Hillary: Kill the brown babies or you get no aid

[fossten]

Bob, I'd suggest you read the Bible. There isn't a man alive who actually knows firsthand what happens in the afterlife.

 

[foxpaws]

Do you believe that the fetus inside a woman's body is just a mass of lifeless tissue like Planned Parenthood preaches to its 'clients?' It's a yes or no question.

No - key word - 'believe'.

 

[foxpaws]

First, those options are not mutually exclusive.

??????

Second, we have had this discussion before. You know what my position is and you know that you are misrepresenting it and misrepresenting me in pretending my position has not been clearly articulated on this forum before.

No - shag - I really haven't seen where you weigh the two options within the context of the constitution - I have never seen how you deduce that 'pro life' is more 'constitutional' than 'pro choice'. If you have - you can just link to it...

For someone who eschews "labels" you seem pretty determined to pigeonhole my position as some cliche stereotype. Can your talking points only confront what you (mis)understand the stereotypical conservative position to be?

No labels - I haven't given you one shag - I personally don't know exactly where you stand on this - with regards to exceptions, etc. How could I give you a 'label'? Where have I labeled you - I would love to see that pull quote.

I have already answered this question. You are simply ignoring that. I am not going to waste time going 'round and 'round with you continuing to ignore my answers to your questions.

Stay classy.

Where have you answered these questions - you can just cut and paste them back in here if you have

a) How you deduce that 'pro life' is more 'constitutional' than 'pro choice'

b) what do you do with the mother as incubator scenario if beginning of life is defined as conception and protected by the constitution

 

[PetesSweets86]

Bob, I'd suggest you read the Bible. There isn't a man alive who actually knows firsthand what happens in the afterlife.

That's because that fairytale book ran out of ideas. Nowadays we are more inventive and newer technology/grapgics help.

 

[FIND]

Bob, I'd suggest you read the Bible. There isn't a man alive who actually knows firsthand what happens in the afterlife.

The bible was written by men.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob, I'd suggest you read the Bible. There isn't a man alive who actually knows firsthand what happens in the afterlife.

I must dissagree with you on this one.
There are many,many, me included, who have first hand experience as to life after death.
As I said above, I have tangible proof of life after death, and I am not alone in this proof.
There are many of us who are presently in contac with people who have passed on.
You may be a bit young to remember a show called "sightings".
It was on weekly some years ago.
In one of those segments a woman by the name of Sarah Estep was filming a segment where she was tape recording voices of people that passed on.
I have never met Ms Estep in person, but have talked with her on the phone frequently in years past.
The help I have received from her is unmeasurable.
In her later years she retired from the organization she founded, and presently her successors are moving forward guided by her doctrin.
I will get you a link to their web site so that you can see for yorself that indeed, there are many"man alive" as you called it, that actually DO have experience, and knowledge of the after life, and I include myself in that group.
As for reading the bible, for the most part it is nothing but a bunch of riddles.
I have never put much faith in it, but rather put all my faith in my creator, and myself.
I have never felt I needed the bible for any guidence.
I look to my creator for that.
Bob.
Bob.

 

[cammerfe]

It's been my experience that flip, glib, airy mouth-running usually masks a significant degree of terror regarding the subject. "Whistling past the graveyard"
KS

 

[PetesSweets86]

if I was a ghost I'd be a haunted penis, because I would f*ck with you day and night!
Or maybe a haunted motorcycle...I won't look like much, but sit on me, I'll scare the sh*t outta you!

 

[FIND]

As for reading the bible, for the most part it is nothing but a bunch of riddles.
I have never put much faith in it, but rather put all my faith in my creator, and myself.
I have never felt I needed the bible for any guidance.
I look to my creator for that.
Bob.

I must say, I appreciate and respect your stance on your own religious beliefs. In my opinion, far to many people look to the bible without thought or hesitation, instead of asking the question, "Could something written by men be as flawed as I am?" If one can strongly hold faith in a belief, and truly values those beliefs, one should be able to answer the WWJD questions without referring to books that have been rewritten many times over, often by corrupt men with an agenda. Not to say the church is corrupt or bad, I see religion and the church as a good thing generally speaking, but nothing man made can be perfect.

 

[fossten]

The bible was written by men.

The Bible, according to 1 Timothy 3:16-17, was inspired by God and copied down by men. Every word of it.

But I am curious - why do you think your statement is relevant? Have you ever read any parts of the Bible? All of it? Do you even know anything about it that you haven't had to google?

 

[fossten]

I must dissagree with you on this one.
There are many,many, me included, who have first hand experience as to life after death.
As I said above, I have tangible proof of life after death, and I am not alone in this proof.
There are many of us who are presently in contac with people who have passed on.
You may be a bit young to remember a show called "sightings".
It was on weekly some years ago.
In one of those segments a woman by the name of Sarah Estep was filming a segment where she was tape recording voices of people that passed on.
I have never met Ms Estep in person, but have talked with her on the phone frequently in years past.
The help I have received from her is unmeasurable.
In her later years she retired from the organization she founded, and presently her successors are moving forward guided by her doctrin.
I will get you a link to their web site so that you can see for yorself that indeed, there are many"man alive" as you called it, that actually DO have experience, and knowledge of the after life, and I include myself in that group.
As for reading the bible, for the most part it is nothing but a bunch of riddles.
I have never put much faith in it, but rather put all my faith in my creator, and myself.
I have never felt I needed the bible for any guidence.
I look to my creator for that.
Bob.
Bob.

I can understand you not wanting to read the Bible, given that its teachings would contradict some of your beliefs. Why burst your bubble.

I find it interesting that people who believe in seances and communicating with the dead are given credibility while those of us who believe in an invisible God are mocked and ridiculed.

So, you're putting your faith in a television show?

Let me ask you this, Bob - do you believe in a real, literal Hell?

 

[FIND]

The Bible, according to 1 Timothy 3:16-17, was inspired by God and copied down by men. Every word of it.

But I am curious - why do you think your statement is relevant? Have you ever read any parts of the Bible? All of it? Do you even know anything about it that you haven't had to google?

I have read the whole bible at least 3-4 times. I went to church regularly until I was 18. To answer why my statement is relevant, you could defer to my post immediately prior to yours. I was just making the statement however, that even if the bible was inspired by God, it was still written by men. Men do not, in my opinion, write exactly what God wants. On top of that, the bible has been through numerous translations and has had to suffer through the actions of corrupt men who have changed small portions. This is not to say that the Bible is worthless, this is only to say that if I had any religious devotion to it any more in my life, I would only view the Bible as a guide and a loose framework, and I would value my perception of God, and what I believe he wants from me far more than a book that in the end, traces back to men who are no more perfect than I am. I am curious though, do you know anything about the bible that you haven't read in it or been taught by the church?

 

[fossten]

I have read the whole bible at least 3-4 times. I went to church regularly until I was 18. To answer why my statement is relevant, you could defer to my post immediately prior to yours. I was just making the statement however, that even if the bible was inspired by God, it was still written by men. Men do not, in my opinion, write exactly what God wants.

Really? Even if He tells them what to write? If you've read the Bible, surely you're familiar with the consequences of disobedience to God, and also with the verses in the Bible where it talks about God preserving His word. I guess He's not such a powerful God after all, if he can't even keep the Bible together, is He?

On top of that, the bible has been through numerous translations and has had to suffer through the actions of corrupt men who have changed small portions.

While there are many flawed translations out there, there is one translation that has not 'suffered.' The KJV has come through unscathed.

This is not to say that the Bible is worthless,

Actually, that is exactly what you're saying. If man can't tell which parts to believe because some of the Bible is flawed, then the Bible as a whole is unreliable and God lied when He said He would preserve His word. Of course, that's exactly what is being taught in seminaries these days - textual criticism. I've had many gloriously satisfying debates with seminary graduates on this very subject. It's rather illuminating when I ask them which version is God's Word. You can't believe the answers I get.

this is only to say that if I had any religious devotion to it any more in my life, I would only view the Bible as a guide and a loose framework, and I would value my perception of God, and what I believe he wants from me far more than a book that in the end, traces back to men who are no more perfect than I am.

Actually, the Bible says that God values his word more than He values His own name. Furthermore, God doesn't give us wiggle room to cherrypick what commandments we want to obey. He simply says, "If you love me, keep my commandments." And 'in the end,' the Bible traces back to God, so you'd be incorrect on that point - unless you're choosing to disagree with that part of the Bible. 'Loose guide or framework' - I'm pretty sure you haven't read the Bible if you think that. It's anything but loose.

I am curious though, do you know anything about the bible that you haven't read in it or been taught by the church?

Interesting that you'd discount the church teaching and any extensive actual reading of the text - as though that isn't credible. Nevertheless - I've done extensive research into the history of the Bible, from the Masoretic text to the Septuagint to Origen to Westcott and Horte and the ERV to the NIV and the NASV, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, I've memorized several hundred verses and can find anything I'm looking for in a matter of seconds in an actual, physical Bible - not google. Do you have a question you'd like me to answer?

And one more question - I'm curious - which part or parts of the Bible do you NOT agree with, since you only view it as a 'loose guide or framework?' And why?

 

[FIND]

I'm not even going to get into the rest of it, because it is mostly opinion and faith argument, and you are entitled to your opinion, but this.....

While there are many flawed translations out there, there is one translation that has not 'suffered.' The KJV has come through unscathed.

You really think the King James Version is a true and accurate translation that had no added agenda...... Ok, seems you need to research the history of the bible a bit more. Maybe you missed all the things that were added to the bible at that time. For instance, witchcraft was never mentioned in the bible prior to KJV......


As far as the rest, I am not saying the bible is worthless, I don't see why you choose to read it that way. I am just saying you have to weigh what is in the bible with what you feel is good and god wants from you. Does God want you to kill witches? Does God want you to punish and imprison those who commit sodomy or are homosexual? If there is a God, I doubt he really wants much more from us than to be good to our fellow man, value the gift of life, and spread goodwill to others. Hold hands and sing goddamn kumbaya.

Do you believe God possesses the imperfect needs and desires of man? Does God need your worship or your praise? Do you really believe God would create you just to worship him? Do you believe that God would punish you for not doing so? If there is a God out there, I am sure all he wants is for you and I to cherish his work, put good back into it, and help others enjoy it. The commandments are in part, great rules, heck great common sense even.

For one last note, the bible clearly states many times that God does not control the hearts and minds of men. God may inspire men, gift them with visions and prophecy, but, how men interpret and record this is out of God's control, because God wants it that way. Sure God wants men to preserve his word, but this is also a test of man's faith. One could also say finding God's word is a test of faith. Blindly following men who claim to preach the word of God is not, in my opinion, true faith in God.

I have studied the bible to some extent, as well as the religious text and history of most major world religions. I have read the bible cover to cover. For you to state that, if I view the bible differently from you I have obviously not read it, is ignorance in the highest degree. I have a nice BIG hefty King James Bible handy even.... Well, it is in a box in the closet, but you know what I mean.

 

[shagdrum]

Personally I am against abortion. But I also support others rights to make that choice for themselves. Being pro-choice doesn't mean that everyone has to get abortions. I just respect the fact that people are capable of thinking for themselves and making moral decisions on their own. Therefore personally and politically speaking, I am pro-choice, I would just always choose not to be involved in abortion.

I think most people tend to hold a very similar view. While there are some people who claim to be "pro-choice" but are actually "pro-abortion", they are a minority. Most think abortion is morally reprehensible and a necessary evil at best.

My concern is mostly in what is and is not Constitutional. Neither position can point to the Constitution to justify it's position; there is no freedom in the Constitution that is clearly being infringed upon, one way or the other. So arguments about "freedom" in this are nothing but moral posturing and should be recognized as the specious arguments that they are. While the pro-life side can point to an actual right in the Constitution to justify their position it is unclear where the Framers viewed those Constitutional protections of life coming into play (outside of birth). Some may try and argue otherwise, but those arguments are, again, generally based in specious reasoning and half truths.

There are also some that try to point to science to justify their position, but this too is specious. Science is only good at empirically confirming weather the standards of life are met. However, those standards are not clearly defined and are completely arbitrary. Under certain standards, a fetus is clearly life from the moment of conception and under other standards, the fetus is not life until birth. It is relatively easy to see how this opens the door for self-serving standards being injected into the debate.

While the point of viability is a good halfway point, it is still an arbitrary determination and, ultimately, Unconstitutional as the Constitution doesn't give any indication as to when life begins. Roe v. Wade is unquestionably bad law (for a whole host of reasons). The courts should stay out of this altogether because the Constitution is mute on this issue and it should be left to the states.

Still, considering the very personal nature of this issue, it would still be inappropriate for government at any level to impose a law like this from the top down; through representatives passing a law. However, there is nothing wrong with the people of a society directly passing a law banning abortion or enshrining it as a right; a state wide (or smaller) referendum. If the people of a community decide to outlaw abortion, they have every right to do so from the ground up.

 

[fossten]

You really think the King James Version is a true and accurate translation that had no added agenda...... Ok, seems you need to research the history of the bible a bit more. Maybe you missed all the things that were added to the bible at that time. For instance, witchcraft was never mentioned in the bible prior to KJV......

As I have already said - I've done extensive research on this. And you're wrong. But since you didn't bother to present any evidence, I guess I don't have to either. Which Bible are you referring to, the Geneva Bible or the Latin Vulgate?

As far as the rest, I am not saying the bible is worthless, I don't see why you choose to read it that way. I am just saying you have to weigh what is in the bible with what you feel is good and god wants from you. Does God want you to kill witches? Does God want you to punish and imprison those who commit sodomy or are homosexual? If there is a God, I doubt he really wants much more from us than to be good to our fellow man, value the gift of life, and spread goodwill to others. Hold hands and sing goddamn kumbaya.

You're confusing Old Testament law, given specifically and solely to the Jews, with New Testament teaching, which did away with OT law. I wouldn't expect a nonbeliever who didn't study the Bible in church to understand the difference, though. What did you do, google 'contradictions in the bible'?

But to answer your question - no, God does not want me to kill witches and imprison gays. I'm subject to the laws of the country that I live in. Furthermore, Jesus commands us to love our enemies - how do I do that when I'm killing them?

However, if a witch commits an illegal act, or a homosexual sodomizes someone against his/her will or someone underage, and I'm a law enforcement officer, then I am commanded by the Bible to obey those who have the rule over me and arrest them.

It's also interesting that you choose to obey what you 'feel' what God wants and yet you mock those who wrote the Bible as being 'imperfect' men. That flies in the face of logic. In fact, the Bible teaches that our feelings are unreliable and in fact wicked. But you're not unusual - lots of people want to put the Bible in a box and cherrypick what they choose to follow and discard the rest. I'm sure you can find a website online that justifies homosexual behavior by taking Bible verses out of context, for example.

Let me ask you this - do you believe in sin?

Do you believe God possesses the imperfect needs and desires of man? Does God need your worship or your praise? Do you really believe God would create you just to worship him? Do you believe that God would punish you for not doing so? If there is a God out there, I am sure all he wants is for you and I to cherish his work, put good back into it, and help others enjoy it. The commandments are in part, great rules, heck great common sense even.

What do you think of the commandment not to have any other gods before God? What about the commandment not to commit adultery?

"If there is a God out there?" Are you an agnostic? Do you believe in Hell?

For one last note, the bible clearly states many times that God does not control the hearts and minds of men. God may inspire men, gift them with visions and prophecy, but, how men interpret and record this is out of God's control, because God wants it that way. Sure God wants men to preserve his word, but this is also a test of man's faith. One could also say finding God's word is a test of faith. Blindly following men who claim to preach the word of God is not, in my opinion, true faith in God.

You're trying to juxtapose the leadership of men with the preservation of God's word. That argument won't wash. You cannot link the two - the Bible clearly states that all Scripture is inspired by God. The Bible does not claim that faith in God is achieved by blindly following men. That's an enormous logical leap and a straw man argument - neither I nor anyone else here has made that claim. In fact, it's a gross misrepresentation of MY position, as I've already told you that I've gone far beyond just blind followership (as you put it) and have done my own extensive research on the subject.

So, your position is that God is powerless to preserve his word because man decided not to obey Him? But I thought your earlier argument was that we should follow what we 'feel' God would want us to do. If God goes the next step and TELLS us what to do, such as to write down certain words, are you saying that man would automatically disobey Him?

I have studied the bible to some extent, as well as the religious text and history of most major world religions. I have read the bible cover to cover. For you to state that, if I view the bible differently from you I have obviously not read it, is ignorance in the highest degree. I have a nice BIG hefty King James Bible handy even.... Well, it is in a box in the closet, but you know what I mean.

What I'm saying is that you don't even know the difference between OT and NT. That's pretty significant. You may have passed your eyes over the words of the entire Bible at some point - but you didn't comprehend what you read.

And you still haven't answered my question - which parts of the Bible are you following as a 'guide' and which parts do you reject?

 

[PetesSweets86]

we needa just kill plenty of people, save some resources....i raise my hand for another black plague


YouTube- Rampage, the final Scene

 

[foxpaws]

While the pro-life side can point to an actual right in the Constitution to justify their position it is unclear where the Framers viewed those Constitutional protections of life coming into play (outside of birth). Some may try and argue otherwise, but those arguments are, again, generally based in specious reasoning and half truths.

So - finally - you point to what - that the right of 'life' is what protects the fetus? That is how your scale skews to the pro-life position being 'stronger'? What article or amendment is that Shag?

So, nothing - because life isn't defined anywhere. Without the definition being 'formalized' I believe the pro choice camp has a better argument. Clearly the constitution bases rights on the occurrence of 'Birth' and not 'conception' or at any other juncture of devlopment.

And I still say that the founding fathers - by their allowing abortions to continue, with no government interference whatsoever - certainly have shown their 'hand' in the matter.

Still, considering the very personal nature of this issue, it would still be inappropriate for government at any level to impose a law like this from the top down; through representatives passing a law. However, there is nothing wrong with the people of a society directly passing a law banning abortion or enshrining it as a right; a state wide (or smaller) referendum. If the people of a community decide to outlaw abortion, they have every right to do so from the ground up.

Why would it be appropriate for a county to pass and enforce a 'no-abortion' law shag? Wouldn't they be stepping on the constitution which pretty much indicates rights begin when you are born. Throwing aside Roe v Wade - which was a poor decision, couldn't you argue this on the 'born' clauses within the constitution. The fact alone that you agree that to define when 'life' begins is a difficult task leads one to use the words that are already within the constitution.

 

[foxpaws]

You're confusing Old Testament law, given specifically and solely to the Jews, with New Testament teaching, which did away with OT law. I wouldn't expect a nonbeliever who didn't study the Bible in church to understand the difference, though. What did you do, google 'contradictions in the bible'?

Well, I still sort of like the 10 Commandments foss...

 

[fossten]

Well, I still sort of like the 10 Commandments foss...

Actually there are 12.

 

[fossten]

The fact alone that you agree that to define when 'life' begins is a difficult task leads one to use the words that are already within the constitution.

It's certainly above The Dear Leader's pay grade - he said so himself.

 

[FIND]

I think most people tend to hold a very similar view. While there are some people who claim to be "pro-choice" but are actually "pro-abortion", they are a minority. Most think abortion is morally reprehensible and a necessary evil at best.

My concern is mostly in what is and is not Constitutional. Neither position can point to the Constitution to justify it's position; there is no freedom in the Constitution that is clearly being infringed upon, one way or the other. So arguments about "freedom" in this are nothing but moral posturing and should be recognized as the specious arguments that they are. While the pro-life side can point to an actual right in the Constitution to justify their position it is unclear where the Framers viewed those Constitutional protections of life coming into play (outside of birth). Some may try and argue otherwise, but those arguments are, again, generally based in specious reasoning and half truths.

There are also some that try to point to science to justify their position, but this too is specious. Science is only good at empirically confirming weather the standards of life are met. However, those standards are not clearly defined and are completely arbitrary. Under certain standards, a fetus is clearly life from the moment of conception and under other standards, the fetus is not life until birth. It is relatively easy to see how this opens the door for self-serving standards being injected into the debate.

While the point of viability is a good halfway point, it is still an arbitrary determination and, ultimately, Unconstitutional as the Constitution doesn't give any indication as to when life begins. Roe v. Wade is unquestionably bad law (for a whole host of reasons). The courts should stay out of this altogether because the Constitution is mute on this issue and it should be left to the states.

Still, considering the very personal nature of this issue, it would still be inappropriate for government at any level to impose a law like this from the top down; through representatives passing a law. However, there is nothing wrong with the people of a society directly passing a law banning abortion or enshrining it as a right; a state wide (or smaller) referendum. If the people of a community decide to outlaw abortion, they have every right to do so from the ground up.

Well, those are opinions at best. The argument of where life begins is the root of the problem when it comes to abortion. Outside of that, nothing in the constitution has anything to do with abortion

 

[shagdrum]

The argument of where life begins is the root of the problem when it comes to abortion. Outside of that, nothing in the constitution has anything to do with abortion

Unforunately, the issue of where life begins cannot be objectively answered, nor textually in the Constitution or any Founding document. In that case, it is not the place of elected officials to determine where life begins. The best way to answer that question is for society to decide that directly in some fashion; from thebottum up. Weather it be a local or even state level referendum or a Constitutional Amendment to state where life begins.

Anything above a state level referendum (like a Constitutional Amendment) is politically unrealistic, in my view.

 

[FIND]

As I have already said - I've done extensive research on this. And you're wrong. But since you didn't bother to present any evidence, I guess I don't have to either. Which Bible are you referring to, the Geneva Bible or the Latin Vulgate?

You're confusing Old Testament law, given specifically and solely to the Jews, with New Testament teaching, which did away with OT law. I wouldn't expect a nonbeliever who didn't study the Bible in church to understand the difference, though. What did you do, google 'contradictions in the bible'?

See, you are really quick to ad hominem attacks. I haven't googled anything, nor have I looked up anything. I am speaking purely from memory, and at the disadvantage of having not seriously had this kind of discussion in over a decade. If I were to google this, I am certain I could present a better argument. However my aim is not to change your beliefs, I was simply stating that a different belief is justifiable, and given the image of God I have, acceptable as long as one lives a good life. Also, if as you say, the new testament does away with old testament law, and they both come from god, then why didn't god just give you the correct rules to begin with? Why did he give people a false religion for hundreds of years prior to sending out baby Jesus?

It's also interesting that you choose to obey what you 'feel' what God wants and yet you mock those who wrote the Bible as being 'imperfect' men. That flies in the face of logic. In fact, the Bible teaches that our feelings are unreliable and in fact wicked. But you're not unusual - lots of people want to put the Bible in a box and cherrypick what they choose to follow and discard the rest. I'm sure you can find a website online that justifies homosexual behavior by taking Bible verses out of context, for example.

I wouldnt know what you can find online about that. I don't bother looking around. As far as teaching us that our feelings are unreliable and wicked? Self-loathing, are you a Catholic? I mock no one (except maybe Catholics in that last sentence, but it was light-hearted). All men are imperfect. Writing stories 1600-1700 years ago that had been passed around for centuries as a purely oral tradition does not make a man perfect or a saint. The people who originally told the stories were long dead before they were written down anyways.

As far as any religious person saying that ANYTHING when it comes to interpretation of religion "flies in the face of logic" is illogical. Faith has nothing to do with logic.

As far as what the bible teaches..... well, of the thousands of versions out there, I can say with 100% accuracy that NONE of them say exactly what the books said 1700 years ago. If you have done as much "research" as you have claimed, you would know that too. There is a reason the church along with the thousands of individuals who do so, research the bible and its history, along with the history of the church. Because what is written down in the history books isn't necessarily the truth. Ask any REAL religious or historical scholar, and they will tell you the same thing. What is important is that you find your own faith, which you have obviously done. The problem is you seem to think that everyone else should have the exact same faith as you instead of helping them find their own faith. You get drawn into the trap of saying that you need to accept the bible on faith because it is God's word, then say that people need to accept it as God's word because the bible says so.

Let me ask you this - do you believe in sin?

That is a very, very vague question.

What do you think of the commandment not to have any other gods before God? What about the commandment not to commit adultery?

Do not have any other god before God..... sounds like a very self-serving commandment for a perfect being without any need. Do you really believe that God created you to worship him? Do not commit adultery... Common sense should teach people that.

"If there is a God out there?" Are you an agnostic? Do you believe in Hell?

No, I do not believe in hell, yes, I am agnostic.

You're trying to juxtapose the leadership of men with the preservation of God's word. That argument won't wash. You cannot link the two - the Bible clearly states that all Scripture is inspired by God. The Bible does not claim that faith in God is achieved by blindly following men. That's an enormous logical leap and a straw man argument - neither I nor anyone else here has made that claim. In fact, it's a gross misrepresentation of MY position, as I've already told you that I've gone far beyond just blind follower-ship (as you put it) and have done my own extensive research on the subject.

I did not claim you or the bible said any such thing either. You are presenting a straw man. I stated that following the beliefs without weighing them against your own faith and belief would be foolhardy. Therefore the bible, belief in god, and the teachings of the church are only worth what your perception of god tells you. If you do not weigh your faith every now and then, then you are just accepting these things without any justification. Therefore, if one blindly followed the teachings of the church and the bible, then their faith is worthless.

So, your position is that God is powerless to preserve his word because man decided not to obey Him? But I thought your earlier argument was that we should follow what we 'feel' God would want us to do. If God goes the next step and TELLS us what to do, such as to write down certain words, are you saying that man would automatically disobey Him?

That, would be a test of faith.

What I'm saying is that you don't even know the difference between OT and NT. That's pretty significant. You may have passed your eyes over the words of the entire Bible at some point - but you didn't comprehend what you read.

Once again, a very ignorant view. Just because I don't agree means that I don't comprehend it huh? Typical right-wing response BTW.

And you still haven't answered my question - which parts of the Bible are you following as a 'guide' and which parts do you reject?

I reject all of it. For what it is worth, I reject other religious text I have read as well.

 

[shagdrum]

So - finally - you point to what - that the right of 'life' is what protects the fetus?

Are you determined to misrepresent me? I couldn't have stated my views more clearly and you are still misrepresenting them.

Wouldn't they be stepping on the constitution which pretty much indicates rights begin when you are born.

The Constitution indicates no such thing.

Throwing aside Roe v Wade - which was a poor decision, couldn't you argue this on the 'born' clauses within the constitution.

Now you are making up clauses in the Constitution?!

That is more then a little presumptuous and self-serving.

The fact alone that you agree that to define when 'life' begins is a difficult task leads one to use the words that are already within the constitution.

The Constitution does not give any indication where life begins. Yet you are now claiming it does.

On the one hand, you chastise those who distort the Constitution toward their own Pro-Life ends, and other hand, you distort the Constitution toward your own Pro-Choice ends.

Given the fact that you are distorting what I say and distorting the Constitution in this discussion, you clearly are incapable of honest reasonable discussion on the issue of abortion (as you have show before on this forum).

Stay Classy.