of someone who doesn't want her?

What did all those unfertilized eggs do to get chucked in the garbage on a dirty rag?

What did all those sperm do to get washed off the tiles of your bathroom wall?

Pffft shows what you know, I don't wash my bathroom walls.

Donnel wrote:Apples and oranges leah.

What did the baby do to deserve death other then be conceived in the womb of someone who doesn't want her?

i thought there was no room to infer when it comes to thou shalt not kill

My feelings on the death penalty and abortion are not contradictory, no matter how much you want to think they are. :-)

Do you eat meat? THen you are going to hell, because the Bible says THOU SHALT NOT KILL, and Poor Porky gve his life for my bacon sandwich this morning.

Please please please stop putting Pat Robertson in with real conservatives.

He is not our spokesman.

I notice you didn't mention Falwell. And when I see the GOP publicly disown Robertson and Falwell and others of their ilk of the Religious Right, I'll stop mentioning them. As of right now, however, they have tremendous influence politically with the GOP.

Oh, and Lyion, the statement of "Human life begins at conception" is your OPINION. By no means is it anything remotely approaching fact. Indeed, when human life begins is something argued in philosophical circles endlessly, and it's not something you can ever resolve or settle. It's a personal belief statement, not a scientific one, regardless of how much you might like it to be.

In any case, going back to the original point of this thread, while I would far prefer the Religious Right to simply up and disappear rather than have a Religious Left rise in power and importance, I somehow don't think it's going to happen. So, I don't mind these guys gaining some influence, if only to show middle america that liberals don't hate religion itself; you can be entirely religious and still be liberal. It's just we object to making laws and policy based on a religious faith.

-Arlos

The Kizzy wrote:Do you eat meat? THen you are going to hell, because the Bible says THOU SHALT NOT KILL, and Poor Porky gve his life for my bacon sandwich this morning.

Left field called, they miss you.