Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1097043 Posts in 72472 Topics- by 19552 Members - Latest Member: ericburger
Jump to:  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 298
1  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Today at 10:23 AM
I think I would have needed to find a better excuse when I was a believer ...
A non-believer telling a believer how they think the believe should think if the non-believer were a believer...

The fact that those don't match up, what you think he should think vs what he actually thinks, is probably a good thing in that situation.
2  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Today at 09:26 AM
Nietsche said (and I'm quoting from memory, so don't hold me to the exact wording):
From God to the guy who says God is dead.

Often what we say show more about us, than the subject of our words. That seems particularly true in this instance.
3  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Today at 02:32 AM
You know of course that the 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunters. Right?
Correct. It was written for us to be defended by a temporary militia rather than a standing army. That said, we gave up on that approach over 150 years ago.
4  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 03:54 PM
And to be balanced, I'm not convinced by Ron's claim that Jesus will understand him disobeying biblical principles because he doesn't trust God to manage a hypothetically bad situation. The whole point of trust is to do it even when you disagree with what God's doing, like when you're family is threatened or killed.  Loving your enemies is tough but its what Jesus did (he was like a lamb to the slaughter) and that's what we're supposed to do too.  Jesus considered his followers to be his real family: he would have been able to protect them from persecution but he didn't he.  He gave them the encouragement to stay true even during persecution to death.

To note: how many of his closest followers lived a long and happy life, filled with prosperity and blessings?
5  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 03:52 PM
I believe the repulsion of most to these claims is because we really are made in the image of God and find such claims wrong.  Yet they are perfectly logical if one uses utilitarian criteria for judging who is a person.
If we are talking about image of God and respecting life, isn't this conversation one sided?

There are ~9 months in the womb, and 18+ years after that until they are on their own.

For the basic example of a kid that isn't wanted due to timing or circumstances... and say the mother wants to abort because she can't take care of it. That's not exactly a loving decision, but a rational one. Wouldn't the answer then be for those who want to preserve life, to commit to support it themselves? She can't? I will!

Right now, it's basically turning a blind eye to the mother, turning a blind eye to the child, and saying that personal ethics don't allow this thing to go on.

The bible's teachings don't tell us to enforce our morals/teachings over others without choice, but rather to be a vessel for those morals/teachings to show them a better way.

How can religion be claimed on one side - in the short term, when it is so lacking in the long?
6  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 03:43 PM

There's that ridiculous ruler ... yet again.
You're really starting to remind me of Trump and those tiny hands of his...

Compensating much?
7  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 01:01 PM
There's nothing vague about saying if it doesn't have a brain it isn't a person.  If it doesn't yet have nervous tissue it isn't a person.

Once it has a brain and central nervous system, there is a gradual developmental process. There might be large gray areas there.  But before that there are none. 
Sure there is something vague...

When is a brain a "brain" enough to be a person?

Is one neural cell good enough?

Where is that line?
8  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 11:57 AM
ARGHH!  Don't go there!  Just........don't!   :)
I'll be good to consider data about gun usage and what works best, and potentially change my mind, when such usage can actually be studied again.

Until then, a lot of states have gun happy rednecks that want to shoot things with AR-15s, and honestly don't care if it's the best weapon for the job. And to that... rednecks vote, and deer don't. Use an appropriate weapon, and something that fires a .223 ain't it.


The other major issue of the ar-15 is the high capacity rounds. If you need more than 5 shots to hit what you're going for, chances are... you shouldn't be shooting at it in the first place. More than that, high numbers of stray rounds are more likely to hurt than help. Doesn't matter if it's hunting, defense, offense... shy of a war situation, we should not have sprays of bullets.
9  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 11:18 AM
Why the distinction between normal care outside and normal care inside the womb?  Both are natural; neither is artificial.  Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me.

There is a major distinction that you yourself listed: the womb. oddly enough, something often left out of these discussions. As if the potential for life is a greater interest than life that is already here.

The womb is inside the woman and using her body's nourishment to then nourish the fetus. The woman who has said womb cannot make a health decision that does not impact this. If she drinks, it will flow to the fetus. If she exercises too aggressively, it will agitate and potentially disrupt the fetus. It impacts her hormones, because of what the fetus needs. It impacts her diet and sleep for what the fetus needs. It is one of the most interrupting things that a woman can have, and does carry serious consequences for her short and long term health. At which point, she herself is a major consideration.

Outside the womb, she isn't impacted any more. Except of course that she is still expected to care for the now child as well as pay the bills for all care.

One major other biblical standard that should come into play here: you are responsible for the consequences of your decisions. Which ultimately means if the tax payers and the state decide they have an interest in this matter consequential enough to make decisions, then they should bear the responsibility for those once they have made them. That would mean any time the state says to the woman, no, you can't do that... then they need to fund their designated choice. So if a woman does want an abortion and the state denies, then the state would be responsible for the medical care as well as the future child's well being (and the state should ensure that the child is well raised and well funded in a situation better than the mother could give). The mother have the most limited role possible at that point on.
10  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 11:08 AM
Biblically, it is a gray issue. There are hints each way indifferent writings, but really, it's a subject that's not broached. As noted before, religion doesn't have all of the answers, just the most important ones.

Legally, it is also a gray issue. What rights does the woman have? She is not a right-less vessel carrying something with more legal protections and freedoms than she has at that point. At the same time, if the state was to be responsible for having a say, then they must also accept the consequences... and in short: they don't. So whatever legitimate claim they have per their populous, they often fail it.

Gray/gray... generally says those best able to make a decision are those who immediately feel it and know the most about it. Otherwise.... you are talking at a high level about very consequential, and very very localized situations with a wide range of discrepancies between them.


But this is where things start to get into politics again. There is no religious mandate, though their are religious views... And the ultimate question becomes: how does a state best take care of it's people, and who is covered under that?

11  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 09:57 AM
No, they're just shouting louder.  Embryology in the early stages hasn't changed.  The blastocyst is undifferentiated - just cells, not any tissue type.  It forms a pouch by inverting, transitions into three layers, each of which later develops into different types of tissue.  

There's just no way that's a person.  
Thatís an odd argument, Tim, and one that falls apart very very quickly in the development cycle.  Don't know
12  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 09:48 AM
Jesus consistently argued to avoid legalistic "letter of the law" and go with intent.

His intent in that passage is pretty clear.  To hunt for the interpretations you recommend does the text a great disservice. 
So you say... but still have nothing to say any of that is actually in conflict. Maybe it is just in conflict with your own understanding?
13  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 09:44 AM
No.  It is neither.

It isn't murder because it's legal.
Well not exactly. Just legality for killing someone involves them first committing some crime. You can't just legally kill someone with full intent who has committed no fault. 

It isn't killing because it isn't a person.  It's a clump of undifferentiated cells.  No brain tissue, skin tissue, muscle tissue, etc.
The last part is clearly biologically wrong. Yes, tissues are differentiated. And yes, they contain unique DNA.

The point of controversy comes:
a) how much privacy and control does the woman have over her body and health decisions?
b) what are the woman's rights and interests?
c) what is the state's rights and interests to protect a citizen, and does it apply to the potential citizen?
d) when is the fetus' earliest potential for independence from the woman where it is a viable life that can be considered independently of the woman's rights?
e) what is the difference between a natural abortion and medically assisted or intentional abortion?
 
Oh, and finally, nearly forgot, if it were a person, it still would not be innocent.  It carries the weight of original sin and is just as doomed as every other sinner.
That would be God's law, not state law, and it is state law where murder is defined.
14  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 09:33 AM
The Pharisees would be proud of you.  This is such utterly offensive legalistic rationalization I'm embarrassed someone who claims to be a believer could spew it.

Read the verses that follow - they directly contradict your claims. 


Or before it in the same chapter:
I've read them, thanks, and at no point does any of that contradict... Not sure where you're getting that it does.  Don't know


But, weird try anyhow ??? Not really sure what you are trying here??? Maybe that you're embarrassed to be a believer?

You have an odd reading of scripture, Tim. Maybe helped by things like that Spong fellow? Last book you recommended of his wasn't out yet, but commentary on it (pro and con) really seem to indicate that he thought most of the core of religion was outdated and should be tossed and. And that it was important to believe, but we should change that foundation of what the belief is about... Dunno man. What's the point of faith if you think most of what you have faith in is BS?
15  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Yesterday at 06:43 AM
Bill, You are missing some key components of that scripture. Jesus is not talking about passisivism, but non-violent resistance.

Turn the cheek, the slap in question would be a backhand, something that would indicate a lesser. Turning the other cheek both says the person is not phased, asks for more, but turning the cheek makes it so that another slap would not be backhand but open hand - a hit to an equal.

If they sue you and take everything but the clothes on your back, go ahead and give them those too to publicly display the full effect of what that person is doing.

At the time, it was legal for a member of the army to order a civilian to carry their equipment for them for a mile. To go the extra mile however could make the soldier look like they are abusing that law and get them in trouble.


ie, do not go to violence, but also do not accept it. Openly show others' cruelty for all to see, so that there is no shelter from their own shame. Do not fight, but stand strong in the lord, and let the contrast shame them.

BTW, we  don't have all the answers.  That has only been said of us by the religious folk, not by us.
And said of religious folk by the non-religious folk as well...
16  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Feb 20, 2018, 12:32PM
To me Why has always ben a humanistic thing, but I suppose it could be extended to a god too.

...

Again, that comes from the human. 
One of the most common things of humans is also belief in god(s).

Why is that an acceptable answer for a moral code, but not in our beliefs?
17  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Feb 20, 2018, 12:20PM
Mere survival of the fittest or any other naturalistic explanation can only, it seems to me, explain the WHAT-- i.e. that we see that we shouldn't torture, but not really give a logical answer to the WHY.
Do they even provide the what?

Survival of the fittest includes inter species competition as well. Why not help it along and have the strong cripple the weak? Is there a naturalistic reason not to?
18  Practice Break / Religion / Re: Religion Matters: Take 3 on: Feb 20, 2018, 11:04AM
I'm pretty sure you must know what I mean.  I didn't actually take any notes.
Sure. In short, You weren't looking to quantify nor qualify because the comparison is not important. You're not looking for optimal, but one that works.

This is one of those times you are not acknowledging what I'm saying Bob.  I made all that pretty clear.
Oh I get you. At the same time you are saying that is testable. Maybe it is, but the simple fact is you don't want to test your relationship. It'd be destructive.

 As for measured, the pleasant and enjoyable times with my wife exceeded those with any other girl in terms of frequency, length of time and intensity.  All pretty 'measurable' wouldn't you say?
No, not really. I can say Canada is colder then then southern US, but if I want to measure that, first I look to a temperature scale to rate temps, then record those temps over whatever period, then compare to say yes... yall are frickin cold. What you say is more akin to going outside and rating it based on how it feels to you that day.


As I already said, I have not tested many aspects of my marriage.  Nor do I feel the need to.  Of course I'm aware of the emotional aspect of relationships.
Then in short, no, you are not approaching your marriage as a testable thing. And as you note, testing your marriage and others around you likely would not result in a better result, and really would likely kill it.

Which is my point. Many of the most important aspects of our lives are not testable, and to your end... nor would we want to test them. The evidence based, testable evaluation to find "what works" is really only best in limited scenarios. Meanwhile, most of the core things about being a person and leading a good life... these fall outside that scope.


Right, I see nothing wrong there. What makes you think an atheist, even a logical and fact driven atheist, can't have a relationship like that?
Not saying they can't! What I am saying is that these things are not appropriate for rational, fact based determinations that are taken on evidence and tests. There is far more to life than that.

So where it has been proposed over and over that we should look for "proof", using critical thinking, and so on... sure. In some areas. In others, you go with your gut, and do the best you can.

Want to develop a way to get from ______ to _____ in _____ hours? Want to build a stronger, lighter material? Science.
Want to know love? God? Yeah, those are different approaches where evidence, tests, and processes are far less important.
19  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3 on: Feb 20, 2018, 07:26AM
That part is not correct.  The long range competitions that allow any military weapon are always won by the AR15 class.  They are highly accurate.  http://competitions.nra.org/how-to-get-started/high-power-rifle-competition.aspx
The other side of that is the AR-15 is not exactly a hunting rifle either. At best, varmint killing.


However something like 1% of homicide shootings involve them, so an outright ban and confiscation of all existing ones would probably not be detectable in the overall rate.  Most shootings are probably 9mm pistols, and nobody is talking about banning them. 
You must be forgetting Heller vs DC. DC tried to implement a handgun ban. The SC said... nope. Makes it hard to get much progress there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
20  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Our unbalanced POTUS on: Feb 20, 2018, 06:07AM
Hillary lost the nomination in 2008 for one reason... she voted to authorize the Iraq war, while Obama could show he was on record against it.

She tried to have it both ways by saying she only wanted to give Bush the extra leverage to negotiate that this threat of war would have, but there's no way to say she didn't vote for it.

If she had voted "no" on Iraq in 2002, Obama would be a trivia question or maybe still a US Senator.
You know... when Obama spoke in the primaries, he had a message of hope. A message that we could do better. A message that we could be better.

Hillary... co-opted others' messages. Even her own message was delivered with the droll tone of a college lecture. Her Iraq vote played like her gay rights support. She would make the politically easy policy decisions.

Obama motivated people and helped encourage the highest voter turnout in the primaries in 40 years. Hillary... lost the popular vote even as she kept close in delegates. And she lost the superdelegates, folks with whom she was much better connected than obama.


Sorry guys, she came into 2008 as the sure winner... best name recognition, best name association, best connections, best donor relations, and a popular ex president at her back supporting her. Obama came in with only a single speech behind him. And he won.


Clinton came into 2016... with the weakest field in a long time. She again had all of those advantages. And Sanders again rose as a main challenger. He had a message that was worthwhile, even if controversial. Her message was that all was going well and she would keep the ship on course. She had the full body of the DNC behind her... and she barely won for it. She then ran against a historically unpopular and unhinged candidate with no qualifications.

But even he spoke to the common folk better than she did. He heard and recognized their concerns, while she downplayed them. And she lost. She lost in states that should have been hers, but she took for granted and never bothered to even go there. She lost with the folks who should have been her supporters, but who she failed to support.



Hillary was simply the broccoli candidate both times. The one you know is good for you, but the one you just can't get excited for. Her experience was limited, she had a tremendous amount of political baggage, she had a history of only making policy changes when they became politically safe(iraq, gay rights, civil rights, worker rights), and she showed more desire for policy itself than any specific policy.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 298