|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 23, 2004 8:13:03 GMT -5
Now we are getting somewhere. I oppose things that some consider individual rights such as baby killing and slavery because yes, I support individual rights. How could I support one individual right when it denys someone else theirs? Would you support a persons "personal right" to sex with consenting minors? Would you have supported a persons "personal right" to slaves in the early 1800's?
I guess it is good to define exactly what we mean by "personal rights". Btw, what is your standard for choosing whether or not abortion and slavery are personal rights or not?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 23, 2004 8:34:05 GMT -5
The first 5 minutes I already did see have confirmed the truth to me... This is akin to reading Genesis an deciding that the Bible has little to offer that if relevent to life today.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jul 23, 2004 10:30:59 GMT -5
This is akin to reading Genesis an deciding that the Bible has little to offer that if relevent to life today. Not at all analogous. If the Bible were merely a book, then you would be correct. But the Bible is spiritually discerned, and the desire and ability to understand it is given by God only to those who are willing obey. This is in no way related to watching a movie. Besides that, the Book of Genesis contains enough in itself to describe the entire story of Christ and salvation. inatent
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 23, 2004 12:13:55 GMT -5
I guess it is good to define exactly what we mean by "personal rights". Btw, what is your standard for choosing whether or not abortion and slavery are personal rights or not? Robb, I don't find it easy to formulate a definition of what our personal rights entail. Still, it's an interesting concept. For a large part our rights are determined by the norms and values in a society. For example, people think differently about their individual rights and responsibilities here in the Netherlands then they do in the States. It's hard to make an absolute definition about someones' personal rights. Your rights are dependent on the age and the area you live in. Nowadays, I think everyone can (and should) agree about certain universal norms though, like human rights and protection for children. Slavery was accepted back in the 1800s, as is abortion in large parts of the world nowadays. We can be glad torture isn't anymore, even though it was a very common practice in the 1800s. Logically, considered the broad acceptance of abortus I would reckon that to someones personal right or responsibility. That doesn't mean I will support it, but I will just have to accept it and try not to judge about it.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 23, 2004 14:32:47 GMT -5
Guarp,
Do we really want to be blown around by what is currently accepted in our ever changing cultures?
Are you saying that if murder were considered acceptable in some culture that you wouldn't judge that murder is wrong?
This idea that there are absolutly no absolutes (an obviously illogical statement) seems to be so common. Does this idea come from anywhere in the Bible?
What about this idea about not judging wrong behavior or sin? What if I were judgmental..would you judge that?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 23, 2004 16:04:29 GMT -5
Not at all analogous. If the Bible were merely a book, then you would be correct. But the Bible is spiritually discerned, and the desire and ability to understand it is given by God only to those who are willing obey. This is in no way related to watching a movie. It really doesn't make any difference if it is a sacred book, a mivie, a play, or a short story. If you only read, see, or hear 5% of it you can not really make a sound judgment as to the whole. Only in hindsight. Before th NT there is no mention of any forsight being contained in Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 23, 2004 16:17:14 GMT -5
Now we are getting somewhere. I oppose things that some consider individual rights such as baby killing and slavery because yes, I support individual rights. How could I support one individual right when it denys someone else theirs? Would you support a persons "personal right" to sex with consenting minors? Would you have supported a persons "personal right" to slaves in the early 1800's? A personal right is one that does not infringe on the rights of others. Killing babies has never been mentioned. I am assuming by 'baby' you mean an individual that is not dependent solely on the mother to live. Slavery infringes on the personal rights of another being. A minor cannot give consent. That is what makes them a minor. A woman has the right to choose what she allows to grow within her body. It is her choice and hers alone. The government should have no say. When the fetus is of the age when it is not solely dependent on the mother for survival it becomes an individual and should have all the rights any individual has. The goal, of course, would be to have an educated population that would never be in the situation where an abortion was even considered. Slavery, as I pointed out, is not an option because it infringes on the rights of another.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 23, 2004 16:52:20 GMT -5
Guarp,Do we really want to be blown around by what is currently accepted in our ever changing cultures? Are you saying that if murder were considered acceptable in some culture that you wouldn't judge that murder is wrong? Robb, That's not exactly what I am saying. Norms do differ around the world and throughout time, but there are certain 'hypernorms' that are applicable anytime, anywhere. Like I mentioned human rights. Good common sense will tell you that murder does violate human rights, right? If there is a local community where murder is acceptable, that still would conflict with the hypernorm of "murder = wrong". Therefore that norm can never be acceptable and is illegitimate. No, as far as I know I do not read about this idea in the Bible.. This thread brought to my mind the book "Ties that Bind" by Donaldson & Dunfee, which is about a social contracts approach to business ethics. I find the social contract approach interesting and I see its application on many aspects of society in general. This theory is based on (normative) virtue ethics, while what we read in the bible is closer to deontologist ethics (emphasizing duties or rules) or consequentialist ethics (emphasizing the consequences of our actions -"Do unto others as you would be done by"- ). (Is that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.) This might explain the difference in my reasoning. Who am I to judge? from my liberal viewpoint I would not judge you for being judgemental. (even though it's very hard not to judge) It's something I'm having trouble with though. In 1 Cor. 5 we read that it is our responsibility to judge those inside the church, not to judge people outside the church, as God will judge them. At my age, I often don't feel I have the wisdom and the right spirit to judge others, even if it is inside the church. So I'm trying hard not to judge. I am not so sure whether I can explain this correctly. Any comments are welcome, as it will help me to understand things better. Thanks, Guarp
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 23, 2004 20:35:07 GMT -5
Rant mode on...
You say fetus, I say unborn baby. Maybe the word fetus makes you feel better about your position. Anyways, a baby can live outside the womb at about 26 weeks. Do you oppose abortion after that point then?
It is interesting that the level of dependancy works it's way into your thinking. Maybe we could apply that reasoning to retarded people who are totally dependant even after being born.
Btw, what is your impression of the videos that show the pain that the babies endure while they are being murdered in the womb by executioners know as doctors. If you need links, I will be happy to provide them or you can search the web for "abortion videos", "baby killing videos", etc. I am sure such an informed person as yourself has seen many of them and would want to comment on them. They are after all, your biggest enemy as a pro-abortionist, as they show the horrors of the killing that you support, in graphic detail.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 23, 2004 20:40:32 GMT -5
Of course. Do you support the murder of unborn babies?
Guarp, what do you think about the idea of following the absolutes and principles that God gives us in the Bible and throwing the standards of our cultures out the window?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jul 23, 2004 23:25:58 GMT -5
. . . . When the fetus is of the age when it is not solely dependent on the mother for survival it becomes an individual and should have all the rights any individual has. . . . So, then, when a person is seriously ill or otherwise incapacitated and requires constant assistance in order to survice, i.e. is totally dependent on another person, that person on whom he is dependent has every right to kill him? inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 24, 2004 0:34:18 GMT -5
You say fetus, I say unborn baby. Maybe the word fetus makes you feel better about your position. I use the word fetus because it is defined to mean the exact item I am talking about. If I was talking about a developing baby before the end of the eighth week I would say embryo. Prior to cleavage I would call it a zygote. I have no reason to feel better or worse. I also have no need to call it something it is not for shock value. A baby can always live outside the womb. The question at hand is when can a fetus survive. I believe 19 weeks is the youngest fetus to survive to date. I am opposed to abortion. However I do not expect my values to be forced on others. I believe people have personal rights. It is a tough question. I do not have all the answers. But I do know that passing a law against abortions will not stop them from happening and will endanger more lives. I see you and inatent have ignored one of the key words in my statement and have twisted it to suit your needs. I believe my statement included the phrase "...when it is not solely dependent on the mother for survival...". Anyone can care for severly incapacitated people. A mother is required for a fetus to survive. But some questions for you: What will be your stance when a human womb is no longer required to produce a baby? What should be done with the zygotes left over from in vitro fertilization? What is the status from a spiritual standpoint of aborted zygotes, ebryos, and fetuses? I view them much like a MM film. Or the films and photos of children killed in Iraq by the US bombs. Or the endless re-playing of the planes hitting the WTC. Propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 24, 2004 1:06:03 GMT -5
I disagree. First, MM's work is the result of one man, inspired not by God, but by his own opinion and his own self-admitted desire to influence people negatively about Bush and the war with Militant Islam -- and he ultimately displays a total lack of understanding about the situation. MM is, as you admit, a propagandist. Second, it only took the first 5 minutes or so to prove that my initial suspicions about the film were correct.
I'm not so sure about about that. How many babies are aborted each year? The stat I just found said that about 1,370,000 babies are legally killed every year in the U.S. alone. If abortion were illegal, yes, some women would choose to abort illegally using unsafe methods -- but I doubt the number would be as high as 1,370,000. Just a hunch. So, imo, more lives are actually being endangered (the lives of the unborn) because abortion is "legal".
|
|
|
Post by question on Jul 24, 2004 2:51:23 GMT -5
I disagree. First, MM's work is the result of one man, inspired not by God, Is this a fact or a belief?
|
|
guarp not signed in
Guest
|
Post by guarp not signed in on Jul 24, 2004 5:50:31 GMT -5
Do you support the murder of unborn babies? When I visited the States for the first time two years ago, I was driving through SD when I noticed a sign along the highway stating "Abortus, the Silent Holocaust". I was shocked when I read that. Abortus is not a common practice here in the Netherlands, but it is legal untill 24 weeks into pregnancy. I don't know too much about it, but to compare abortus with the holocaust is something that does not make sense to me. As I stated before I do not approve abortus, that's something I can not support being a Christian. Still, I don't want to judge others for doing it. How do you feel about death penalty then? If you strongly believe that killing is wrong, under any circumstance, I would think that you would also condemn capital punishment as well? I believe that the commandments given by Jesus in (for example) Mark 12 is not dependent on culture and is an absolute principle. He told us that there is no greater commandment then to love the Lord your God with all your soul, mind and all your strength and to love your neighbour as yourself. I consider my standards 'higher' then the average morality of todays world, which is a judgment, but that doesn't mean we have to judge others who live by the standards of our societies nowadays. I am really sorry, but I have to leave now. I won't be online for the coming days. (going to convention) I'll pick it up when I'm back home. Guarp
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 24, 2004 9:01:01 GMT -5
So, if you lived in the 1860's would you have supported the abolition of slavery or would you have favored the status quo, not wanting to force your values on others via the government?
The Bible shows us that killing is not wrong in every circumstance. I believe that murder is wrong (because God says so) and the govt wields the power of the sword in order to enforce laws against the unjust (because God says so).
Agreed. Is that the only commandment you believe to be an absolute?
Amen! Also, he who loves me keeps my commandments.
Have a blessed convention Guarp.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by kelly on Jul 24, 2004 20:56:51 GMT -5
Any one who has actually seen the movie, even if you despise MM, can tell you how much of an effect it has on you. To see the actual horror of war and that civilians and our men and women are being killed for NOTHING! We gave the Iraqies the weapons in the first place! Iran sold nuclear weapon making materials in the last 5 years to every country BUT iraq!! Bush is an idiot and the whole election was a sham.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Jul 24, 2004 20:59:29 GMT -5
As for the comments on the murder of UNBORN babies, if you see F911 then you see the ACTUAL LIVING babies that were killed by our presidents signature!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jul 25, 2004 0:55:20 GMT -5
It is not for nothing.
Did MM inform his unknowing audience that the U.S. is at the bottom of the list of countries that "armed" Iraq (Russia at the top, other European countries not far behind).
Yep -- soak up all that MM tripe -- yummy, yummy.
Please. Regarding abortion -- that is purposeful and intentional. Regarding Iraq -- the military does not intentionally target innocent civilians, and anyone who stops to think about it for a moment knows that. Of course, it's much easier to throw out emotional comments like this . . . . and I'm aware that MM fallaciously presented quite the rosy picture of Iraq before the coalition action there. Thank God thousands of living babies have been saved from a tyrant like Saddam. His thugs routinely (purposefully and intentionally) slaughtered men, women, and children, and dumped them into mass graves (bodies recovered have reached more than 400,000 -- expected to be a high as 1,000,000). The Iraqi people are glad to be free from the madman who used to rule over them with fear, oppression, brutality, rape, and murder. The least people could do is be happy the Iraqis are now free to chart their own course, instead of live in daily fear that any misstep or misspoken word would find them missing at the hands of Saddam's brutes . . . forever.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jul 25, 2004 20:40:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 25, 2004 22:59:02 GMT -5
Thanks for the links Ed. I think that all of the pro MM movie garbage people should have to read all of the material on all of those sites before further commenting. Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 26, 2004 13:19:05 GMT -5
It all depends on a person's viewpoint. If the reason for going to war was to remove the threat to the US and reduce terrorism, then it might be argued that it was a waste. There were no weapons that were threatening the US and the threat of terrorism has, according to most, been increased not decreased. Does position really matter? This is like justifying torture by saying we do not torture people as badly as country XX does. Tripe from the left or tripe from the right. Anyone who believes either side without question is doing themselves a disservice. You are aware only vicariously. From the standpoint of the dead does the intent really matter? Although the military might not intentionally target civilians they certainly know, as they did during Rolling Thunder" in Viet Nam that the raining bombs killed the innocent along with the soldiers. This is not a US problem. Everyone would like to prevent the needless killing of people but we cannot invade every country that does and force our will on the governments there. And the point is? There are governments all over the world that do not treat their people as other governments think they should. The US does not treat its prisoners as the Red Cross thinks it should. Many think the US support of the death penalty is wrong. Should they invade the US to put an end to what they think is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by sd on Jul 26, 2004 13:44:12 GMT -5
As for the comments on the murder of UNBORN babies, if you see F911 then you see the ACTUAL LIVING babies that were killed by our presidents signature!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 26, 2004 14:07:07 GMT -5
We can be glad torture isn't anymore, even though it was a very common practice in the 1800s. The US justice department had said torture is OK as long as it does not lead to death. Bits and pieces: And you thought we were the good guys!
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 26, 2004 14:41:05 GMT -5
Sorry, Guarp. Intelligent people do that sort of thing everyday. I have not read The Satanic Bible, but I disqualify it because of what I have read, The Holy Bible. Understand? I am not sure this is the hallmark of intellegent people. A quick glance shows that you have only included reviews that support your preconceived opinion. Based on that reasoning you could very well point to 5 reviews that praise Hitler's Mein Kampf and come away with the idea it was an insightful and wonderful book. Selecting commentaries that support your view and then supporting your view by pointing at the commentaries seems a bit circular. You need to be able to separate what is murder and what is not before you can discuss the points. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another. In the United States abortion does not fall into this catagory. It is a personal right that a woman has. It is therefore up to the individual to determine how they will act. I am opposed to killing. I am opposed to the state doing it. I am opposed to the CIA doing it while extracting "information". I am opposed to dropping bombs on people to force our way of thinking on them. There are very few problems that are solved by killing. Soldiers kill. That is their decision to make. It is not illegal and although I do not support it I do not expect my values to be forced on another. Exactly what is it that you find so odd about that stance?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 26, 2004 15:13:00 GMT -5
I disagree. First, MM's work is the result of one man, inspired not by God, but by his own opinion and his own self-admitted desire to influence people negatively about Bush and the war with Militant Islam -- and he ultimately displays a total lack of understanding about the situation. Are you comfortable in discounting any influence by God? Since you didn't see the film you really don't know if you initial opinion was correct or not. That sounds in the right range. In 2000, 1.31 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. Of course it is insightful to know that in the US 49% of pregnancies are unintended. A little education, stressing both abstinence and the proper use of birth control could reduce the number of pregnancies and thus the abortion rate. Roughly 1/2 of the unintended pregnancies end in abortion. 47% of these pregnancies are among only 7% of women who do not practice contraception. Teaching about birth control could result in a significant decrease in the number of abortions. You are probably correct in this thinking. It almost certainly would result in increased danger to mothers. There is no need to place the word legal in quotes. Abortion is indeed legal. This raises the question of the use of "emergency contraception" methods. Should this be allowed or not? Perhaps before that question is the one regarding when do ova and sperm become individuals? At what point does causing them to abort become wrong? Imagine in vitro fertilization and implantation either against a woman's will or without her knowledge. You never know what that visit to the ObGyn will result in!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jul 27, 2004 19:42:47 GMT -5
Yes Present,
Please teach us Christians out here what the Bible says about birth control. Does God view children as burdens that must be prevented or as blessings that should be embraced?
Btw, did you know that abstinance works every time it's tried?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 28, 2004 1:10:36 GMT -5
Yes Present, Please teach us Christians out here what the Bible says about birth control. Does God view children as burdens that must be prevented or as blessings that should be embraced? Btw, did you know that abstinance works every time it's tried? Robb I do not know what the Bible says about birth control but I do know Christian attitudes when I see it. The Bible is silent about a lot of things. Cloning. Gene splicing. In vitro fertilization. Open heart surgery. Stem cell research. Birth control is another personal freedom but I am sure it could be viewed as some form of redefined "murder" as well. It is difficult to determine though because there was no response regarding your views as to exactly when the sperm and ova form what you consider to be an organism with all the rights of a person. Do the gametes have any rights?
|
|