patrick.net

Decisions Decisions........ Abortion or Starvation ?

leoj707 says

If you were in a burning hospital, and on your right was a crying baby, and at you left was a tray of 100 test tubes with fertilized eggs waiting for implant into there human mothers. You only have time to grab one. What do you do? Save the one human, or the 100 humans?

One might say that all of them are human babies... Easy answer... what you do is grab the test tubes and tape them around the baby with medical tape - and wrap the live baby's head in a turban. Then throw the live baby covered in test tubes out the window and it'll be caught by the fire department that is waiting outside. If there's any doubt, yell that it's a baby terrorist operative and the test tubes are explosives (you're not lying, they came from an explosion of sperm at one point)...

You'll have saved the life of 101 babies but ruined the lfie of one of them (they'll sentence the live baby to life in prison, probably federal prison where it will learn to play golf and gain a college edumacation).

Of course, if you stuff ten of the test tubes in your shorts and save yourself as well, you can implant them in your wife and become famous as the Decamom... (if you implant all 100 in her, she'd be the hectomom). You'd be famous, with a reality show and your wife would have multiple offers to "act" in porn. You'd be set for life, and with any luck some of the children would be intelligent and self-sufficient some day.

The only way that you could top that would be to implant them in Lindsay Lohan or Kim Kardashian.

Please, Leo, ask more difficult questions.

Bap33 says

tatupu, America has had many rapists put to death. You knew that. And the entire Arab nation has rape carry a MANDATORY death sentance. Is the Arab nation uncivilized?

I stand corrected. I was not aware that some states still had the death penalty for rapists. It almost never happens, but you are right that it has happened.

In any event, my scenario was someone taking the law into their own hands and ending the life of the rapist that was found not guilty. That is most certainly against the law in all states.

Finally, it's a bit ironic that you are using Islamic law to back your point. According to many Arab states, terrorism is killing, not murder.

tatupu70 says

According to many Arab states, terrorism is killing, not murder.

Yes, and according to them they are following god's law.

tatupu70 says

In any event, my scenario was someone taking the law into their own hands and ending the life of the rapist that was found not guilty. That is most certainly against the law in all states.

Yes, and even if found guilty I it is still against the law for a citizen to take it upon themselves to kill the rapist.

Bap33 says

Leo, I'd save the living baby first.

But, aren't they all living humans? Some are just pre-baby, humans, just as a child is a post-baby human. You would still sacrifice 100 human lives to save 1? Well, I appreciate your honesty.

Bap33 says

I never, ever, ever, suggested that it was possible to follow God's Law, as I firmly believe MAN can't do it.

Why not? I don't think there are any laws that are impossible to follow. I don't see anywhere where god's law commands things like, "every forth and twentieth day thou must flapist thou's arms and floatith in the sky above the tops of thine house." That would be an impossible law to follow.

It is just that some of god's law are inconvenient and/or abhorrent so "believers" choose to cherry pick around them. Also, some of god's laws come into conflict with man's law, and once again "believers" choose man's law over god's.

What of god's law do you find impossible to follow?

Bap33 says

But, you keep talking about "legal killing" in the context of the 10Cs, and now you see how that makes no sense .. right?

You are correct in that it does not make any sense with regard to man's law, but it makes perfect sense in the context of god's law. What other law would god have been referring to when he said, "thou shall not illegally kill"?

Bap33 says

If the Law of the Land is no gays married and no smoing dope, where is all of the support for changes to those laws coming from?

Well, the law of the land can and does change over time, depending on what the current society values. Currently we are in transition where most people value the right for gays to marry, and the right to smoke pot, so the laws are slowly changing.

This is very similar to the way believers cherry pick around god's law depending on what their internal values are. Any set of values can be justified in the bible as long as you are wiling to ignore parts of the bible.

elliemae says

Please, Leo, ask more difficult questions.

Ah, ha ha, yeah that is a lot closer to the answers I usually will get to that question. No direct answer, but a lot of attempts to change the situation so that the question can be avoided.

Leo,
If you break one itty bitty portion of any one of God's laws you are guilty. You are just as guilty as if you had broke them all. The is no "degrees" of sin. All of the laws are impossible for any one man, other than Jesus, to follow.

The Commandment given to Moses "do not commit murder". Your view that it poits to some "legal" killing is a twist is the timing of things. There was no such thing as laws concerning any killing when the Commandment was given. The 10Cs introduced the concept of law to man, law did not bring about the 10Cs.

You are correct, the laws of man change. But, you also said you are to follow the laws of the land. ANd then you said men change their laws over time. This means you can be guilty today and not guilty tomorrow, or vise versa. Bad idea, these changing laws.
OTOH, God's law does not change. That is one reason I think the liberal minds do not like God or his laws. It's that whole, "absolute right and absolute wrong" thing that they do not like.

Bap33 says

That is one reason I think the liberal minds do not like God or his laws.

Such a generalization, and you're dead wrong. Liberals and Conservatives are descriptions of political beliefs, certainly not a guage of whether they like God or his laws. That's demeaning.

Religion is subjective and completely separate from science, politics, and reality. It's a belief system. To make such generalizations negates the possibility that some people believe simply because they believe.

You are having an interwebs chat with a person, not an entire group of liberals. If you believe that you are expected to be the voice that instructs and attempts to educate your perception of an entire group's failed belief system, you will find that you failed miserably.

Meanwhile, the world didn't end and I'm not sure when to plan for the next ending...

Bap33 says

The is no "degrees" of sin

Really ?

This tells us a lot about you. I guess if you murdered a few people in your past, you need to feel no more guilty about it than I should feel about the times I told my parents lies about what I had been doing that night
(back in the 70s), or the time I shoplifted a hockey puck (at about age 11). If there is a God who judges us, and judges these sins as equally bad, there are two conclusions one could reach that are not what you would want people to conclude.

One conclusion would be total lack of respect or belief in a God who would have such a messed up AND WRONG system.

Even worse, a truly evil person (evil to the core ??) could feel justified committing murder and terrible sins, knowing that he was no worse than the average person who tells occasional white lies, or feels lust towrards a hot woman etc..

Either way, you've expressed a new low (intellectually) with this "there are no degrees of sin."

I know you know better. Why build an argument

Bap33 says

That is one reason I think the liberal minds do not like God or his laws. It's that whole, "absolute right and absolute wrong" thing that they do not like.

Why build an argument around such BS ?

News flash: THere may be a lot of agnostics and atheists around here, who are from your ultra right wing perspective, liberal, and you think that correlates highly with being non religious. There may be some correlation there, but being non religious probably correlated more highly with being highly educated (not cause and effect), than it does political party.

I am probably on the believer side of agnostic, but I have a not so well defined spirituality, based on what the brain God gave me allows me to perceive.

I guess I'm fortunate not to have the authoritarian tendencies you do.
I don't need to have answers for nearly as many things you do. Therefore I am not as wrong as you are.

IF I were to be judged, let it be for the harm I do in the world or the good. Can harm be quantified ? Yes.

Are there sins that don't harm others ? Yes. Are there sins that harm no one ? I don't know.

For the record there are 10s of millions of religious church going liberals in this country. (Maybe not in certain regions).

I guess part of your "logic" for being a right winger is that you feel you have God on your side. You kind of are our resident representative as to why religion is bad. But it doesn't affect me. I know a few extremely together people who are religious.

ellie,
I was not using the term in a political form ... was I? I ment to use liberal to indicate the mind set that refuses the exisitance of absolutes, and that sees more gray and less black and white ... the ones that wonder what the word "is" means, or what "murder" really means, or that will not have a convicted murdering rapist put to death, but will support a healthy baby being ripped to pieces in the womb. That was the way I meant to be using "liberal mind", not in any political sense. And from the paticular form of the word I was suggesting that God's never-changing laws were not very popular with liberals, while they do put up with the laws of man that they personally feel are worth following. If my use of liberal is not correct, please be willing to give me a more correct adjective to describe such folks, as my vocabulary is limited -- and you know this! lol. Thanks.

p.s., I'm writing this from my pod on Planet X Niburu

marcus says

Either way, you've expressed a new low (intellectually) with this "there are no degrees of sin."

and with this you show a complete lack of knowing. There is no degree of sin where God's Law (the topic here) is concerned - period. Do a google search or something and get back to me about how right I am. Thanks.

You spent a fair amount of effort distinguishing between killing and murder, which is a very good example of identifying "degrees of sin."

But because of your authoritarian personality, you need to frame it as absolute good (or okay) killing .......versus absolute bad, murder. The truth is they are both bad, it's just that one is worse than the other.

This is degrees of sin.

God's law may not be trying put weights or scores on sin to identify the magnitude of sins. But fortunately everyone was given enough sense to know that some sins are far worse than others.

Bap33 says

ellie,
I was not using the term in a political form ... was I? I ment to use liberal to indicate the mind set that refuses the exisitance of absolutes, and that sees more gray and less black and white ...

Dictionary.com says

1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism. 4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

You go on to say that, to you, "liberal" means that God's never changing laws aren't popular with the liberals... But an example is mormonism, that changes the book of mormon with the times. It's been documented that the BoM removed the part about men living on the moon after we found no men on the moon, changed the doctrines of allowing men to have plural marriages in order to be accepted as a state, allowing black people to hold the priesthood... yet the mormon church is notoriously conservative in its views and political leanings.

Bap, you appear to assign the word "liberal" with your own meaning to people who believe differently than you do.

You can package it however you want, slap it silly and call it susan - but it doesn't make it anything more than your story.

People are unpredictable, and assigning labels in order to understand them is a tedious, never-ending task.

Insofar as abortion, it is a huge sin in the mormon church (I use mormon because I live in the land of mormons). When I was younger, I drove more than one young mormon woman to get an abortion because her family, church and peers wouldn't help. Around these parts, you're an outcast slut if you have an unwed pregnancy, yet there's no support for birth control. This very conservative area has a high incidence of prescription drug use, meth and alcoholism.

But they're conservative, damnit - and by definition I guess that makes them good?

Liberal is a political label. Why not say, "People whose belief systems are different than mine?" It would be more truthful.

marcus says

You spent a fair amount of effort distinguishing between killing and murder, which is a very good example of identifying "degrees of sin."

But because of your authoritarian personality, you need to frame it as absolute good (or okay) killing .......versus absolute bad, murder. The truth is they are both bad, it's just that one is worse than the other.

This is degrees of sin.

God's law may not be trying put weights or scores on sin to identify the magnitude of sins. But fortunately everyone was given enough sense to know that some sins are far worse than others.

no, they are not both sin and you are wrong, if we are both using the same Bible. Death itself is only part of man's existance due to sin, but the act of killing someone is not a sin if is just, while murder is always a sin. So is having anger towards another person. Both are sin, both are enough to keep you outof heaven without grace. But, you are 100% wrong to say killing another is a sin based on anthing I have read in the hebrew Bible.

ellie,
I have said Joe Smith was wrong. Those that follow the BoM are being lied to. And that religion is a GREAT example of a "liberal" religion, even if all of the folks that attend have conservative political views.
I do not lump folks into the lib catagory for not having the same view as mine, but the fact that most folks that disagree with me tend to be liberal may play a part, right?
The rest of your post supports my point that no man can follow God's Law. Not even super-religous zelot types.

Bap33 says

I have said Joe Smith was wrong. Those that follow the BoM are being lied to. And that religion is a GREAT example of a "liberal" religion, even if all of the folks that attend have conservative political views.

You do realize that there are a bunch of people who disagree with you on this point, right? So far as "God's Law," I'll gladly follow this law as soon as he appears in front of me and explains to me what his law is.

Many people are out there who want others to follow their interpretation of "God's law." What a load of crap - everyone has an agenda. All ya gotta do is write a book and get other people to buy into it and you've got a religion. This isn't just an explanation of mormonism or scientology - it's also easily applied to christianity and basically all other religions.

Be a good person and it's all good. Preaching to others about what is sin and what is murder merely leads to arguments no one will win.

elliemae says

I'll gladly follow this law as soon as he appears in front of me and explains to me what his law is.

elliemae says

Be a good person and it's all good.

Here's a genius, explaining more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Joe Pesci is God:)

thanks, i needed that!

elliemae says

his isn't just an explanation of mormonism or scientology - it's also easily applied to christianity and basically all other religions.

even in their own scripture this Jesus guy doesn't say anything about a lot of the stuff present-day Christianists want to legislate.

And much of the stuff he does talk about explicitly, they call Godless socialism.

Go figure.

I don't want to legislate anything.
Can you give some examples?

Vicente:
I have to apologize for my berating you over my "last meal." I was kinda bitter when I ate at McDonald's, when I could have eaten at... probably another crappy fast food restaurant.

The world didn't end, I still gotta do the dishes and patnet posters continue to quote the bible as the answer to it all.

Bap33 says

When Noah finally stepped from the Ark, it had been hundreds of years, and the first major change God made was to reduce the number of years a man lives. The sun would now come to Earth through clouds and water vapor, making a rainbow possible. That is the sign that God uses to promise man he wont flood Earth again. Next time, he takes us out with fire.

Guess we're too late... the Donald hath spoken

elliemae says

Vicente:
I have to apologize for my berating you over my "last meal." I was kinda bitter when I ate at McDonald's, when I could have eaten at... probably another crappy fast food restaurant.

Well, you do live in Utah after all, so here's what you should have been cramming down your gullet:

But don't feel so bad, we won another reprieve. I'm sure it was due to the PURE CLEAN LIVING or maybe Angel Moroni wasn't ready for us quite yet.... or something.

Me, I'm thinking some place where everybody knows my name.....

cheers was funny

Bap33 says

OTOH, God's law does not change. That is one reason I think the liberal minds do not like God or his laws. It's that whole, "absolute right and absolute wrong" thing that they do not like.

God's law is what people say it is. There are several different bibles. Most of them are bastardizations of the original Greek having gone through one or more intervals since then and reinterpreted and retranslated by humans.

Furthermore, one of the biggest changes for many Protestant faiths is that people have more of a direct connection to god rather than having to go through a priest. In Catholicism, god's law is what the Pope or your local priest says it is. In many Protestant faiths, it's what god told you it is.

Last, as ellie said, I don't know what believing in brightline rules has anything to do with liberal or conservative. That's silly.

Bap33 says

If you break one itty bitty portion of any one of God's laws you are guilty. You are just as guilty as if you had broke them all. The is no "degrees" of sin.

Actually, Catholics make a difference between venial sins and mortal sins, but you probably think they are blasphemers, since you're a fundie.

Bap33 says

I ment to use liberal to indicate the mind set that refuses the exisitance of absolutes, and that sees more gray and less black and white ...

Yes, this is the nonsense definition that you made up because it's your own personal belief and has absolutely nothing to do with most other people's definition of liberal and conservative.

What's funny is that any Protestant faith is liberal with respect to Catholicism. Catholicism is the OG. Everyone else wanted change -- i.e. liberal.

corntrollio says

What's funny is that any Protestant faith is liberal with respect to Catholicism. Catholicism is the OG. Everyone else wanted change -- i.e. liberal.

Yes. And with his authoritarian personality, if he had been around and a Catholic in the time of Martin Luther, he would have been WILDY opposed to the radical who wanted to break away from the one true Christianity.

OF course I don't even think that fundamentalists call themselves protestants or even know that they are. They just think (and are told) that they have the one true Christianity, and that all the others are wrong.

I had a FANTASTIC Pizza Margherita, and some good beer tonight. Sitting outdoors by a warm fire.

I'll make this a weekly thing until the Friday when it finally DOES all come to an end.

corntrollio says

Furthermore, one of the biggest changes for many Protestant faiths is that people have more of a direct connection to god rather than having to go through a priest. In Catholicism, god's law is what the Pope or your local priest says it is. In many Protestant faiths, it's what god told you it is.

wrong, but that doesn't tend to stop you from continuing, so enjoy.

Catholicism is far far far from following anything God had in mind.

And, if you don't mind, tell me what Bible the greeks wrote, please.

Here's some info for that subject:
The Old Testament was written from approximately 1400 B.C. to approximately 400 B.C.
The Old Testament was written over a period of some centuries as noted above. Moses wrote the first five books known as the Pentateuch, which included the editing of Genesis into its final form from oral or earlier written records. In this latter regard some scholars consider that Abraham himself wrote much of Genesis, since we now know that writing was in use for centuries before Abraham. His birth in 2161 BC would then date his writing considerably earlier than Moses, probably done during his time in Canaan. These tablets would then have been preserved and handed down to eventually come into the hands of Moses. In terms of preservation it is worth noting that this is a very small time considering that tablets have been found in the 20th Century which date to around this time. This theory, known as the 'Tablet Theory' is advanced by some Bible scholars to explain the 'toledoth phrases' found in a number of places in Genesis which mark the end of a tablet dealing with a particular subject. This theory dates the original writing somewhat earlier than its final edited form which would be what has been handed down to us.
Some scholars say that the formal beginnings of the Old Testament took place during the seventh-century BCE reign of King Josiah of Judah, when an anonymous source, now known as the Deuteronomist, collected the earlier writings of sources known as the Yahwist and the Elohist and added new material of his own, to begin the development of the Pentateuch. The Priestly source amended the work of the Deuteronomist and added further new material. Then the Redactor created the Pentateuch in much the form we know today. Gradually over the centuries that followed, up until the third century BCE, other books were written and added to the collection of scriptures from which the Council of Jamnia, in about 90 CE, selected those books considered worthy of inclusion in the Hebrew Bible, or Old testament.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_Old_Testament_written#ixzz1ccVXUl33

@Vincent,
Great idea.

Vicente says

I'll make this a weekly thing until the Friday when it finally DOES all come to an end.

It would really suck if the world were to end on a thursday and you missed that final meal by one day...

Bap33 says

Catholicism is far far far from following anything God had in mind.

Really, bashing other religions I see.

Bap33 says

All of the fresh water that we now have was still wrapped around Earth in a large ice sheet in the upper atmosphere.

I worship ice, and my God would never let my ice just hang out in the upper atmosphere doing nothing.

Blasphemy!

Not Sure says

The world didn't end on Friday, Oct 21st, but the UNITED STATES definitely croaked in 2008

Is that when you got your first computer?

Bap33 says

Catholicism is far far far from following anything God had in mind.

Again, it's hard to take you seriously if you're going to start with that. It's also impossible to reconcile that statement with your statement that what your religion says is god's law and not man's. Your liberal sect of fundamentalism wouldn't exist without the conservative sect of Catholics.

Bap33 says

And, if you don't mind, tell me what Bible the greeks wrote, please.

You're not reading what I said correctly -- I said the bible was written in Greek. If I were to be more precise (although I was going with the assumption that we were talking about Revelations, since that's the theme of this thread), I would have said the New Testament was written in Greek, since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20030227.html

dude, you are wrong.
God's law is OT and was verbal for centuries until sumerians wrote it down ... the first thing they wrote too ... weird.
Catholic is just a bunch of man rules. It has no special place in God's Church.
I do not see were I mentioned Revelations in any post. God's Law was first, that I did say. Greeks wrote lots of stuff, so what?

What is "my religion" dude?

Bellingham Bill says

elliemae says

his isn't just an explanation of mormonism or scientology - it's also easily applied to christianity and basically all other religions.

even in their own scripture this Jesus guy doesn't say anything about a lot of the stuff present-day Christianists want to legislate.

And much of the stuff he does talk about explicitly, they call Godless socialism.

Go figure.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

Bap33 says

I don't want to legislate anything.
Can you give some examples?

still waiting

Just to clarify, I said, "this isn't just an explanation..."

Not "his isn't..."

My point was that I'll follow God's law as soon as he appears in front of me and explains what the law is. My beliefs are very real to me - just as your religious beliefs are real to you, Bap. They're not right or wrong, they're personal beliefs.

I try not to get into religious conversations, because imho religions are often a competition about who is the more reverant. Religions are also a way to feel superior. In order for one to believe that their religion is the "true" one, he must believe that all others aren't "true." Praising God is an asinine way to feel superior to someone.

If there is a God, he's hovering over the "Shit on This Attitude" button on his own patnet.

Bap33 says

still waiting

And I am still waiting for your answer on what of god's laws are impossible for you to follow?

leoj707 says

Bap33 says

I never, ever, ever, suggested that it was possible to follow God's Law, as I firmly believe MAN can't do it.

What of god's law do you find impossible to follow?

Bap33 says

What is "my religion" dude?

Hmmm... I am guessing fundamental christian juggalo.

Bap33 says

What is "my religion" dude?

Some sort of fundamentalist Christian from your posts here. Aka derived from Catholicism.

corntrollio says

Bap33 says

What is "my religion" dude?

Some sort of fundamentalist Christian from your posts here. Aka derived from Catholicism.

are you suggesting that Christianity comes from Catholicism?