Rainbow crosswalks?

Ahhh …yeah. That’s EXACTLY what it means. As long as it’s within the bounds of the law.

I swear, do Christians suffer some sort of collective narcissism?

You’ve never looked into this, have you RET?

Catholics number 1.2 billion; we’re more than half of Christianity by ourselves.

Orthodox and Anglicans also reject Sola Scriptura, that’s another 350 Million, and 85 Million respectively.

Equally, other Protestant branches reject it, like most Methodists and Quakers.

Thus, with at least 1.7 Billion, out of 2.1 Billion Christians rejecting it, Sola Scriptura is in the minority.
Always has been.


Dammit, I gotta agree with Brown, here. I believe the founders knew exactly what they were doing, and insofar as they were Christians believed that Christianity would ‘win out’ over other religions.

That’s literally what Jefferson said Dave:

"the bill for establishing religious freedom [the 1st ammednment], the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination. "

– Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821.

You cited it as the point at which it becomes immoral to kill it. You said: “The sanctity of human life begins when the embryo has the traits that most of us would consider (emphasis mine) human.”

But it’s alive, and that potential is developing. It’s still life that has already begun.

And would, if nefarious forces weren’t working behind the scenes to disrupt it with a pack of lies.

1 Like

If you’re a believer, Christ still wins in the end. Or has already won, perhaps.

1 Like

Ahhh…but this is the crux of the issue, isn’t it?

How do you feel about In Vitro Fertilization? Or more specifically, the freezing of multiple embryos? When an embryo takes and a woman becomes pregnant, what do they do with the lefter-over embryos?

They discard them. Should all party to the destruction of those embryos be charged with murder?

You have to say yes, and this exposes the extremeness of your belief.

I would argue that most people, whether they admit it or not, intuitively value life based on how we perceive that live experiences it. Which is why we kill spiders and ants, but as the creatures become more anthropomorphic (more like us) with features we recognize and behavior we recognize as similar to our own, we tend to value life a little more.

I look at a fertilized egg and I see nothing. No humanity, no emotion, no conciseness. Just a few million cells that will, if allowed to grow, become all of those things.

A fertilized egg isn’t “a few million cells”, CSB. It’s ONE cell, fused with one other to form an embryo. Secondly, embryos that are “unused” as you term it, aren’t destroyed. In general, they are kept in cryo as a hedge in case the implanted embryo doesn’t “take.” There aren’t usually multiple embryos taken from the same couple in the first place, though they can be. They can be used in surrogacy, too. I’m not a huge fan of in vitro though I do acknowledge that it’s worked to help otherwise infertile couples to have children. Still the destruction of such embryos, when it does occur, IS the destruction of human lives and I’m categorically opposed to it.

Ok, a million or 2 cells, my point stays the same.

Sure, I’m aware, but you realize that at some point they are no longer needed, right? And the are destroyed when they aren’t needed. That’s murder according to you, right?

Dangit, now Slim is,agreeing with what I said! FOUL! FOUL!

… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

If taken to include all religions this would allow:

Aztecs to perform human sacrifice, Moslems to rape infidel women, etc.

This raises a question as to what determines a religion as opposed to an all encompassing ideology which may run counter to our culture and constitutional form of government. For many more reasons than mentioned above, in my opinion, Islam is not a religion. Maybe in another thousand years it could evolve into one but I doubt it. Although Protestants, Catholics and Jews once killed each other in the name of religion, they have evolved into civilized institutions.


True. It would also sanction Native American “religions” that administer hallucinogens as part of their “worship”, and sanction worshipers of Baal which practiced infanticide by throwing babies into the fire. To insist that it included ALL “religions” is simply nonsense.


1 I don’t care for the practice of in vitro fertilization, at least as it is done for just that reason of unused embryos. And it’s the sort of situation that results from science forging ahead without ethical consideration.
2 Extreme relative to what? Society’s norms? What does society know about is “normal,” especially given that its defintion is constantly shifting? This gets back to what I’ve talked about in regard for the need for a solid moral reference point, which requires a moral law Giver. Without it, you have chaos. And this particular “norm” arises out of perception, rather than substance.
3 Yes, and perception isn’t the same thing as substance.
4 Again, perception.

So murder in your eyes isn’t murder as long as it’s done for “good” reasons. You’ve just summed up thousands of years of Christianity better than I ever could.

It shifts, generally in a better direction overall because our understanding of the world increases. It is knowledge that grounds humanity, not a moral law-giver.

In fairness, I would, unlike many others that lack in a belief in a god, acknowledge the fact that a belief in god, historically speaking has been a mixed bag, but probably more positive than negative. A lack of understanding of how the world works is extremely frightening (we fear what we do not understand) and a beleif in a god helped a lot of people deal with that fear and get on with their lives, I just think that time is coming to an end. Not that I think people shouldn’t beleive, but figure out how to incorporate knowledge and evidence into their faith.

But it’s not just perception, it’s knowledge, experience and evidence that ground our perception, not just whimsical ideas.

Sure, but can’t the same be said for fertilization? Again, we (society overall) don’t have difficulty throwing away unused embryos because they are not lives with experience and memories. No one loved them and no one was attached to them and frankly, no one wanted them anymore. It is because those embryos never experienced humanity that we are ok to discard them.

You already know I vigorously disagree with late-term abortions on these exact same grounds.

It does sanction this.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006)

For years preceding this, courts applied the “compelling interest” test which barred interference with most religious use of drugs.

It does include all religions (again, Jefferson said that Dave), just not all practice.

The rights of an individual person will still overrule a practice seeking to harm them.

Ex. In Judaism, you were supposed to stone adulterers. We would ban that practice, not the religion.

Who are you and what have you done with Slim?

Yes, your right to swing your fist is uncontested until it reaches another man’s nose. This is similar.

I know many Catholics who respect the Bible and do not rip out pages every time a new doctrine is invented at the Vatican.

But as usual you deflect in order to avoid admitting that you cannot back up your claims due to absolute ignorance of the scriptures and your “expert” who you assigned the role of thinking for you cannot possibly explain how he “knows how I approach scripture”.

I am not debating 1.2 billion Catholics, I am exposing one Catholic who spews dogmatic opinions with nothing but hearsay as a foundation.

Yet don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. “respect” doesn’t require thinking it’s the only source for theological truth.

Sorry RET, but that’s a hard no. If you thought Catholicism supported this, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I also gave you a source to Pope Benedict, a Doctor of the Catholic Church (meaning before he was Pope, he was already an expert in theology), outright stating this.

And yes, I will gladly go with his opinion over yours. That should go without saying.

Afterall, let’s be honest here RET.

You don’t have an argument. You never did. This is just about you, once again, being opportunistic, and trying to one-up me. Because you can’t help yourself.

Yet what keeps unraveling that ill-gotten motive of yours, is that you don’t do research before you talk. You put in no effort here, and it shows.

To sum up; Your intentions are bad, you put in no effort, and you didn’t have an argument or even a thought about this until you saw me talking about it.

I don’t even need to quote a Pope; you ruined whatever you wanted to say by being awful.

The freedom to exercise any religion is not the freedom to violate any other citizens Constitutional Rights.

So a Muslim cannot rape an “infidel woman” with impunity and human sacrifice or “justice” actions like stoning cannot be done in place of Due Process; no Constitutional Right can be applied in such a way as to deprive another of their Constitutional Rights.

Which is the precise reason why abortion for convenience is an unconstitutional abomination and should be viewed that way by everyone from the outspoken Atheist to the most faithful of believers.

1 Like

Gladly and with absolutely no foundation for doing so, you shirk the responsibility of knowing to embrace the sloth of hearsay; then you bellow dogmatism as if the ideas are your own.

I have no problem with your taking comfort in ignorance, I just won’t pretend that your borrowed “opinions” are actually your own; in every debate you expect your opponent to argue via proxy with whoever you are attempting to paraphrase or quote out of context.

It would not matter if your list of “go to Guru’s” on every subject was absolutely reliable, you would still get it wrong because you refuse to think critically, challenge your conclusions and respect the importance of actual experience and personal investigation of the subject.

Shortcuts are what create your need to ignore questions/challenges to your arguments and why you have to constantly misdirect to avoid the corners you back yourself into.