www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/6751...
Your body produces a type of stem cell that turns into your sex cells, and they're different for males (spermatocytes) and females (ovacytes). When the cell goes through meiosis, it typically creates a copy of the gametic stem cell and three copies of a sperm or egg, depending on your gender. However, it looks like scientists were able to turn spermatocytes into regular stem cells, which they could coax into the pancreas cells, or just about any other cell in the body.
Interesting. As a woman without diabetes I'm as unaffected by the discovery as possible, but the principle is promising. Though I still wait for the first scandal (which will come), I have high hopes for stem cell research. Speaking of that, I recall something about using embryos for research purposes being illegal in the US, has this changed with the new government?
Wow, my teens years could have helped so many people.
goldo could easily fuel this project hahaha
Interesting. As a woman without diabetes I'm as unaffected by the discovery as possible, but the principle is promising. Though I still wait for the first scandal (which will come), I have high hopes for stem cell research. Speaking of that, I recall something about using embryos for research purposes being illegal in the US, has this changed with the new government?
I think the Obama administration lifted the ban. Not 100% sure.
No, I don't believe so. What ended up happening was the Clinton administration faced a similar ban issued by conservative Supreme Court judges and Congress members (the height of scientific illiteracy in my country). The ban is on any sort of research that requires the destruction of embryos, and I believe at some point, there was language in the bill responsible for the ban specifically spelling out that this meant embryonic stem cell research. The Clinton and Obama administrations circumvented this by saying that embryonic stem cell isn't quite putting a baby in a blender as most conservative pundits believe, let alone fetuses, and for that reason, stem cell research was okay. At some point during the Obama administration, earlier this year in fact, the ban on embryonic stem cell research was upheld in the Supreme Court. It was also declared that using language to ignore the ban, rather than just striking it down, was unconstitutional.
Stem cell research is still legal in the US, just not embryonic stem cell research. However, this is where this research comes in. It means that despite the ban on embryonic stem cell research, important medical and scientific research can continue.
Scientists have also been able to do something similar to this particular discovery with red blood cells. Because all of your cells contain your full genetic code, with certain chemical reactions, its possible to coax at least certain cells back into stem cells.
How the hell those the Supreme Court get involve in the legality of scientific research?
Here's where the scientific illiteracy thing comes in. Most conservative pundits in the country are hardcore Evangelical christians or Catholics (textbook biblical literalists in most cases). As such, its almost a prerequisite to be pro-life. Its also a pre-requisite to be scientifically ignorant, and rather than actually doing the research to see what it actually is, almost all of them sit around murmuring fearfully amongst themselves, and came up with the idea that embryonic stem cells must come from taking a baby or a fetus and tossing in a blender for kicks. While that's hardly what it is, too many people in the government are so staunchly anti-abortion (including in the Supreme Court and in Congress) that embryonic stem cell research, regardless of whether or not that's what it is, or its possible applications or intent, was banned.
Embryonic stem cells can be cloned from other embryonic stem cells, you can take them from conceptuses (zygotes which have implanted in the mother, but are still just bundles of cells), or you can get them from the amniotic fluid in the mother. Its hardly what the conservatives believe it is, but, in this country, you don't have to understand a thing about what it is you're criticizing to be taken seriously. You just have to sound emotional about it, and people will take you seriously. You'll probably even get elected.
Just a quick note: While not all christians hold the same stance as most conservatives in the country, and aren't as uninformed as they are, unfortunately, most of those in opposition to embryonic stem cell research in Congress are in fact Fundamentalist christians.
Yeah, and in the Left Below series of book, the anti-christ is made in a laboratory.
What I was asking was how can a Supreme Court rule in favor of superstition? What does the Constitution have to do with banning it? If abortion is legal, why can't stemcell research?
And babies in blenders is just stupid. The crunchiness of baby bones is half the fun when eating them.
Just like how I described it. Democracy in the US is a joke. Its a dictatorship with more people in charge, only occassionally forced to uphold certain parts of the Constitution. Also, abortion is also only marginally legal*. If the right-wingers have their way, it wouldn't be, and for some, that includes even in instances of **** or incest.
A majority of the politicians here in the US are Fundamentalist christians. Only 35% of the US actually accepts Darwinian Evolution as a naturalistic process, with only a few more accepting Evolution as a concept. Most of the Fundamentalist christians, especially in the Southern US, are also Young Earth Creationists (they believe the earth is 6000 to 12,000 years old at the most). Also, unless you believe in the Judeo-christian god, you're not permitted to hold certain political offices, assuming you could get elected in the first place. We're one of the fundamentalist religion hot spots in the world. Effectively, to get something done, all you have to do is appeal to peoples' primal fear of that which they don't know or don't understand, and you can accomplish anything. So long as you're not interfering with what the majority considers "constitutional rights," or are absolutely forced to consider constitutional rights, you can pass any bill you want.
*And by marginally legal I mean the following:
-You can only get it up until a certain point. Late term abortions are still illegal in many states.
-Some states ban it completely except for in instances of **** and incest.
-Some states, its banned entirely. In Utah, they have laws banning what they call "intentional miscarriages." If the state believes your miscarriage was intentional, they can have you tried and arrested.
-In Oklahoma and Florida, laws were almost passed in which the mother would have to get an ultrasound of the fetus before getting the abortion, which she would have to pay for out of pocket. Certain politicians have admitted, and used as the main argument for this bill, that the idea is to make mothers seeking an abortion have second thoughts by tugging at heart strings. Also part of this bill would have been the right of the doctor to refuse to perform the abortion. The bill actually passed in Oklahoma, but was deemed unconstitutional. In Florida, it was struck down by Governor Charlie Crist, but doing so lost him points with the Republican party, and [I believe it affected] his running for Senator.
Yeah, Iran should be an ally.
Unfortunately, the Tea Party's (radical Republicans) platform this year was spreading ignorance and demanding theocracy. And racism.
I am just curious to know why hasn't the American Super-Avenger team (**** yeah!)TM hasn't arrived en mass to flame you.
Here's a couple reasons *I* haven't.
door #Carbon
His exchange with RH has me generally pessimistic that this thread is going to end in a peacable manner, so I don't feel like getting invested in it to begin with.
You know, you're not really telling me things I didn't know. I am just curious to know why hasn't the American Super-Avenger team (**** yeah!)TM hasn't arrived en mass to flame you.
If Erato, Plu or I would have said the same things, we would be facing a truck load of hate.
You can add Qube, ADHadh, and probably Boraxe to that too.
I'm working with two theories right now. My original suspicion about communication could apply here, in which case it might be worth analysing his language patterns (I'm currently wondering if certain normally mitigating circumstances perhaps appear provocative in this context). But interesting as it is, I suspect it's more a case of them not having noticed.
Or perhaps he just hasn't got a hatedom yet. At least, that was how it went with me. I got along fine with most people, but eventually, some conflicts got too deep, and some posters decided they really didn't like me, and they started tailing me and comment negatively on everything I said, which has been going on ever since. Perhaps it simply takes time for people to get aggravated enough to respond, but once they do, they really commit to it.
And that is your explanation, but what about the others?
Not my department.
And Erato, Plu and I just lie?
Not sure when I've said you, or anyone else, lies. I'm more likely to say it's a difference of perspective of being wrong/misinformed, not a case of willful liars.
But not all of the team is high.
Okay, first, there is no "team", or if there is I'm not a member, and second I'm feeling off, not high. Admittedly I've only been "high" on prescription drugs and they do their best to engineer the fun out of those, but still.
And third, have you considered they just might be gone? The boards are pretty slow right now.
What is that miscarraige law anyway?
Google "utah miscarriage law" and choose the source you like.
For the sake of argument, let's say that I'm wrong in these points:
1) that there is a God;
2) that human beings are His special creation;
3) that abortion is murder.
Let us say that I am wrong on these stands, but I keep them anyway. Whom have I harmed? Will taking a stand on these positions slow down scientific progress? Maybe. However, research has shown that adult stem cells are a far better thing to use in terms of stem cell research, so that's not really an issue.
Have I violated the rights of anyone? If you view that unborn babies are not human beings, that they are üntermensch, then perhaps so. The question arises, though, that if you can declare the unborn to be üntermensch, whom else can be declared to be the same? Psychopaths have their definitions of whom they may freely torture/maim/kill, even if it happens to be "anybody except me".
Now let us say that I am correct in the above statements. Under that assumption, those who commit abortion, endorse abortion, participate in abortion, have the blood of millions of people on their hands. If you are comfortable with that, then what does that make you?
Again, this assumes that I am right about the above three points. If I am wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. Go ahead and kill the üntermensch, make your lives better and longer and whatnot.
But if I'm right, then you have innocent blood on your hands, blood that cries out unto God as the blood of Abel cried out against Cain. You will have to answer for that. What can you possibly say to God Almighty to justify what you have done?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG5Qk-jB0D4
Granted, I wouldn't mind that one damn bit. Needless to say, I'm "sort of" for embryonic stem cell research. I love science, even the cruel, science fiction kind. But I am also fairly conservative. Not Christian conservative though obviously. If you ask me that's a bunch of reactionary crap made up by the liberal imperialists. (I'm a bolshevik)
Now, maybe science can make things so much easier for diabetics. But as a communist... does NEED mean COMFORT? No. Proof is we have insulin, diabetics don't NEED this, this would just be BETTER. Is it worth the cost? Not the moral cost of farming zygotes, (or hell... full fledge goo goo ga ga babies, I don't care) to gut them up and make a protein shake out of them. But the sort of moral implications of a society that feels entitled. I mean proof is, 90% of this topic has been all about "hahaha! Christians are so damn stupid and oppressive! Bash bash bash! I eat babies! Me so funny!"
Maybe people should die in the streets of preventable illness... At least until the humility starts to kick in. Which is why we need a bigger, but more left leaning state. Nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
And before anybody says anything, yes, diabetes runs in my family, I'm at high risk for it. So that applies to myself probably more so then anyone.
For the sake of argument, let's say that I'm wrong in these points:
1) that there is a God;
2) that human beings are His special creation;
Just a few hypothetical points here, and I'm really not trying to start anything...
Even if you were right on these two points, what relevance does this have to the subject of abortion or embryonic stem cell research? Could it not be possible that a god exists, but you be wrong on the abortion issue? And what happens if you're wrong, and not in the sense of whether a god exists or not, but what if you die and Allah, Krishna, or some other non-christian deity is the one at the pearly gates? Or, for another example what happens if you find out from the bible god that Satan wrote the Old Testament of the Bible, and that Yahweh works through naturalistic processes (stellar nucleosynthesis, evolution, etc)?
Now, for the question I'd like you to answer, regardless of the outcomes or answers that you would give for any of the aforementioned questions, what relevance does any of them have to Embryonic Stem Cells?
3) that abortion is murder.
Okay. Say that I accept that a conceptus isn't just a bundle of cells (it's not yet a fetus, its not even recognizeable as an embryo), that it has a soul (and that souls exist), are sperm and egg cells 50% human themselves? If the human testicles produce billions of spermatazoa in each ejaculate, consider that only one actually impregnates an egg cell, even during reproductive sex, is a male guilty of so-many half counts of manslaughter or second degree murder? Does that also mean that females are guilty of at least one similar count during menstration? And when a zygote fails to implant, or spontaneously aborts due to damaging mutations to the DNA molecule, or simply because it has the wrong number of chromosomes, is that a full count of second degree murder or manslaughter?
Whom have I harmed?
The reasons for typically getting abortions are as follows...
*Condoms break. The pill fails from time to time, or sometimes the woman forgets to take her medication. Sometimes she starts taking a medication that counteracts the effects of the pill. Sometimes, the morning-after pill fails. The point is, the woman isn't ready for, and didn't to have, a baby.
*Impregnation from ****.
*Impregnation from Incest.
*Ectopic pregnancies, where the conceptus implants in the fallopian tubes instead of in the uterus. Suddenly, the pregnancy becomes mortally dangerous for both mother AND baby, and lives are in danger.
*The mother or baby has some kind of medical condition, similar to the above mentioned reason, to where carrying the baby to term will possibly cost the mother and/or baby their lives.
*It can be guaranteed that the baby will have some kind of debilitating birth defect, and will either die prematurely, or will have a poor quality of life (spending most of its time in the hospital, paralyzed, or horribly disfigured, such as being born without a skull [or sections of it], limbs, or skin).
*Teen pregnancy
*The mother simply doesn't have the funds or resources to raise a child, or pay for the medical expenses that follow from carrying the baby to term. For example, the baby is born out of wedlock, and the mother doesn't believe she can raise the baby on her own, or belongs to culture that frowns on such things.
*Mistakes happen.
Pretty much every woman effected by all of that. Adoption simply isn't the proper solution to all of them, or even a viable option in others. Plus, you'd otherwise be telling someone that they don't have a say over their own reproductive system, and pushing your own sense of morality onto others, who may not share your version of right or wrong.
Will taking a stand on these positions slow down scientific progress?
Yup. If it weren't for political opposition, scientists wouldn't have to look for loopholes to get around something that can't clearly be defined as abortion, let alone murder. Your cells, especially your gametes, aren't a person, and a bundle of cells, even a conceptus, isn't a person either. It doesn't have hopes or dreams, feelings or relationships, memories, the ability to feel pain, or a personality of its own, the kind of things we attribute to a person. It doesn't even have the recognizeable shape of a fetus at that point. Taking those cells and dividing them up to clone them and make more isn't abortion, its not even murder or dismemberment.
However, research has shown that adult stem cells are a far better thing to use in terms of stem cell research, so that's not really an issue.
Care to provide a source? As a Biochem major, I've never heard of this. A stem cell is a stem is a stem cell as far as I've always understood it and that the scientific literature has explained. The only difference between one or another is somatic stem cells and gametic stem cells. And since the ban on embryonic stem cell research was upheld, I haven't heard any such thing even on pop-science websites or sources. If you've got some new information, I'd genuinely like to see it. I like to read about new discoveries.
The question arises, though, that if you can declare the unborn to be üntermensch, whom else can be declared to be the same? Psychopaths have their definitions of whom they may freely torture/maim/kill, even if it happens to be "anybody except me".
I think this going a bit off topic. Anyway, I'm going to call "red herring fallacy." It's not the same thing, not even comparable.
Under that assumption, those who commit abortion, endorse abortion, participate in abortion, have the blood of millions of people on their hands. If you are comfortable with that, then what does that make you?
Again, off topic. But I can't help but notice the phrase "commit abortion." I'd only be willing to say that endorsing or supporting a woman's right to choose to get an abortion makes me a psychopath only if masturbation and reproductive sex makes you and your spouse genocidal.
But if I'm right, then you have innocent blood on your hands, blood that cries out unto God as the blood of Abel cried out against Cain. You will have to answer for that. What can you possibly say to God Almighty to justify what you have done?
That might actually mean something to me if I secretly believed in your god or were intimidated by "what if you're wrong" statements. But because as far as I understand it, actually discussing religion is banned, so I won't go there. I'm only going to ask that if I'm going to be made to respect that rule, that you afford me and the others the same courtesy.
if masturbation and gestation were the same thing. But they're not. A fertilized egg is not sperm. This be like me comparing the completely safe water to hydrogen monoxide because hey, both contain the hydrogen element so drink up, right?
You know this full well, yet choose to use this argument because you know the person you're arguing with is too much of a doormat, being raised religiously, to actually make a rational defense. Not to say Christians are irrational, they just choose to sit on it. Trying to be all forgiving and merciful and crap. It's just unrealistic. And it hurts way more then it helps, if helps at all.
Honestly both of you frustrate me, just in different ways. I mean when I go around saying gay people aren't people, I'm considered a monster, but someone says their own damn child isn't a person, and awwww! That's so cute! Row row! Fight the patriarchy! You're such a rebel even though abortion has been legal since forever in this country. It's never been illegal, not in any state, ever. It's just more widely accessible now, and you need little to no reason now, and it was done so on lying in court, eugenics programs, and rich corporate elites seeing family as a barrier to full time workers but hey! You're edgy man!
More strawman. "Masturbation is genocide if"
if masturbation and gestation were the same thing. But they're not. A fertilized egg is not sperm. This be like me comparing the completely safe water to hydrogen monoxide because hey, both contain the hydrogen element so drink up, right?
You know this full well, yet choose to use this argument because you know the person you're arguing with is too much of a doormat,
I never said that my opponent was a doormat, never implied, never thought it. I'm just trying to get my opponent to think outside their own view, perhaps a little more scientifically, maybe strip the religious context from his argument, so that he/she/it can better appeal to people who don't share his/her/its beliefs, or help him/her/it see where I'm coming from, or help him/her/it at least see the flaws in his own argument. See, the whole point of this dialogue thing isn't to defeat people, leave them confused, etc. If I don't give Iqwinn the benefit of the doubt, and just assume that he/she/it isn't capable of raising a cogent, rational argument, then I'm no better than you are, making sweeping generalizations about my opponent because they're a christian.
*I don't know if Iqwinn is male or female, so I apologize Iqwinn.
Not to say Christians are irrational, they just choose to sit on it.
I think you're making a sweeping generalization fallacy. Even here. There are such things as liberal christians, who aren't as unreasonable as their fundamentalist cousins, and even if you look at it, christians are all people, and not everyone is the same.
Honestly both of you frustrate me, just in different ways.
Not my problem. I would just say you have personal issues.
I mean when I go around saying gay people aren't people, I'm considered a monster,
That would make you a monster, and a morally reprehensible scum bag.
but someone says their own damn child isn't a person, and awwww! That's so cute!
A conceptus isn't a person. It's literally a bundle of cells. It's just copies of the original zygote once the chromosomes have mixed, and the egg and sperm have become one individual cell. An embryo is similarly a bundle of cells and potential body parts. But its not a person. And sometimes, circumstances arise where a mother has to abort, as in literally has no choice, or absolutely no way of surviving the debt of carrying a baby to term, let alone raise it. Such a shocker, I know...
You're such a rebel even though abortion has been legal since forever in this country.
No, it hasn't. And even since Roe v. Wade, hardcore conservatives have been trying to do everything in their power to overturn it, circumvent it, or get in its way. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and Roe v. Wade wouldn't have taken place.
and you need little to no reason now, and it was done so on lying in court, eugenics programs, and rich corporate elites seeing family as a barrier to full time workers
I mentioned the reasons for getting one to illustrate WHY people get them, and WHY its not a good idea to keep women from getting abortions. Its a strawman to think the only people who get them are loose women who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. I know, that too, must come as a shock.
The American eugenics program was left behind and decried by the scientific community as unscientific and the Victorian aristocracy's way of justifying intolerance and bigotry, very early on in the 1900's. However, by the time politicians hijacked the failing movement, states were already castrating criminals, handicaps, and other "undesirables of society" and deciding who could and couldn't have babies. That's not the same as getting an abortion. And no matter what quotes you can bring up from Margerate Sanger, the point is that abortions don't really support eugenics, and regardless of Sanger's opinion, there are plenty of non-eugenics related reasons for a mother to consider one. Eugenics isn't even relevant to the discussion.
Not sure where the rich corporate elites come in, or where lying in court comes in, so I won't dignify that part with a response. The same goes for the points in your first post: not dignifying that with a response either. Either way, you're clearly misinformed.
As a Christian, I stand against the use of embryonic stem cells precisely because the only way to get them is from an aborted baby (yes, I use that term, because it is a human being; it is a product of the sexual union of two human beings, and thus it is a human being).
For the sake of argument, let's say that I'm wrong in these points:
1) that there is a God;
2) that human beings are His special creation;
3) that abortion is murder.
Let us say that I am wrong on these stands, but I keep them anyway. Whom have I harmed? Will taking a stand on these positions slow down scientific progress? Maybe. However, research has shown that adult stem cells are a far better thing to use in terms of stem cell research, so that's not really an issue.
Have I violated the rights of anyone? If you view that unborn babies are not human beings, that they are üntermensch, then perhaps so. The question arises, though, that if you can declare the unborn to be üntermensch, whom else can be declared to be the same? Psychopaths have their definitions of whom they may freely torture/maim/kill, even if it happens to be "anybody except me".
Now let us say that I am correct in the above statements. Under that assumption, those who commit abortion, endorse abortion, participate in abortion, have the blood of millions of people on their hands. If you are comfortable with that, then what does that make you?
Again, this assumes that I am right about the above three points. If I am wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. Go ahead and kill the üntermensch, make your lives better and longer and whatnot.
But if I'm right, then you have innocent blood on your hands, blood that cries out unto God as the blood of Abel cried out against Cain. You will have to answer for that. What can you possibly say to God Almighty to justify what you have done?
And what can you possibly say to God Almighty to justify the murder of those same babies? Obviously, you don't know what happens to those embryos once they're no longer useful: they are frozen for a "just in case" scenario, and then after a few months, they are thrown away. That's right, your want to save the babies ends up with them melting in a slow and horrible death in the GARBAGE.
And as a Christian, how do you justify the suffering and death of millions when you know that you could do something to stop it? I don't the Lord Jesus Christ would look kindly on those who allow suffering to go on in the world, simply because helping might compromise their morals.
For that matter, what about the great King David? He warred to give his people a home, but when it was done, he was impure for having slaughtered so many, and so it was left to Solomon to build the temple to God. David did God's work, though, even though it clashed with his own morals and God's typical code.
What about Moses, who freed the Israelites and then could not enter the promised land, because he too was stained with the blood of thousands of Egyptians? Was he an unjust sinner to be viewed with scorn?
Sometimes to do the right thing in the eyes of God, you have to look beyond your own pathetic life and do what is right for the world, even at the cost of yourself. Of course, I wouldn't expect neo-Fundamentalist Christianity to know anything about that, seeing as that little sect's entire doctrine is about personal salvation while ignoring anyone else...
Re: Blood on your hands: ... We're all guilty of it. Some of us just don't know it. The worst of us deny it.
While my grasping extremities may have been covered in blood, I assure you that they are decontaminated and cleansed of blood at this moment.
Good point. Our standards of living are based on exploitation.
Yar, our world runs on blood ...
While my grasping extremities may have been covered in blood, I assure you that they are decontaminated and cleansed of blood at this moment.
and, apparently, so do robots.
How about "God, if a fetus in ensouled at conception and thus abortion is murder, why did you make it so easy to have a miscarriage? Why did you make it so hard for women to control their own fertility such that they didn't get pregnant when they weren't ready? Why did you make men scorn condoms and deem it an insult for a woman to ask them to use them? Why did your church say that birth control is abortion, thus ensuring that nearly half of all pregnancies in the united states are unplanned and unwanted? With all this in mind, why did you decide to ****ing ensoul the baby at conception? Think of how many souls you killed before they ever had a chance because you didn't wait a little bit."
I don't know. I'm not God, and I don't have all the answers. However, when you stand before Him, you can ask Him that question.
I'm not God, and I don't have all the answers.
So what, you've got the answers when it comes to trying to shame other people, but you're suddenly lacking of divine insight when it's time for turnabout? How convenient.
That is it? All the rebuttles and just this? Talk about coitus interruptus.
I wish you answered me on me comparing you religious views to the same "tyrannical governments" you claim to fight.
Tell me about it. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that's his way of saying he doesn't have a response or a comeback. If that's really it, I'm a little disappointed. I like at least a little more back and forth with my dialogues.
God made everything, including humanity in the form of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve lived in a lovely garden, where they could have all the food they wanted with just a little work. There was only one condition: They were not to eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That was it. Adam and Eve chose to eat of that tree, and at that point, all the evils in the world, including disease and biological breakdown, came into existence. Loss and pain came into the world because of what Adam and Eve had done. Read it in Genesis Chapters 1 through 3.
Here's the short answer:
God made everything, including humanity in the form of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve lived in a lovely garden, where they could have all the food they wanted with just a little work. There was only one condition: They were not to eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That was it. Adam and Eve chose to eat of that tree, and at that point, all the evils in the world, including disease and biological breakdown, came into existence. Loss and pain came into the world because of what Adam and Eve had done. Read it in Genesis Chapters 1 through 3.
But here's the problem. That's just a bare assertion, unsupported by the facts. And if you tell me something about how we can trust the bible because it was "written/inspired by god," then that leads us back to the question "well how do we know?" In which you'll tell me something along the lines of "because the bible says so." And when I ask "how can we trust it," you'll respond with something like "because it was written by god," and thus the cycle begins again when I'm forced to ask "but how do you know." The whole thing is circular before I even have to start repeating questions. And just asserting that its so doesn't mean anything. I could easilly do that for the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the writings of Buddha, or any other number of holy works, and I could even lead you in circles similar to how the bible can be done. I could also point to a corruptive, lying, mischievious, and/or evil agent to account for other examples, other than the one I was arguing for, like you could easilly claim satan for the other works besides the bible. And just saying you "believe by faith" also doesn't do anything for those who don't share your faith.
But I'm taking that as you not having a response to previous criticisms, so you're just retreating to and hiding behind the story of original sin. I don't think I need to point out that this is both irrelevant to abortion and to embryonic stem cells, and a grievous red herring, likely to save face. Look, if you don't have a response to Goldo, Escher, or myself, I'm okay with that, I'm not going to judge you. I would hope the others wouldn't either, but if you actually have a response, could you at least do a better job of responding to our actual points instead of retreating to scripture? I mean, unless we actually shared your beliefs, it doesn't do anything for us. And while I understand that you wear your beliefs on your shirtsleeve, and there's nothing wrong with that, if people are going to jump up my ass for bringing up the subject of religion, or at least being inconsiderate to others on the forum, do you think its fair that you get to ignore the "no religious topics" rule, but I apparently don't?
...And for the record, I've already read Genesis. I read the bible cover to cover roughly four years ago. I'm an apostate of evangelical christianity, so I've also done the whole "taking a leap of faith" and "praying to Jebus for forgiveness" thing.
...And for the record, I've already read Genesis. I read the bible cover to cover roughly four years ago. I'm an apostate of evangelical christianity, so I've also done the whole "taking a leap of faith" and "praying to Jebus for forgiveness" thing.
Then you are apostate.
If you've truly asked Christ for forgiveness, to be saved, then you are saved, and nothing will change that. However, you will be held accountable for those you have led astray during your time of apostacy.
I am not a perfect man. I will never be a perfect man, until such time as Christ perfects me, so don't think of this as me claiming any such perfection. I am a sinner saved by the grace of God Almighty and the blood of Jesus Christ, nothing more. It is my duty, though, to be salt and light, to reveal error and offer the truth of the Bible. Again, being imperfect, I will do it imperfectly, but I will do it to the best of my ability.
I would that every last one of you, including Goldy, come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ of your own. I would that all of you escape the Lake of Fire and Hell (the way station to the Lake of Fire). Not all of you shall, and that upsets me more than you can possibly know. Some of you will quote Milton, "It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." That sounds grand until you get to Hell and find it to be nothing but flames.
Read the Bible for yourselves, then decide.
Also I don't need to rule, I just want to stay as far away from your god as I can if the scriptures truly show his face. In that regard, I think satan had it pretty much figured out correctly.
I really don't think that you want to be in the Lake of Fire. If Hell, the waystation, is compared to a blast furnace, then the Lake of Fire is even worse. Some theorize that the Lake of Fire is a black hole, and I don't need to tell you what happens when you cross the threshold of a black hole. If that is truly what you want, then you will get it, I'm very sorry to say.
Then you are apostate.
If you've truly asked Christ for forgiveness, to be saved, then you are saved, and nothing will change that. However, you will be held accountable for those you have led astray during your time of apostacy.
Right now, I feel like I'm in the same situation of someone claiming that they've got a gun in their pocket. To make this analogy simple, for a while, I was fooled into thinking that gun was actually there. When I demanded that the person holding the gun, show me, fire it, chamber a bullet, or at least shoot me so that I know that its real, they insisted that they couldn't, but they would shoot me if I dared run away or try to fight back. I've done both, and so far I haven't been wounded. And now that you're doing the same thing to me that so many of your ilk have done, I'm not afraid. Your threat might actually mean something if I actually believed there was iron in your words... but just like the Taoists, Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, Pagans, New Agers, and countless christians before you, I'm not convinced there is. And again, you're avoiding the previous criticisms of your points by hiding behind scripture and veiled threats of hellfire and brimstone.
I am not a perfect man. I will never be a perfect man, until such time as Christ perfects me, so don't think of this as me claiming any such perfection. I am a sinner saved by the grace of God Almighty and the blood of Jesus Christ, nothing more. It is my duty, though, to be salt and light, to reveal error and offer the truth of the Bible. Again, being imperfect, I will do it imperfectly, but I will do it to the best of my ability.
I would that every last one of you, including Goldy, come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ of your own. I would that all of you escape the Lake of Fire and Hell (the way station to the Lake of Fire).
Okay. I'll deal with that crossroads if and when I get there. But tell you what, if Mohammed is the one at the pearly gates, you and me are both going to hell for eternity. But at least I got to sleep in on Sunday.
Not all of you shall, and that upsets me more than you can possibly know.
Trying to strip as much of the religious context out of this as I possibly can to avoid getting into trouble..., that might actually be touching if I actually believed that. But how can you be THAT upset about people you know nothing about, or are scarcely aware of, not sharing your beliefs? You don't know me. You've never met me, heard the sound of my voice, or seen me outside of my profile picture. But even if I accept that to be true, you'd be beating yourself up over almost certainly nothing. You're taking the responsibility of something beyond your control onto your shoulders, you're beating yourself up over a difference of ideology and beliefs, and you're not being fair to yourself. Either way, I would have to say that's rather sad, Iqwinn, that your beliefs make you that upset over those who don't share them. I mean, that sounds like a horrible, self-destructive kind of belief to hold.
Some of you will quote Milton, "It is better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." That sounds grand until you get to Hell and find it to be nothing but flames.
Well, actually, I would quote Mark Twain: "Hell for the company, Heaven for the atmosphere." I might also quote a song called "Blacken the Cursed Sun" by metal band Lamb of God, "better to die quick, fighting on your feet/than to live forever begging on your knees." But seriously, what on earth does this, or any of your other religious ramblings have to do with abortion or embryonic stem cells?
Seriously, if you're just cherry picking points to respond to because you don't have a valid, strong, or even relevant response to the others, and all you have are fallacious appeals to authority, emotion, and consequence/fear, and false dichotomies, I think I'm just going to ignore you for now. To be honest though, I'm not comfortable focusing on religion when I've been told that such things are on the list of banned topics, and that I can get in trouble for it. So if you don't mind, can you please post responses to the points relevant to the topic of the thread, and not just the only other thing you seem to be knowledgeable about? Because if you can bring it up, but I can't, that's not fair.
Read the Bible for yourselves, then decide.
Like I said, I already have. Read the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita and decide for yourself. Or better yet, don't read any of them, and decide for yourself.
I don't need to tell you what happens when you cross the threshold of a black hole.
I'm no physicist, but actually, scientists don't know what happens when you cross the threshold of a black hole (that they certainly do is a bit of a misconception). There are hypotheses, and they know that light gets sucked in towards the center, and it warps space/time around itself, but once you're over the threshold, its really anyone's guess as to what comes next. Whether you get blown out the other side as bits of matter and energy is just one hypothesis. It's also possible that you enter another universe, either like a portal, or in the epicenter of another Big Bang.
Read the Bible for yourselves, then decide.
Every time I do I find another reason to never convert. That book is far too bloody to be my path to tranquility.
Actually, I started reading the bible to get answers for myself, because I didn't like what mainstream christians were promoting as far as how to treat other people, I didn't like the poisonous view of sin that the evangelicals hold ( ie, a slight as small as being temporarilly angry is considered the same as murder, questioning the direction of your life is considered on par with blasphemy, sexual attraction is on par with adultery and/or ****, white lies to protect someone else is still on par with a damaging lie), and there were genuine questions I had about reality that were at least a little troubling. I started with the gospels, read through the New Testament, then went back and read the old testament. The contradictions, the disconnect with reality, the violence perpetrated and supported by the bible god, the mistranslations abound (the NIV points out mistranslations in its many sidenotes), parts that were added in after the bible was put together (the NIV bible also points out where whole sections aren't around in even the earliest, most reliable transcripts), it was all kind of damaging to my faith.
If so, goldy, could you explain to me what in this thread is supposed to have bothered me?
Crossing over into a black hole means instant disintegration, that doesn't sound to bad to me. I wouldn't even be able to feel it.
Well, yes and no. Theory has it that, due to a time dialation effect of the gravity, crossing over the threshold of a black hole, from an objective perspective, is instantaneous. From a subjective perspective, it is an essentially infinite amount of time.
Seriously, if you're just cherry picking points to respond to because you don't have a valid, strong, or even relevant response to the others
Then you might be Goldy. :P
Well, yes and no. Theory has it that, due to a time dialation effect of the gravity, crossing over the threshold of a black hole, from an objective perspective, is instantaneous. From a subjective perspective, it is an essentially infinite amount of time.
But could you survive during that infinite amount of time or would it be your component atoms experiencing forever?
Well, yes and no. Theory has it that, due to a time dialation effect of the gravity, crossing over the threshold of a black hole, from an objective perspective, is instantaneous. From a subjective perspective, it is an essentially infinite amount of time.
But could you survive during that infinite amount of time or would it be your component atoms experiencing forever?
Hard to say as none have come back to tell the tale or, in all likelyhood, even gone close enough to find out at this point in the time line.
I think the deciding factor is 'can you survive untill you reach the threshold'. I would imagine that, where you concious upon reaching the threshold, you would remain concious. Clearly if the black hole kills you before you actually touch it, it is rather irrelevant, but in the original context of the conversation that is clearly not a possibility worth mentioning as this 'blackhole' is one you would only reach after the death of your corporeal shell and the awakening of your disembodied conciousness.
Black Holes have enough gravity to catch light, I doubt a living being would survive being anywhere in a million miles of it.Also I find it amusing that the bible references black holes as they're a pretty new concept as far as I know. According to Wikipedia the idea of it being possible to exist was brought up near the end of 1700s.
Seriously, if you're just cherry picking points to respond to because you don't have a valid, strong, or even relevant response to the others
Then you might be Goldy. :P
Now that's not fair, as many/most people do exactly that, or at least appear to.
Whether they're actually just sniping because they can't/won't address the entire thing, or if they're just sniping because they only find one point interesting, it's nothing unique to goldy.
That's the full passage. Jesus came as fulfillment of the law and the prophets, to be the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of men.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." Matthew 5:22a. That's the part that was left out. If someone has done something to you that makes you angry, that's one thing; but if you're just having a rotten day and you take it out on the cashier at the convenience store, that's something else, and that's what Jesus was talking about.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28. Here is Jesus getting to the heart of the matter (pun unintended): The thoughts and desires that enter your heart and mind are where all the evil and good you do come from. How far you dwell on them determines your potential for making it real. Jesus is telling us to nip things like this in the bud, before they become controlling factors in your life.
It's similar to Yoda's warning to Luke: "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will..."
And that part about not repealling any laws? So conveniently ignored by most Christians. I mean heck, the only part of Leviticus that most Christians care about is 18:22
Thanks, but no need to waste your time. I do not respond to his bait and people's opinion of me is already made.
You make Toasty sad panda.
Oh, I do like Matthew 5:11.
And that part about not repealling any laws? So conveniently ignored by most Christians. I mean heck, the only part of Leviticus that most Christians care about is 18:22
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11. So why is it that you like that passage, EE?
Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
Well, given that you've included casual sex and homosexuality in with the likes of ****, incest, and beastiality, I'd say your a shallow, bigotted, heartless, gutless human being, just like many other Fundamentalist and radical christians.
I sincerely hope you're just cherry picking verses from the bible that support your narrow, small-minded, self-centered, bigotted worldview, because I'm not sure I care to find out if you believe its cool to stone rebellious kids to death, and people who don't fit in with your idea of proper sexual behavior. Straight up though, dude, you're a dick.
@Shef: Watchout for the language. Name calling will get your post removed and your account suspended. It is better to just attack the arguments.
If it happens, it happens. Two of my posts have already been removed, and I wasn't even calling names. But at the moment, I'm just calling a spade a spade. If I get suspended for it, I guess I'll see you guys in a few days.
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11. So why is it that you like that passage, EE?
Because while I know that it was Jesus saying "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna have people be real dicks to them, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end." it still sounds like "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna be real dicks to some people, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end."
Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
(1) Yet most Christians probably don't know that the rest of Leviticus 18 talks about any of that
(2) And the rest of Leviticus? There's all these other laws and pronouncements that are regularly ignored. Blended fabrics, shaving, how long to not harvest from a fruit tree, charity with your fields, and so-on. All ignored. Regularly.
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11. So why is it that you like that passage, EE?
Because while I know that it was Jesus saying "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna have people be real dicks to them, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end." it still sounds like "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna be read dicks to some people, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end."Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
(1) Yet most Christians probably don't know that the rest of Leviticus 18 talks about any of that
(2) And the rest of Leviticus? There's all these other laws and pronouncements that are regularly ignored. Blended fabrics, shaving, how long to not harvest from a fruit tree, charity with your fields, and so-on. All ignored. Regularly.
And there are a lot of Christians out there that are real dicks. Maybe it's the way they were raised, maybe it's low blood sugar, I don't know. I try not to judge too harshly.
The other restrictions in Leviticus are more of a cultural thing, or they are rules for farming. Letting the land have a sabbath for a year is a good idea that REALLY, imho, ought to be followed, though not by everyone at the same time. What I plan on doing with my garden is having a portion of it have a "fallow year", where I will till it over, but not plant on it. Sure, weeds will come up on it, but they'll die in the winter, and will be tilled under the following spring.
Gleaning happens regularly. In every state, there are many local and county-level organizations that go through the farms after the regular harvesting has been done, with the farmer's permission, and glean their fields and orchards of food that the harvesters did not or could not collect.
But there is something that have been remiss in saying, and that is that in Christianity, it is NOT works that save you, but faith. All that is required for salvation is to confess and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:9). That's it. From that come the works, but the works are not necessary for salvation.
The people who honestly speak out against homosexuality do so not to ruin your lives, but because such behavior is unhealthy (seriously, do you think that feces on ANY part of your body is a good thing?) or that it stems from past sexual abuse. They want help you get over that so that you can be truly happy. Now, if that's not your story (ie, you weren't sexually abused), GREAT! Nobody deserves to be abused in any way, especially not sexually. Why it is you are that way, only you can tell me, and you don't need to do that.
I also need to apoligize for being rough with you in earlier posts; I could blame it on my arguments with Goldy seeping through (he is rather convenient to blame, lol), but there's no real excuse for it. I'm sorry.
The other restrictions in Leviticus are more of a cultural thing, or they are rules for farming.
Not. The. Point.
My statement was "And that part about not repealling any laws? So conveniently ignored by most Christians."
That statement is true.
Edit2: Take your religious bigotry and baiting elsewhere. Now that I've cooled off a bit, I ain't gonna bite, no matter how ignorant and ill-informed you are.
The other restrictions in Leviticus are more of a cultural thing [...]
I kinda ignored this bit before what with the rant that I decided against after cooling off a little, but what the hell is with this?
Jesus clearly says that all the old rules are still in effect. And yet you're brushing a rather large amount of 'em off as a "cultural" thing? While I know that that is, largely, the stance of the various sects of Christianity, is there any actual scriptural basis for that? Or is that just plain ol' human arrogance, people thinking they know better then God?
Jesus' sacrifice, His death on the cross AND His resurrection, was the completion, the fulfillment, of the Law and Prophets. It is no longer upon us to physically accomplish all that is demanded by the Law; these days, it would bankrupt all but the richest men. God Almighty Himself took the penalty of sin upon Himself and became the sacrifice He demanded of us. All we need to do is accept that sacrifice.
Now if you reject His sacrifice, then you need to follow the Law and the Prophets, and you need to do it perfectly. Can you do it? I know that I cannot, that is why I accepted His sacrifice.
That's your choice: Live under the Law, or live under God's grace. If you're going to live under the Law, you need to do it perfectly, there is no room for error. If you're going to live under grace, though, then you should live as though that grace means something to you.
But there is something that have been remiss in saying, and that is that in Christianity, it is NOT works that save you, but faith. All that is required for salvation is to confess and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:9). That's it. From that come the works, but the works are not necessary for salvation.
So what you mean to tell me is that Hitler, who was a practicing Roman Catholic, and often cited Jesus as the inspiration for his genocide* (never revoked his baptism or christianity), and likewise inspired the Nazi's to invoke the christian god to do the same**, and was responsible for the deaths of roughly 10,000,000 innocent people during the Holocaust, simply for accepting Jesus as his personal lord and savior, he was pardoned of one of history's bloodiest acts of genocide, and accepted into heaven?
And a kind, generous, righteous, loving Jew who strived to help others regardless of who they were, who lived at the same time, simply because he hadn't accepted Jesus as his personal lord and savior, went directly to hell for eternal damnation? If that's the case, your god is a monster, and so are you.
The people who honestly speak out against homosexuality do so not to ruin your lives,
Yes, they do. And they do it because they've found a safe haven for their bigotry in religion.
but because such behavior is unhealthy (seriously, do you think that feces on ANY part of your body is a good thing?)
Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. But if you're just referring to males, not all male homosexuals engage in anal sex. And most of those who do practice anal hygiene and safe sex to cut down on disease, infection, and chance of STD's, and have a monogamous relationship, kind of like a lot of heterosexual couples. But heterosexual couples aren't above having anal sex or being premiscuous, and not all of them practice safe sex or proper sexual hygiene. If your real argument was against having unsafe anal sex, or not practicing proper sexual hygiene, or being premiscuous, then that's all it would be against, and it wouldn't matter who was doing it. You wouldn't just point at homosexuality and say that it was all their fault, deny them basic rights to happiness, threaten them with hellfire and brimstone, or say that its some irresponsible choice people make because of angst or drama in their life.
But if you can reference or source a peer reviewed article in a journal, text book, or something else from a reputable scientific/medical source that actually clearly spells out that "homosexuality is unhealthy, because just being homosexual causes diseases" I'll gladly eat a slice of crow pie. But until then, I can't help but point out how bigotted and small minded just this one part of the whole sentence is.
or that it stems from past sexual abuse.
No, it doesn't. Most homosexuals have never been sexually abused, and yet they exist. And not everyone who IS sexually abused admits to being a homosexual later on in life. Homosexuality isn't a choice, or something that happens as a result of a traumatic experience.
Homosexuality and gender identity are genetic (its a mix of factors, but mostly has to do with how an embryo develops, sometimes birth order and hormones present in the mother have to do with it). It's also polygenal (controlled by more than one gene). It's not something that can just be "turned off" or "stopped." Also, homosexuality has been observed in over 2000 species in nature, and its not just a one time sexual act, gender confusion, or an act of dominance, but a life long sexual preference even in species that court their mates. It also turns out that in both humans and other organisms, homosexual pairings are just as capable of raising children without problems as heterosexual pairings.
However, if you can provide a peer reviewed article, paper, or textbook that says that homosexuality, even some instances of it, is necessarilly caused by sexual abuse, again, I'll gladly eat a slice of crow pie, but again, until then...
They want help you get over that so that you can be truly happy.
Great. And if you have red hair, or brown eyes, or some other trait that you have absolutely no control over, I'd like to help you get over that, and to stop having brown eyes and red hair so that you can be truly happy. -sarcasm, btw-
Now, if that's not your story (ie, you weren't sexually abused), GREAT! Nobody deserves to be abused in any way, especially not sexually. Why it is you are that way, only you can tell me, and you don't need to do that.
Even this drips with the implication that homosexuality is caused by something that victimizes the person. And yet, not every homosexual feels like a victim, except for in communities where they're chastised, persecuted, and reviled, simply for not fitting into the fundamentalist worldview of proper sexual behavior. There's literally a group in Westboro, Kansas, whose claim to fame is their vehement and vitriolic attitude towards homosexuals (the "god hates f**s" christians). In fundamentalist muslim countries, homosexuals are still publicly executed simply for being such. There was recently a string of suicides in homosexual youths who were being bullied by their peers just because they were homosexuals. So are those attitudes and acts carried out in love? To help people get over some traumatic event in their lives?
___________________________
*"In defending myself from the Jew, I believe myself to be doing the Lord's work." --Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Similar quotes can be found in various speeches and written works of his, invoking the Judeo-christian god.
Hitler also banned secular organizations, and similar organizations that spoke out against religion during the Nuremberg Trials.
Atheists, along with Jews, Gypsies/Roma, Blacks, Handicaps/Cripples, Communists, and other political and social dissidents, were executed in death camps. Religion, or interpretation of religion, was one of the driving forces behind the American Eugenics program, which in turn, inspired Hitler's Eugenics program, with the same focus on religion. By 1939, people labelled as "undesirables" were no longer being castrated to prevent them from breeding, but euthanized.
**"Christ-killer" was a common insult thrown at the jews by the nazis.
The belt buckle of the Nazi soldiers featured the symbol of the Third Reich with the words "Gott Mitt Uns" ("God is With Us" or "God on Our Side")
God's Mercy extends to everyone who accepts it, and that includes the vilest human beings on Earth. This would include the Roman soldier who placed the crown of thorns on Jesus' head, and the soldiers who nailed Him to the cross. This would include Hitler. It includes me and you. There is no sin that is unforgiveable in your lifetime. Some take this to mean that they can just wait until the last minute to make a deathbed profession of faith. The problem with that is that no one knows when their last minute will be; no one is guaranteed their next breath.
There is no possible way that you can find acceptance in God's eyes unless you are perfect. You can either work to attain perfection, but you must do it right, the first time, every time. Can you follow all of God's laws perfectly, the first time, every time? I know that I can't. God knows that I can't. Jesus came to live and die and be resurrected so that we would not have to do that impossible work.
As for those who claim to have "God on their side," that is such a wrong attitude it isn't funny. Our attitude needs to be that we are on God's side, and we find out if we are on God's side by the Bible. In no wise does making the claim "God with us" validate anything that we do. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
Roman Catholicism is NOT Christianity
You don't get to decide what is or isn't christianity just for the sake of damage control. The literal interpretation of catholicism is "christianity." In fact, here's how dictionary.com defines christianity: "the christian religion, including the catholic, protestant, and orthodox churches." Nice attempt at a No True Scotsman Fallacy, Iqwinn, but no dice.
As for those who claim to have "God on their side," that is such a wrong attitude it isn't funny. Our attitude needs to be that we are on God's side, and we find out if we are on God's side by the Bible.
You know, Hitler would probably have said the same thing about you. That you're not a real christian because you wouldn't have been willing to avenge Jebus. Fred Phelps would probably say you're not a real christian because you're not out on the street corner saying "god hates f**s" and dead soldiers. Remember every time you say an extremist isn't a christian or doesn't follow Jesus properly, they're saying or would have said the exact same thing about you, quoting the same verses you would to do it.
So, that aside, are you not going to address the counterarguments about your anti-gay claims, or are you just conveniently ignore them?
Read the Bible for yourself and see, Shef. I promise you, it won't cause your hands to burst into flames.
And when you quote the Bible, be sure to use it in the proper context.
I look forward to your response.
Compare what Hitler and Fred Phelps have done with what Jesus did in His time on Earth. See if you can tell me that they are Christians, followers of Christ.
Read the Bible for yourself and see, Shef. I promise you, it won't cause your hands to burst into flames.
And when you quote the Bible, be sure to use it in the proper context.
I look forward to your response.
If you've read the bible, outside of the gospels, then you already know everything you need to know as to where Fred Phelps and Hitler get their inspiration from. But this thread isn't about their interpretation of scripture vs. yours. It's about stem cells.
Are you going to answer for the counterarguments to your anti-gay claims, or to your claims against abortion and embryonic stem cells, or are you going to keep changing the subject to scripture when the conversation doesn't go your way?
Because until you actually answer for the counterarguments relevant to the thread at hand, as Escher masterfully put it, I'm not biting.
Compare what Hitler and Fred Phelps have done with what Jesus did in His time on Earth. See if you can tell me that they are Christians, followers of Christ.
I hope you are aware that, following this argument, you are not a Christian either?
It also helps to quote which version of the "one true book" you follow, because there's a whole bunch of "one true version"s out there.
Oh and Hitler and Fred Phelps are also of the opinion that they are helping the people. So in that regard, they appear to be good Christians.
That's the full passage. Jesus came as fulfillment of the law and the prophets, to be the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of men.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." Matthew 5:22a. That's the part that was left out. If someone has done something to you that makes you angry, that's one thing; but if you're just having a rotten day and you take it out on the cashier at the convenience store, that's something else, and that's what Jesus was talking about.
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:28. Here is Jesus getting to the heart of the matter (pun unintended): The thoughts and desires that enter your heart and mind are where all the evil and good you do come from. How far you dwell on them determines your potential for making it real. Jesus is telling us to nip things like this in the bud, before they become controlling factors in your life.
It's similar to Yoda's warning to Luke: "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will..."
And that part about not repealling any laws? So conveniently ignored by most Christians. I mean heck, the only part of Leviticus that most Christians care about is 18:22
Thanks, but no need to waste your time. I do not respond to his bait and people's opinion of me is already made.
You make Toasty sad panda.
Oh, I do like Matthew 5:11.
And that part about not repealling any laws? So conveniently ignored by most Christians. I mean heck, the only part of Leviticus that most Christians care about is 18:22
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11. So why is it that you like that passage, EE?
Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
Well, given that you've included casual sex and homosexuality in with the likes of ****, incest, and beastiality, I'd say your a shallow, bigotted, heartless, gutless human being, just like many other Fundamentalist and radical christians.
I sincerely hope you're just cherry picking verses from the bible that support your narrow, small-minded, self-centered, bigotted worldview, because I'm not sure I care to find out if you believe its cool to stone rebellious kids to death, and people who don't fit in with your idea of proper sexual behavior. Straight up though, dude, you're a dick.
@Shef: Watchout for the language. Name calling will get your post removed and your account suspended. It is better to just attack the arguments.
If it happens, it happens. Two of my posts have already been removed, and I wasn't even calling names. But at the moment, I'm just calling a spade a spade. If I get suspended for it, I guess I'll see you guys in a few days.
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11. So why is it that you like that passage, EE?
Because while I know that it was Jesus saying "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna have people be real dicks to them, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end." it still sounds like "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna be real dicks to some people, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end."
Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
(1) Yet most Christians probably don't know that the rest of Leviticus 18 talks about any of that
(2) And the rest of Leviticus? There's all these other laws and pronouncements that are regularly ignored. Blended fabrics, shaving, how long to not harvest from a fruit tree, charity with your fields, and so-on. All ignored. Regularly.
"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matthew 5:11. So why is it that you like that passage, EE?
Because while I know that it was Jesus saying "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna have people be real dicks to them, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end." it still sounds like "so dudes, some of my followers are gonna be read dicks to some people, and that's gonna suck, but it'll all work out in the end."Actually, any kind of sexual sin is anathema to God: ****, adultery, fornication, incest, beastiality, not just homosexuality. You kinda left that out.
(1) Yet most Christians probably don't know that the rest of Leviticus 18 talks about any of that
(2) And the rest of Leviticus? There's all these other laws and pronouncements that are regularly ignored. Blended fabrics, shaving, how long to not harvest from a fruit tree, charity with your fields, and so-on. All ignored. Regularly.
And there are a lot of Christians out there that are real dicks. Maybe it's the way they were raised, maybe it's low blood sugar, I don't know. I try not to judge too harshly.
The other restrictions in Leviticus are more of a cultural thing, or they are rules for farming. Letting the land have a sabbath for a year is a good idea that REALLY, imho, ought to be followed, though not by everyone at the same time. What I plan on doing with my garden is having a portion of it have a "fallow year", where I will till it over, but not plant on it. Sure, weeds will come up on it, but they'll die in the winter, and will be tilled under the following spring.
Gleaning happens regularly. In every state, there are many local and county-level organizations that go through the farms after the regular harvesting has been done, with the farmer's permission, and glean their fields and orchards of food that the harvesters did not or could not collect.
But there is something that have been remiss in saying, and that is that in Christianity, it is NOT works that save you, but faith. All that is required for salvation is to confess and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:9). That's it. From that come the works, but the works are not necessary for salvation.
The people who honestly speak out against homosexuality do so not to ruin your lives, but because such behavior is unhealthy (seriously, do you think that feces on ANY part of your body is a good thing?) or that it stems from past sexual abuse. They want help you get over that so that you can be truly happy. Now, if that's not your story (ie, you weren't sexually abused), GREAT! Nobody deserves to be abused in any way, especially not sexually. Why it is you are that way, only you can tell me, and you don't need to do that.
I also need to apoligize for being rough with you in earlier posts; I could blame it on my arguments with Goldy seeping through (he is rather convenient to blame, lol), but there's no real excuse for it. I'm sorry.
The other restrictions in Leviticus are more of a cultural thing, or they are rules for farming.
Not. The. Point.
My statement was "And that part about not repealling any laws? So conveniently ignored by most Christians."
That statement is true.
Edit2: Take your religious bigotry and baiting elsewhere. Now that I've cooled off a bit, I ain't gonna bite, no matter how ignorant and ill-informed you are.
The other restrictions in Leviticus are more of a cultural thing [...]
I kinda ignored this bit before what with the rant that I decided against after cooling off a little, but what the hell is with this?
Jesus clearly says that all the old rules are still in effect. And yet you're brushing a rather large amount of 'em off as a "cultural" thing? While I know that that is, largely, the stance of the various sects of Christianity, is there any actual scriptural basis for that? Or is that just plain ol' human arrogance, people thinking they know better then God?
Jesus' sacrifice, His death on the cross AND His resurrection, was the completion, the fulfillment, of the Law and Prophets. It is no longer upon us to physically accomplish all that is demanded by the Law; these days, it would bankrupt all but the richest men. God Almighty Himself took the penalty of sin upon Himself and became the sacrifice He demanded of us. All we need to do is accept that sacrifice.
Now if you reject His sacrifice, then you need to follow the Law and the Prophets, and you need to do it perfectly. Can you do it? I know that I cannot, that is why I accepted His sacrifice.
That's your choice: Live under the Law, or live under God's grace. If you're going to live under the Law, you need to do it perfectly, there is no room for error. If you're going to live under grace, though, then you should live as though that grace means something to you.
But there is something that have been remiss in saying, and that is that in Christianity, it is NOT works that save you, but faith. All that is required for salvation is to confess and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:9). That's it. From that come the works, but the works are not necessary for salvation.
So what you mean to tell me is that Hitler, who was a practicing Roman Catholic, and often cited Jesus as the inspiration for his genocide* (never revoked his baptism or christianity), and likewise inspired the Nazi's to invoke the christian god to do the same**, and was responsible for the deaths of roughly 10,000,000 innocent people during the Holocaust, simply for accepting Jesus as his personal lord and savior, he was pardoned of one of history's bloodiest acts of genocide, and accepted into heaven?
And a kind, generous, righteous, loving Jew who strived to help others regardless of who they were, who lived at the same time, simply because he hadn't accepted Jesus as his personal lord and savior, went directly to hell for eternal damnation? If that's the case, your god is a monster, and so are you.
The people who honestly speak out against homosexuality do so not to ruin your lives,
Yes, they do. And they do it because they've found a safe haven for their bigotry in religion.
but because such behavior is unhealthy (seriously, do you think that feces on ANY part of your body is a good thing?)
Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex. But if you're just referring to males, not all male homosexuals engage in anal sex. And most of those who do practice anal hygiene and safe sex to cut down on disease, infection, and chance of STD's, and have a monogamous relationship, kind of like a lot of heterosexual couples. But heterosexual couples aren't above having anal sex or being premiscuous, and not all of them practice safe sex or proper sexual hygiene. If your real argument was against having unsafe anal sex, or not practicing proper sexual hygiene, or being premiscuous, then that's all it would be against, and it wouldn't matter who was doing it. You wouldn't just point at homosexuality and say that it was all their fault, deny them basic rights to happiness, threaten them with hellfire and brimstone, or say that its some irresponsible choice people make because of angst or drama in their life.
But if you can reference or source a peer reviewed article in a journal, text book, or something else from a reputable scientific/medical source that actually clearly spells out that "homosexuality is unhealthy, because just being homosexual causes diseases" I'll gladly eat a slice of crow pie. But until then, I can't help but point out how bigotted and small minded just this one part of the whole sentence is.
or that it stems from past sexual abuse.
No, it doesn't. Most homosexuals have never been sexually abused, and yet they exist. And not everyone who IS sexually abused admits to being a homosexual later on in life. Homosexuality isn't a choice, or something that happens as a result of a traumatic experience.
Homosexuality and gender identity are genetic (its a mix of factors, but mostly has to do with how an embryo develops, sometimes birth order and hormones present in the mother have to do with it). It's also polygenal (controlled by more than one gene). It's not something that can just be "turned off" or "stopped." Also, homosexuality has been observed in over 2000 species in nature, and its not just a one time sexual act, gender confusion, or an act of dominance, but a life long sexual preference even in species that court their mates. It also turns out that in both humans and other organisms, homosexual pairings are just as capable of raising children without problems as heterosexual pairings.
However, if you can provide a peer reviewed article, paper, or textbook that says that homosexuality, even some instances of it, is necessarilly caused by sexual abuse, again, I'll gladly eat a slice of crow pie, but again, until then...
They want help you get over that so that you can be truly happy.
Great. And if you have red hair, or brown eyes, or some other trait that you have absolutely no control over, I'd like to help you get over that, and to stop having brown eyes and red hair so that you can be truly happy. -sarcasm, btw-
Now, if that's not your story (ie, you weren't sexually abused), GREAT! Nobody deserves to be abused in any way, especially not sexually. Why it is you are that way, only you can tell me, and you don't need to do that.
Even this drips with the implication that homosexuality is caused by something that victimizes the person. And yet, not every homosexual feels like a victim, except for in communities where they're chastised, persecuted, and reviled, simply for not fitting into the fundamentalist worldview of proper sexual behavior. There's literally a group in Westboro, Kansas, whose claim to fame is their vehement and vitriolic attitude towards homosexuals (the "god hates f**s" christians). In fundamentalist muslim countries, homosexuals are still publicly executed simply for being such. There was recently a string of suicides in homosexual youths who were being bullied by their peers just because they were homosexuals. So are those attitudes and acts carried out in love? To help people get over some traumatic event in their lives?
___________________________
*"In defending myself from the Jew, I believe myself to be doing the Lord's work." --Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Similar quotes can be found in various speeches and written works of his, invoking the Judeo-christian god.
Hitler also banned secular organizations, and similar organizations that spoke out against religion during the Nuremberg Trials.
Atheists, along with Jews, Gypsies/Roma, Blacks, Handicaps/Cripples, Communists, and other political and social dissidents, were executed in death camps. Religion, or interpretation of religion, was one of the driving forces behind the American Eugenics program, which in turn, inspired Hitler's Eugenics program, with the same focus on religion. By 1939, people labelled as "undesirables" were no longer being castrated to prevent them from breeding, but euthanized.
**"Christ-killer" was a common insult thrown at the jews by the nazis.
The belt buckle of the Nazi soldiers featured the symbol of the Third Reich with the words "Gott Mitt Uns" ("God is With Us" or "God on Our Side")
God's Mercy extends to everyone who accepts it, and that includes the vilest human beings on Earth. This would include the Roman soldier who placed the crown of thorns on Jesus' head, and the soldiers who nailed Him to the cross. This would include Hitler. It includes me and you. There is no sin that is unforgiveable in your lifetime. Some take this to mean that they can just wait until the last minute to make a deathbed profession of faith. The problem with that is that no one knows when their last minute will be; no one is guaranteed their next breath.
There is no possible way that you can find acceptance in God's eyes unless you are perfect. You can either work to attain perfection, but you must do it right, the first time, every time. Can you follow all of God's laws perfectly, the first time, every time? I know that I can't. God knows that I can't. Jesus came to live and die and be resurrected so that we would not have to do that impossible work.
As for those who claim to have "God on their side," that is such a wrong attitude it isn't funny. Our attitude needs to be that we are on God's side, and we find out if we are on God's side by the Bible. In no wise does making the claim "God with us" validate anything that we do. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
Roman Catholicism is NOT Christianity
You don't get to decide what is or isn't christianity just for the sake of damage control. The literal interpretation of catholicism is "christianity." In fact, here's how dictionary.com defines christianity: "the christian religion, including the catholic, protestant, and orthodox churches." Nice attempt at a No True Scotsman Fallacy, Iqwinn, but no dice.
As for those who claim to have "God on their side," that is such a wrong attitude it isn't funny. Our attitude needs to be that we are on God's side, and we find out if we are on God's side by the Bible.
You know, Hitler would probably have said the same thing about you. That you're not a real christian because you wouldn't have been willing to avenge Jebus. Fred Phelps would probably say you're not a real christian because you're not out on the street corner saying "god hates f**s" and dead soldiers. Remember every time you say an extremist isn't a christian or doesn't follow Jesus properly, they're saying or would have said the exact same thing about you, quoting the same verses you would to do it.
So, that aside, are you not going to address the counterarguments about your anti-gay claims, or are you just conveniently ignore them?
Read the Bible for yourself and see, Shef. I promise you, it won't cause your hands to burst into flames.
And when you quote the Bible, be sure to use it in the proper context.
I look forward to your response.
Compare what Hitler and Fred Phelps have done with what Jesus did in His time on Earth. See if you can tell me that they are Christians, followers of Christ.
Read the Bible for yourself and see, Shef. I promise you, it won't cause your hands to burst into flames.
And when you quote the Bible, be sure to use it in the proper context.
I look forward to your response.
If you've read the bible, outside of the gospels, then you already know everything you need to know as to where Fred Phelps and Hitler get their inspiration from. But this thread isn't about their interpretation of scripture vs. yours. It's about stem cells.
Are you going to answer for the counterarguments to your anti-gay claims, or to your claims against abortion and embryonic stem cells, or are you going to keep changing the subject to scripture when the conversation doesn't go your way?
Because until you actually answer for the counterarguments relevant to the thread at hand, as Escher masterfully put it, I'm not biting.
Compare what Hitler and Fred Phelps have done with what Jesus did in His time on Earth. See if you can tell me that they are Christians, followers of Christ.
I hope you are aware that, following this argument, you are not a Christian either?
It also helps to quote which version of the "one true book" you follow, because there's a whole bunch of "one true version"s out there.
Oh and Hitler and Fred Phelps are also of the opinion that they are helping the people. So in that regard, they appear to be good Christians.