Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Christian Evangelism isn't a Political Party
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSlowly but surely the left has been embracing the concept of "after-birth abortions"“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostInteresting to see the 180 you've demonstrated here. Within one thread you went from being against infanticide, and attempted a weak defense of Starlight on that basis, to accepting Starlight's arguments on the subject, and being pro-infanticide.
I don't think that's anything to laugh about, but I guess that just demonstrates how weak your moral foundation was to begin with.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostStar and I both agree that personhood cannot be bestowed upon an innate fetus. . . . My position is that personhood begins at brain viability, whereas Star argues for self awareness being the defining moment. Both are valid positions IMHO.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostStar and I both agree that personhood cannot be bestowed upon an innate fetus. And YOU need to explain why it should be.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBeware of Spiritual Pride.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostHow is being a civillian inherently more worthy of protection than being a soldier?
Wars aren't personal disputes between individual soldiers, they are massive disputes between groups of people, some performing different functions but all of them contributing to the war machine.
If your government commands you to go kill some you've never met in another country, why should you? You've never met them, you might be friends with them if you got to know them, you might enjoy drinking a beer or a coffee with them, or have fun playing a game of sport with them. And you're supposed to kill them and they're supposed to kill you. All because the stupid rulers of the countries, who themselves have nothing on the line, can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag and prefer to sacrifice innocent lives instead. That for the most part, is war. (I acknowledge that parts of War on Terror are different to that because it is not against an entire country, but instead more akin to a police action of targeting particular individual wrongdoers within a country)"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAnd going back to my OP, that's what's wrong with assuming Evangelical Christianity is a political party. As we've reminded Starlight several times now, I and a few others here would consider ourselves Evangelical, but are absolutely against torture, drone strikes, war, the death penalty, homelessness, shooting unarmed black people, and are for human rights for gay/trans people, healthcare for those that can't afford it, and providing food and education for the same. Most of the more conservative posters who consider themselves Evangelical would definitely be on board about the plight of the homeless, against the shooting of unarmed people regardless of their color, human rights for all, and providing food and education where there's a need. And as has been previously stated, even on those things where we might disagree, say on the death penalty, or war, or the use of torture, even the most conservative Evangelical does not desire these things if they can be helped.
Starlight likes to pat his own back as though he's that much more noble than everyone else here, especially Christians, but most Christians are for or against the very same things he claims to be for or against. We may quibble about what it means to be for human rights to gay/trans people, just as he would quibble about what he means by being against war (unlike most pacifists I know, he is for it under certain circumstances). And I know plenty of "Evangelical Christians" who are long time vegetarians (though not all of them do it for animal welfare as much as they do it for health reasons). He himself has only just recently became a vegetarian, so it's a dumb thing to put on his uppity moral grandstanding list. And of course, he's for plenty of things that would make even other far left leaning types look at him like he's a monster.
Anyhow, yeah, while our Christian or Atheist worldviews might shape how we approach things like politics, I'm still with Craig in thinking that Evangelical Christianity is not a political party. And if it's a matter of new uses for old words, then just call me Christian. Course, sooner or later that word will likely be warped by society as well (if it hasn't been already).βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou said, and I quote "Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions and motivations, so it could well be argued that they’re not entitled to individual human rights." You then argued for this position with guacamole over the course of three posts. So you appear to actually agree WITH the argument. At any rate, asserting that infanticide is just as valid a position as pre-birth abortion is as bad asserting that you, yourself, endorse it. The point is, you're okay with infanticide, which is nightmarish to an sane and reasonable individual.
Well, no, I don't need to do anything. But I find a perfectly valid explanation is the one provided by Pro-Life Humanists,
[cite=http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/]Defining Personhood
“About three-quarters of white evangelical Protestants (76%) say having an abortion is morally wrong, but just 23% of religiously unaffiliated people agree”.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...bout-abortion/
This is the second time you've said something like this, and I don't think it's creating the impact that you seem to think it should. I'm certain that Christ finds the murder of children immoral. In fact, He mentions the consequences for harm to children specifically.
There's not the least bit in me that's concerned about spiritual pride or self-righteousness for acknowledging that your own moral foundation is weak for accepting child murder. That's just stupid on the face of it.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostTassman and JimL are simply incapable of independent thought. They will absorb by osmosis the progressive opinions of the nearest liberal with slightly more neurons than they have.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostMost civilizations have thought so, as does the Geneva conventions and various international human rights agreements.
Anyway, "most civilizations have thought so" is a far cry from "there is a rational justification for the distinction".
If you're interested in the details of the philosophical logic behind such thinking I suggest googling it.
I tend to favor the very cynical view that wars are primarily power struggles between the oligarchic elites that rule the different countries, that use the lives of their citizens as cannon fodder to resolve their disputes. Wars are almost never "massive disputes between groups of people" as you put it, because the average people in the countries involved have likely never met each other. Rather it is the elite oligarchs in each of the two countries commanding their average citizens to slaughter each other, while themselves paying no price for their actions.
If your government commands you to go kill some you've never met in another country, why should you? You've never met them, you might be friends with them if you got to know them, you might enjoy drinking a beer or a coffee with them, or have fun playing a game of sport with them. And you're supposed to kill them and they're supposed to kill you. All because the stupid rulers of the countries, who themselves have nothing on the line, can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag and prefer to sacrifice innocent lives instead. That for the most part, is war. (I acknowledge that parts of War on Terror are different to that because it is not against an entire country, but instead more akin to a police action of targeting particular individual wrongdoers within a country)"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOf course the left just loves abortions it's one of their favourite things along with "raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, and bright copper kettles and warm woollen mittens..."
Earlier this year Planned Parenthood was able to gather 20 religious leaders to bless their newest center in Washington D.C. built next to an Elementary school. The president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington gushed, "In almost every message to our staff, I talk about our doing sacred work. This confirms the sacredness of the work we do." Providing abortions (and let's not kid ourselves, in spite of their protests to the contrary, that is pretty much PP's primary activity) is "sacred work" for these people.
And about the same time the TV show Degrassi: Next Class in an episode called "#IRegretNothing" has a 16 year old going to an abortion clinic where one of her friends says "Making that difficult choice and standing up for it? You’re courageous! We should go out and celebrate!" And they all go out to celebrate by having ice cream. They call it celebrating a second time when one proclaims that they're going "To celebrate Lola’s bravery!" Yeah real brave, killing a defenseless unborn baby. Maybe she should get a medal.
As an aside, the girl who had the abortion remarks that she doesn't feel sad about aborting her baby to which one of her classmates adds "A lot of women have abortions and feel no shame," and goes on to cite rapper Nicki Minaj as one celebrity who had an abortion while still in High School. What is left out is that in 2014 Minaj told Rolling Stone magazine that this decision has "haunted me all my life." Darn those pesky details.
Two years ago there was a piece in the Huffington Post urging women to celebrate Mother's Day with abortion. Talk about the world turned upside down. Since then others have celebrated Valentine's Day with abortion such as TeenVogue.com which posted a "What to Get a Friend Post-Abortion" guide including this (crass and crude warning to those who click on it). And the Vegan website VegWeb.com was promoting a "Valentine’s Day Sale" for abortion pills.
And the entire #ShoutYourAbortion movement is little more than an effort to celebrate abortions
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI disagree. An Evangelical to me is, and always will the Christian who accepts those earmarks mentioned by Craig in the OP.
Bull. Christians who take a different stance on issues like the necessity for war, or torture, or what have you, do not shrug when it comes to human suffering, and they certainly don't applaud it (not counting the one or two wild exceptions you might find on an internet forum that attracts weirdos like this).
How could you even conceive of such a thing? While I disagree with their stances on these issues, I know that their heart is that no one suffers. Far from seeing people harmed or killed, they believe that those things they are for will save lives, and bring healing, not destroy them. Now you and I may believe that their views are absolutely wrong, shortsighted, perhaps even lacking in faith, but let's dispense with this goofy idea that they don't care. That's complete nonsense. There's gotta be some Christian somewhere in your life, someone close to you, who holds conservative views, and you know that they really do care about people. Is there any such person in your life?
fwiw,
guacamole"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAmong certain elements it is virtually becoming a sacrament.
Earlier this year Planned Parenthood was able to gather 20 religious leaders to bless their newest center in Washington D.C. built next to an Elementary school. The president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington gushed, "In almost every message to our staff, I talk about our doing sacred work. This confirms the sacredness of the work we do." Providing abortions (and let's not kid ourselves, in spite of their protests to the contrary, that is pretty much PP's primary activity) is "sacred work" for these people.
And about the same time the TV show Degrassi: Next Class in an episode called "#IRegretNothing" has a 16 year old going to an abortion clinic where one of her friends says "Making that difficult choice and standing up for it? You’re courageous! We should go out and celebrate!" And they all go out to celebrate by having ice cream. They call it celebrating a second time when one proclaims that they're going "To celebrate Lola’s bravery!" Yeah real brave, killing a defenseless unborn baby. Maybe she should get a medal.
As an aside, the girl who had the abortion remarks that she doesn't feel sad about aborting her baby to which one of her classmates adds "A lot of women have abortions and feel no shame," and goes on to cite rapper Nicki Minaj as one celebrity who had an abortion while still in High School. What is left out is that in 2014 Minaj told Rolling Stone magazine that this decision has "haunted me all my life." Darn those pesky details.
Two years ago there was a piece in the Huffington Post urging women to celebrate Mother's Day with abortion. Talk about the world turned upside down. Since then others have celebrated Valentine's Day with abortion such as TeenVogue.com which posted a "What to Get a Friend Post-Abortion" guide including this (crass and crude warning to those who click on it). And the Vegan website VegWeb.com was promoting a "Valentine’s Day Sale" for abortion pills.
And the entire #ShoutYourAbortion movement is little more than an effort to celebrate abortions
The irony is that if a fetus really is just a worthless lump of tissue like liberals claim, than what's there to celebrate about a woman having it expunged from her body? Why isn't a man heralded as a hero when he has colon polyps removed?
Something tells me that liberals don't entirely believe their own lies.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThe irony is that if a fetus really is just a worthless lump of tissue like liberals claim, than what's there to celebrate about a woman having it expunged from her body? Why isn't a man heralded as a hero when he has colon polyps removed?
Something tells me that liberals don't entirely believe their own lies.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI'm not sure whether Adrift is just ignorant of politics, or whether this is about him trying to re-imagine the world as he wishes it were.
The simple fact is that US (white) evangelicals are a massively powerful political force in the US and have been since the 70s when the "moral majority" movement intentionally tried to draw US evangelicals en masse into politics.
I think there's a lot not to like about that: 1. Evangelicalism is not, inherently, a political movement as WLC pointed out in the OP quote, so they probably ought not to be the political force that they are (prior to the 70s they weren't, and perhaps we should return to that time); 2. Voters, insofar as they let their Christianity influence their vote, ought to vote left-wing because the Bible has ~300 passages commanding caring for the poor which is above all what voting left-wing is about, whereas there's certainly no bible verse saying "let the poor starve and die without healthcare, and give tax cuts to the rich and corporations".
In any case, the bitter fact is that if we weren't dealing with the legacy of Roe v. Wade, the country would be less polarized. The ONLY reason why many Evangelicals voted for Trump is because of the moral wound they fell about abortion. Whether you and other liberals like it or not, they aren't pro-life because they hate women and want to control women, but because they see abortion as murder. You may be beside yourself in the supposed hypocrisy of it, but they have no reason to listen to your moral confrontation if you also believe that we should be allowed to kill infants.
So it's entirely fair to argue that US evangelicals ought not to participate in politics in the way they currently do. Unfortunately, they currently do participate in the way they currently do. It's nice that Adrift would like to see that change, it's sad though that he seems to have his head in the sand with regards to the current reality of the situation, and that rather than critique his fellow evangelicals who are participating in politics on a truly massive scale in a way he doesn't agree with, he is instead throwing a tantrum about people like me who are unhappy with the way US evangelicals are currently participating in politics the way they are.
People who identify as both white and evangelical make up about 1/5th of all registered voters, and 76% of them also say they are Republican or lean Republican, and 80% of them said they voted for Trump over Clinton. Obviously that has a massive impact on US politics, and obviously Trump wouldn't have won the electoral college without that high rate of support, and obviously the Republican party is massively affected by the huge white evangelical voting bloc that they have. Their current effect on US politics is huge, and they are currently strongly aligned with with the Republican party and with Trump.
fwiw,
guacamole"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostSure. But I don't see an obligation to let it do so, any more than I see an obligation to have as much sex as possible in order to create as many new self-aware beings as possible. I don't believe we have any moral obligation to not-yet-existing awarenesses to cause them to exist or develop.
Eh? To the extent that we can determine the likelihood that someone will never wake up, I am happy with them being taken off life support / euthanized.
Maybe you are misunderstanding it? I am not advocating any one single criteria - eg "consciousness", but a wide variety of different qualities that occur together in entities with higher-brain functions. These include things like the ability to form memories; an understanding of oneself as a being that exists over time; the ability to find things meaningful; the ability to have goals and purposes; the ability to experience pain and pleasure; the ability to have abstract thought; etc.
You're lines are poorly drawn, a logical gerrymander that should include older children, some with Downs syndrome or mental retardation, and some adults with profound delusions. There is not a discrete point when you cross from unconscious instinctive existence into the full flower of awareness.
Obviously when you are in a deep sleep or unconscious you do not currently have consciousness so you are not currently experiencing pain or self-awareness or meanings or goals or having thoughts. But you still are in full possession of the ability to have them. When you turn off your computer, it doesn't stop being a computer, it merely stops computing.
So when you go to sleep you don't stop being an entity that posses all those higher brain functions you just temporarily stop using them. Your purposes and goals and memories are all still there, they aren't gone the next day and you don't wake up a blank slate. If someone kills you in your sleep, then it means you're not able to fulfill the goals and purposes you had, just the same as if they'd killed you when you were awake.
fwiw,
guacamole"Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
Hear my cry, hear my shout,
Save me, save me"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
127 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
328 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
361 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment