ChristianRock

You can always count on DLP and EP to provide the lulz.

the language- not the Epistle! BTW- you seem to miss that the Bible says NOTHING against abortion and specifically defines the start of life as the the first breath of a newborn baby but the Bible DOES say this about children in general: * Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones. * Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones. * Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. * I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. * 2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child. * 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up. * Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. * Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children. * Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children. * Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children. * Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. * Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. *Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. You are being intellectually dishonest. First of all, some of these things were told to specific people at specific times of war, they were not commandments. Lots are warnings (the prophets and psalms). You're completely taking phrases out of their context. Second because I already said that the new covenant substituted the old covenant and you did not present a single text from the new covenant (aka new testament). Third because I gave you one book of the bible (Letter to the Hebrews) where the new covenant and its substitution of the old covenant is extensively detailed, and you just chose to ignore it. If that's not being intellectually dishonest in a conversation, i don't know what is.

So, in effect, the old testament had to be stricter because there was no opportunity of salvation at that time? There was an oportunity for salvation based on the things you did. And if you screwed up big time (murder, adultery - things that involved people being bound to these sins), there would be no way back. Now through faith, anyone can be saved. It's said even Napoleon believed at the end of his life.

I don't think i thave condemned you - however, i do not hide that fact that i do not like religious people that want to force (yes, that word again) me to live according to their beliefs. If you call voting "the force", what are you planning to do to take away my right to vote? Nothing? I thought so. I guess voting is more powerful than I thought, isn't it? IF there is in fact another human, and FYI that is not an universally accepted fact, but rather you expressing your beliefs. You're saying there's proof that an unborn is not a human being?

Then you missed the book of Hebrews, among many others.

Bible was written by man. Man is made by 5 imperfect senses connected to a brain (which is imperfect too, forgets stuff and makes mistakes). Nothing against religion. But these above are the facts. Written by man, breathed by God who used man to write what he wanted written - is what the bible itself claims to be, and I believe it. Anyway, that is something neither of us can prove or disprove, that's why it's called faith.

So why the Biblical change of heart? Do you want to talk theology? We're really going off topic now So here's a spoiler: if you don't want to read about christianity, skip this post. Basically, Deuteronomy is the law specific to the country of Israel, a country that God had built up from a man called Abraham and his descendants. It was to become an environment where Jesus would be born, so it had to be a very strict society and couldn't pollute itself with idols the way all the other countries did - in fact Israel did pollute itself, but there was always a remnant every generation that kept themselves pure. The unusual and heavy punishments in Deuteronomy were because Jesus had not come yet and died on the cross to not only forgive sins (which were symbolized by the sacrifices but not really paid for yet). He came also to restore a person's body, soul and mind from a state of sinfulness to a state of righteousness. In other words, having faith you're not just forgiven - you really can have a fresh start in live and be healed from all sorts of emotional and sometimes even physical problems. After Jesus, we are in something the bible calls "the dispensation of grace". Before him, it was "the dispensation of the law". They didn't have Jesus to come and be permanently present inside of them, but now when we accept him as Lord and Savior we do. And I already know how those who don't believe in this think it's ridiculous, you don't have to say it. According to the bible, with Jesus there is a chance of reconciliation and restoration to anyone who is deep into/captive to sin, while before, things would only go downhill from where the person was. Now, by faith, "all things are possible", because Jesus was ressurrected and was given authority over everything, and he governs through the prayers of his people. When his people pray, the world gets better... when they don't, it just goes on its normal course downhill. Anyway, that is the difference between the two dispensations (or ages).

yeah- for instance I married my wife and she wasn't a virgin- but I failed to stone her to death- so I am already damned to hell Deuteronomy 22:13-21 but even THAt didn't matter- you see I was born out of wedlock- I am a bastard- which means that no matter what I ever did I was damned and so are my grandchildren out to ten generations Deuteronomy 23:2 FAIL. The new covenant substituted the old covenant. It's in the bible, but apparently you only want to read some parts of it and not all of it.

just saying that I am not alone-that is all- Bostrom's work is well regarded by other philosophers- the Simulation Hypothesis is not considered incoherent- it's biggest critics usually jsut assert that the first position is correct: "(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a

really? cause im willing to bet that if you sold all the gear you listed in your avatar, you could save a couple lives or 5 in africa by nutritional value via food donations. with all due respect, your statement seems unlikely/bs. you could be doing a world of good if you just sold the computer you are on. You don't know what I give and who I give it to. Also, why would I sell my work computer, if I'm against stealing? not trying to be smart, just saying what seems true/obvious. i have no qualms admitting my participation in a capitalist society that inherently looks out for itself. oh, and here's another thing about abortion, and it applies to things like drug use and pre-marital sex, as well: acting like these things can be dealt with by outlawing them denies the fact that people are going to do them regardless of law. its a basic fact that it just plain does not address the inevitability of them occurring. Apples and oranges. I'm talking about murder. And the bible does have a say in these other things too, and to some of them those who do what's wrong bring judgement on themselves. And drugs are already illegal, in case you didn't notice

Actually, you would impose your views upon your fellow americans if you could. That is why you get the sort of responses you see here. Why don't you get it? You're the one who doesn't get it. First of all, you cannot punish someone for an imaginary crime. In the same way, you cannot tell me I deserve punishment for something I'd do if supposedly I could despite me saying the only thing I'm doing is voting and I'm not making anyone do anything because of some mythical Force. This isn't Star Wars Looks like you already condemned me for blowing up imaginary abortion clinics and stuff, why not condemn me to the death penalty already? None of the pro-choice people would force your wife to have an abortion. But you want to take their wives right to have one away from then. Simply based on how you interprete an almost 2000 year old book. I don't interpret it, I believe in it. You talk about the rights of the mother, I talk about the rights of the other human being involved. ... And BTW, there isn't just one god There are many, ask the Hindus. Or disprove them I'll let God do that, thanks.

I asked you a perfectly simple (albeit hypothetic) question. Would you call it democracy if a liberal majority through legislation forced your wife to have abortions? It would be democracy, and if it came to that, obviously I would choose not to have kids to start with. Your point is moot. If she was already pregnant, we'd have the baby and I'd go to jail. I'd rather go to jail and even die, than kill. And yes, you have to live with the fact that other people think differently than you do and that other people have the right to act according to their own conscience. But they don't force you to live that way. ...i know, that is a hard concept to grasp but there are actually people out there that don't mind that others have beliefs that differ from their own. Am I not doing that? You equate expressing my view with imposing it. Not very smart.

The whole point of the bill of rights and the constitution is that *some* things are not subject to majority vote. The founding fathers understood that some constraints must be imposed on democracy to limit the absolute tyranny of the majority. I've already talked about that. The constitution is there to protect the minorities, among other things. And I've said that if the constitution defined an unborn as not being a human being, I would not be having this argument and I would have lost my main reason for my vote.

Perfect example. the fact that I understand your words doesn't mean that your connection between ideas is logical. I give up now. People like you scare the living {censored} out of me. I'm sorry you feel that way. Notice though, there's a difference between illogical and not fitting a logical system. I fit in a conservative, bible-based logical system but obviously I don't fit into your own logical system. I disagree with you in pretty much everything non-synth related, but I don't think you're illogical. I try to understand where you're coming from and what your belief system is, even though I disagree with you. You are very, very coherent within your beliefs.

unto others through legislation? I'm not forcing anything. I'm voting. If I'm a minority as you say, then why do you fear me? As long as I'm a minority, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. But if I'm in the majority, then democracy takes its course. Do you agree with democracy? Yes? Or do you only want your opinion to be heard and not that of others?

Do any real issues such as the economy, the environment, the war in Iraq, education (which those babies you save will need!) carry any weight as well? Of course I care a lot about these things, but I will be quite honest with you and open myself up to perhaps even more criticism by saying that there's no money in the world that can make up for just one single life. Much less for 50 million lives. So to me, that really stumps everything else. I'd rather be poor and in need all my life and know I saved one life, than to have all the money I could possibly imagine.

that is one of the big reasons why some people are very scared of us Transhumanists- we actually intend to be able to DIRECTLY and PHYSICALLY change your mind in a decade or two we are tired of of hateful fearful humans runing around opressing and killing each other- so we will fix the problem at it's source- after we release the nanocloud and you breathe in the limbic upgrades- you will finally understand where we technoshamanic progressives are coming from- whether you want to or not Good thing I believe in a God that is much greater than you. I'm seriously not afraid, dude

Let me put it this way, I haven't seen a fetus having any brain activity either! Before and after abortion! Read what I wrote again. Here, I'll make it easy for you. A brain dead person is a person that will not have brain activity, ever. That is what the law says. A baby, unless killed, will.

If I believed very strongly that women should be forced to cover their faces in public, should I be allowed to make it a law in the U.S.? If the majority votes for that, then that's what's gonna happen, unless the constitution says something about it. Right? Democracy brings responsibility, and it basically brings the will of the majority upon the minority, by design - so the constitution is there to defend the rights of the minorities. That's also by design. If there was a constitutional amendment that said that any unborn baby is not a person and has absolutely no rights, we would not be having this conversation.

we don't have to convince each other- brains are FALLIBLE anyway- that is why we look to PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - not belief or faith for matters that effect ALL of us- See above

I think if the anti-choice group has their way, and abortion is outlawed, all "pro-lifers" should be required to be registered on a list, much like sex offenders, so that when an unwanted baby that they "saved" is born, it can be left on their doorstep. After all, if they're so pro-life and care about babies, they won't mind raising it, right? Me and my wife are considering adoption down the road, it's something we've always talked about. But the way you make it sound, it sounds like nazi registration. Should we wear a mandatory badge too? The other thing that gets me, is some people (my idiot mother in law comes readily to mind), use abortion as their only issue when choosing a candidate to vote for. This is part of the reason how Bush ended up with 2 terms. Never mind that he forked up everything he did, and pretty much destroyed everything this country has stood for, and funny, abortion is still legal... Fortunately, between me and my wife, we can outnumber the idiot MIL's vote. Well I guess I know what you think about me, too This is the end of my semi-rant. Back to talking about more pleasant things like synths. No, not on an OT topic, you can't :poke:

just a reminder: a lot more people who are unarguably alive are murdered for a variety of reasons every day than abortions- some that are legal like allowing prescription drug zombies on cell phones drive 2 ton metal vehicles that kill thousands a year- or cigarettes- or publicly funded wars against poor brown people in africa and the middle east- or letting drug companies allow africans to die of AIDS for their profit margins while we continue to buy their products and let them operate- or the diamond industry- yet christian pro-lifers never have problems with greater death of actual people that they condone without a thought Because of course two wrongs make a right Sorry if I'm going all pighood on you, but I can't take you seriously. I just can't.

I believe that wholeheartedly. I'm completely unconvinced that human life has more value than any other life. I'll find my book that I was reading just last week that talks about this belief system. Not that I want to label you or anything, I just find it interesting that the world goes round and round and the more things change, the more they seem to stay the same

Because one position is restrictive and DOES force an opinion on others, while the other position essentially doesn't. No... you're forcing your opinion on the aborted babies. 50 million of them by now, just in America.

It's a simple matter of taking away rights concerning those who disagree with you.We fundamentally disagree,don't legislate your preference for a lack of choice on me. Same issue with civil unions,denying citizens a right based upon religious conceit. One thing's people's rights (and I believe gays should have the same civil rights as everybody, as long as I keep my right of freedom of expression to say I believe it's a sin). The other thing is murder. Murder is condemned by the law.