Rainbow crosswalks?

Please share.

Politics has always tainted it, going right back to the idea that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Not to mention, you still have to believe politics everywhere, even places where politics isn’t an issue, (Russia perhaps?).

But it’s still an opinion. There is no binary answer to the question of when “life” begins when “life” can’t even be perfectly defined.

Is a virus life?

Except that the earth DOES revolve around the sun. What part of that statement do you have issue with?

I’m saying he knows he’s different from Christians.

I know you’re included in that, because you called what he described “heresy”. Which again, not surprising; you’re different.

Published research by a biblical scholar isn’t hearsay. You got that wrong too.

Haha…Good one, I was still waking up when I wrote that…I edited that like 5 min later…you caught it though…

You know what I meant though, but I deserved that I guess.

Like a lot of things I hear (on the radio news, or a long time ago on the internet), I don’t have a link to back it up.

That’s how it was expressed in the poll, but it’s been argued here and elsewhere that science backs it up. What has the other side got? As to “is a virus life?” argument, I submit that is nothing but lawyer talk. We’re talking about human life here.

I’m not sure what your point is here.

His point is that he (she?) doesn’t have a cogent argument to offer. We don’t live in the era when some people believed in an Earth-centrist universe. We now KNOW that the solar system is heliocentric and our solar system is in an obscure arm of the galaxy and our galaxy is one out of millions in the universe. We also live in an era where science has actually FILMED conception and noted what happens afterwards.

1 Like

Ok, I understand what you’re saying and, from a certain point of view, I understand your objections. Intuitively, a discreet human life begins at the moment that sperm and egg come together. When making my argument, I was thinking about the definition of life and how the moment of conception measures against the definition. That said, I realize I’m not being entirely honest in my argument. So let me say it differently.

I don’t think it’s immoral to choose to end the life of a potential child at this phase in pregnancy (see image below).

2182810911_168bbbeaab

So the question from my point-of-view is, when does it become immoral to do so?

I think the answer is when the image above becomes something we recognize as human and when the embryo has many of the faculties that make it what we generally think of as human.

So looking at an embryo at 4-6 weeks of development for a human embryo, a human and chicken embryo are nearly indistinguishable.

The questions I would have are; Can the embryo at this stage perceive its environment? Can it feel pain? Is it aware? If no, then I have no moral problems with the decision to end the potential life of the embryo. When that changes (long before it is born), that’s when my decision on the morality of the issue changes.

I think morality relates to the experiences of sentient beings. I don’t place any special sanctity on an embryo because it will become a human (in the here and now, not potential), the sanctity of human life begins when the embryo has the traits that most of us would consider human. Now I’m aware that the line between human life (as I’ve defined it) and embryo my be somewhat blurry. I’m also aware that there are cases where abortion takes place after the stages I’ve just outlined (mother’s life is in jeopardy, rape incest severe deformity or congenital defect). These are difficult questions and sometimes that’s the way morality and existence are. Without easy answers.

You are coming from a different place and I respect that, I just disagree.

At 3 WEEKS a human baby has a detectable heartbeat as high as 150 bpm. That’s often before the mother even KNOWS she’s pregnant. At 6 weeks, it has detectable brain waves. So you think it’s not human because it resembles a chicken embryo?

No.

Detectable brain waves and heartbeat don’t mean that the embryo/ baby are in any meaningful way, sentient in the ways I’ve already described.

The heartbeat is merely a physiological process. If a persons brain were injured to the point that all consciousnesses, memory, perception were gone, it is possible for all the physiological processes to work. That’s not what makes us human.

Similarly, people can be injured to the point they have no perception of reality in any meaningful way, but still have brainwaves.

Heartbeats and brainwaves aren’t what make us human.

LOL. You’ve just proved our point, CSB. What makes us human is our GENETICS. A fertilized human egg will NOT become a zebra or an ibex or a mosquito if merely left alone. It will ALWAYS emerge from the uterus as a HUMAN baby…every time, unless something interferes with its development SUCH AS ABORTION. So it has ALWAYS been human.

1 Like

Which in no way justifies your claim that he knows how I approach scripture, as usual you just keep digging.

I said that YOUR claim that Paul altered anything in the old testament is patently false, YOU.

I don’t argue by proxy especially with people like you who constantly take respected people’s words out of context to support your Leftist agenda.

I don’t know this man but I do know that any claim that he “speaks for all Jews” is moronic since the Jewish Faith has not had widespread agreement on anything since the Red Sea parted, I also know that besides Catholicism there is no significant number of Christians that line up behind any one “scholar” on secondary matters of Faith so claiming that “Christians approach the scripture differently” is just as moronic as claiming the Jews all agree on scripture approach and interpretation.

The entire Protestant Reformation was based on the idea that delegating the matter of biblical knowledge and interpretation to a select few was absolutely NOT what God wanted and NOT an approach that assured integrity to the scriptures.

That is precisely what hearsay is, you assign others the responsibility to do YOUR thinking for YOU; then you try to parrot what you think they were saying.

I don’t write any dogmatic opinions that I don’t have direct knowledge of, I am prepared to defend my claims based on my own knowledge gleaned from my own study and experience.

Every time you get cornered you beg off to some family member, coworker, anectodal opinion you heard or your butchered version of what someone else has said that you picked up from a Google search.

Hearsay is all you have and the only thing that you have ever offered in any debate.

Except for selective government statistics, you are big on letting everyone know of your unwavering faith in political bureaucrats.

I doubt you will answer either way but I don’t care if you include his preschool grades, Trump sucks at marriage but aside from that I am not aware of any dirt from his life that would cause “conservatives & evangelicals” to scream about if a Democrat did them.

He has certainly perpetuated political views in the past that I would never support but his Presidency is proof that he has repented of those and I have never heard him endorse divorce or praise its application; he seems like a nearly impossible person to live with due to his “All In” personality and that rarely results in lasting marriages. Not to mention the fact that his ex wives have nothing but praise for him as a leader and a provider; I fail to see this “dirt” that you keep speaking of but refuse to list.

1 Like

I still fail to see how this is relevant, abstract opinions about morality do not trump law in a Constitutional Republic.

You began this path by asking who supported abortion and the context was an attempt to show how those such as myself are guilty of wanting our morality forced upon others by government based on our faith which you categorized as unproven.

This was a response to a long list of violations that your side is well known for that I listed when you asked “what violations of your Rights do democrats support?”

I answered your ENTIRE LIST without exception including the abortion question and I used NOTHING but established law and principles to do so; all of your responses have been based on your opinion of what is" moral" and completely void of any justification in LAW.

So it would seem that it is your side who seeks to use unproved moral theories to force others to accept your ideas at the point of a government gun.

Which is what I said in the beginning that caused you to protest; 70 million murdered babies deprived of their Due Process Rights because your abstract and unproved opinions on morality trump the Constitution?

I…dont think I agree with that, so much. I think he is a businessman delivering (as much as possible) on his sales pitch, and considering the pitch, I’m okay with that. Of course I want more of it, but I’m actually more satisfied with his presidency than I actually expected to be, more satisfied than I had concluded was reasonable to expect at this point in American history, and certainly far, far more satisfied than I would have been with any of the other options.

1 Like

Ditto, Qix! It’s well-known here that I was VERY skeptical of his claim of conservatism when he was candidate Trump. I’ve been MORE than surprised and pleased with how he’s performed as President Trump.

You justified that by calling what he said heresy.

That meant you are among the Christians he’s referring to.

Sorry RET, but you tipped your hand.

Well that’s not what I said:

Because Paul recast the meaning of the Old Testament;

While Protestants edited the Bible, Paul did not. He just re-framed how the story was interpreted.

And yes, Catholicism, Apostolic Tradition, teaches you that. History says this is correct, so I make no apologies in saying it.

A Jewish Biblical scholar knows more than Christians how the Jews approach scripture.

That’s common sense.

You tried to say that there was no difference between how Christians and Jews interpret the Old testament.

That is within context. If you weren’t saying that, feel free to say so.

There’s Orthodox, and Anglicans. Pretty sure they do the same thing.

And Catholics outnumbers all the other Christians combined, btw.

“Sola Scriptura” is a minority position among Christians.

Seems like anti-scripture to me. With Christ calling Peter his rock, and that what he said would be bound both on Earth and in Heaven.

Seemed authoritative continuity was pretty important to Christ.

But hey, you do you.

Nope:

hearsay - gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth.

This isn’t word of mouth, this is recorded, and it was done in an official context.
If it was relevant, something like this would be admissible in the court of law.

Sorry RET, but you’ll have to swallow your pride and admit you fouled up on this one.

Be honest about this, and move on. If you can’t be honest over when you make mistakes, why would I listen to any commentary you want to point at me?

If your words are pathological, that’s how I’m going to judge them. Anyone in my position would do the same.

And that is the precise reason that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

But thank you for admitting that nonetheless.

So physical appearance of a human is what makes it human?

Everything that makes a human is contained in that embryo. If we go by your fuzzy definition, how in the world do you draw the line between “human” and “not human?” My definition (and that of others here, as well as that supermajority of biologists) isn’t ambiguous, and much more defensible because it depends little (if at all) on perception.

I partly agree. I was pleasantly surprised to see him keeping some of his campaign promises (I’m still waiting for Hillary to be in jail and for Mexico to pay for the wall), but his salesmanship is a little too much like the proverbial used car salesman, for which reason I don’t trust him. Also, he has in fact made any number of statements which at best had to be explained, and at worst were foot-in-mouth material. I like some of his domestic policy, but frankly, his foreign policy (North Korea, Iran (except for repealing the Obama deal), and now Syria) leaves much to be desired. And speaking of Iran, why haven’t we heard anything more about their attack on that Saudi oil facility?

No. Just pointing out that at this stage it does not have the qualities yet that we generally think of as human, metaphysically speaking.

Really? Does the embryo at this stage have consciousness? Can it think? Does it know that it’s alive? Can it form memories? Can it feel or have emotion?

I think the consensus is no. Sure it has the physical pieces that will form a human body, If all goes well, it will be capable of all those things, but at this point, it has only the potential. I mean, if we’re going to split hairs, strictly speaking, of course, the embryo is a human embryo. Again, I’m using the term human in a more metaphysical sense.

Yup, I do. If they believed only Christianity based denominations where the only ones to be covered under the 1st amendment, they would have said so. Quite simply, they didn’t do that so… here we are.