O’Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[Tassman]

More deflection. Can't say I'm surprised.

No deflection. Merely pointing out that the evolving social behavior of communities changes the same way for religion-based communities as for secular ones. This is demonstrably the case.
Christians no longer tolerate slave ownership, the subjugation of women and many other behaviors that were once justified by scripture but are now considered socially unacceptable.

[JimL]

Again Jim, as even Carp pointed out the overall best interests of a society is a subjective consideration, not an objective one.

I understand, I know carps opinion, but as far as you're concerned what is good and what is bad are objectively so, which means that they must be laws unto themselves, that they can't be subject to another source. If for instance, murder is objectily wrong, then it is wrong whether a god says so or not. From my perspective, on the other hand, murder is wrong, not because it is an objective law unto itself, but because it is objectively detrimental to the best interests of human society. It's the same idea behind the adage; "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Why? because as a society, whether it be a society of two people or two thousand people, murder is, objectively speaking, not in the best interests of the continued survival of that society.

[JimL]

And what objective standard do you use to decide what is "in the best overall interests of human beings living together in a community"? (I did warn you that you'd be chasing your own tail. )

Sound reason.

And again, which "community" are we morally obligated to? Immediate? Local? Regional? National? International? Global?

It's not a matter of absolute obligation, you might subjectively disagree with the moral code, but whether you are right or wrong in your disagreement doesn't change the fact that one of you, yourself or the society, is objectively in the right.

[seer]

I understand, I know carps opinion, but as far as you're concerned what is good and what is bad are objectively so, which means that they must be laws unto themselves, that they can't be subject to another source. If for instance, murder is objectily wrong, then it is wrong whether a god says so or not.

No it is wrong because God says so, because He values human life. It is subjective to Him, but universal and absolute since His nature is universal and absolute.

From my perspective, on the other hand, murder is wrong, not because it is an objective law unto itself, but because it is objectively detrimental to the best interests of human society. It's the same idea behind the adage; "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Why? because as a society, whether it be a society of two people or two thousand people, murder is, objectively speaking, not in the best interests of the continued survival of that society.

That is still subjective Jim. Why not the best interest of the ruling elite? Why not the best interest of the majority at the expense of the minority?

[seer]

Sound reason.

The Communists are using sound reason too Jim. So you think that killing 50 million of our own unborn offspring is sound reasoning?

[JimL]

The Communists are using sound reason too Jim.

They may be using reason, but whether it is sound reason or not is a matter of contention. Which ideology do you think better serves society, communism or democracy?

So you think that killing 50 million of our own unborn offspring is sound reasoning?

Unborn and offspring are contradictory terms. That;s not sound reasoning!

[lilpixieofterror]

They may be using reason, but whether it is sound reason or not is a matter of contention. Which ideology do you think better serves society, communism or democracy?



Unborn and offspring are contradictory terms. That;s not sound reasoning!

So you do think it was irrational for my husband and I to morn the death of our unborn daughter and hold a funeral for her. Thanks for admitting it.

[Tassman]

No it is wrong because God says so, because He values human life. It is subjective to Him, but universal and absolute since His nature is universal and absolute.

God’s nature is NOT “universal and absolute” according to Christians obeying God’s “say so”. Christians no longer tolerate slave ownership, the subjugation of women, the killing of witches etc. etc. etc. all of which was justified by scripture at the time but now considered socially unacceptable. This indicates that the evolving social mores of the day set the rules of morality and scripture's meaning is adjusted accordingly.

[seer]

They may be using reason, but whether it is sound reason or not is a matter of contention. Which ideology do you think better serves society, communism or democracy?

My SUBJECTIVE opinion is that democracy is better. The Communist disagrees. So who is right?

Unborn and offspring are contradictory terms. That;s not sound reasoning!

Nonsense Jim, answer the question - is killing millions of our own children sound reasoning? Yes or no?

Offspring: the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant.

The unborn is a product of the reproductive processes...

[JimL]

My SUBJECTIVE opinion is that democracy is better. The Communist disagrees. So who is right?

That's my question to you, is one of them right with respect to which best serves human society? If so, why?

Nonsense Jim, answer the question - is killing millions of our own children sound reasoning? Yes or no?

Offspring: the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant.

The unborn is a product of the reproductive processes...

Yes, they are both the result of reproductive processes, but the unborn fetus is not a human person until it becomes a human person at a certain point in that process. Unless you want to argue that a fertilized egg is a human person.

[seer]

That's my question to you, is one of them right with respect to which best serves human society? If so, why?

It depends on what your SUBJECTIVE goal is. If you want greater equity, less crime, and control Communism is better. If you want more freedom democracy is better, at least in principle.

Yes, they are both the result of reproductive processes, but the unborn fetus is not a human person until it becomes a human person at a certain point in that process. Unless you want to argue that a fertilized egg is a human person..

No Jim a fertilized egg is a human life at that particular stage of growth. So I will ask again - is killing millions of our own children sound reasoning? Yes or no?

[JimL]

No it is wrong because God says so, because He values human life. It is subjective to Him, but universal and absolute since His nature is universal and absolute.

So, if god didn't value human life, then neither would you? I think you are lying to yourself seer. Athiest's value human life no less so than do theists, and if you need god for that then what does that say about you.

That is still subjective Jim. Why not the best interest of the ruling elite? Why not the best interest of the majority at the expense of the minority?

If one of us is right with respect to which moral system best serves human society, then whichever one of us is right, that moral system must be objective. And that would only have to do with the nature of the moral system itself, not it's source.

[seer]

So, if god didn't value human life, then neither would you? I think you are lying to yourself seer. Athiest's value human life no less so than do theists, and if you need god for that then what does that say about you.

I didn't say that Jim, and which atheists value human life? Stalinists? Maoists? North Korean hierarchy? I mean really in your godless universe a human life has no more inherent worth than a common house fly - and you know what we do to them. After all we have no problem killing millions of our own offspring in the womb - which you support. So how much do you really value human life.

[Tassman]

I didn't say that Jim, and which atheists value human life? Stalinists? Maoists? North Korean hierarchy? I mean really in your godless universe a human life has no more inherent worth than a common house fly - and you know what we do to them. After all we have no problem killing millions of our own offspring in the womb - which you support. So how much do you really value human life.

How much do Christians “really value human life” when they execute sentient human beings because they are criminals, kill other humans in warfare and allow millions of humans to starve to death because they have no access to food and to help them would be “evil socialism”.

How much did the “godly” value the lives of the slaves they owned by the thousands, or when they murdered helpless old ladies as witches because the crops failed, or treated women as property with no rights of their own and regarded blacks as an inferior species as per the Jim Crow laws and LGBT humans as flawed or sinful people.

None of these human beings have more “inherent worth than a common house fly” for you. But it makes you feel righteous to witter on about the termination of innate fetuses in first term abortions as “killing millions of our own offspring in the womb”. How pathetic are you?

[rogue06]

How much do Christians “really value human life” when they execute sentient human beings because they are criminals, kill other humans in warfare and allow millions of humans to starve to death because they have no access to food and to help them would be “evil socialism”.

Only the pro-abortion crowd can conflate a convicted murderer with the most innocent of all human life. And I've heard it said multiple times that the only famines that now cost numerous deaths are man-made ones. Generally caused by the folks with the most guns refusing to allow food to be shipped into areas where people they don't like are.