Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of SPF

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SPF

16
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 14, 2017, 08:33:47 am »
igr:
Quote
You seem to have the idea that the argument I present reflects my personal views....Whilst I might make the statement that "This idea that abortion is wrong is a human construct", in that statement I am saying nothing about my view... You have assumed too much and arrived at an incorrect conclusion.

Quote
btw, regardless of my morals, you can still present an argument.  If you have a good/strong argument, maybe you will convert me.
Convert who, exactly?  The person you're pretending to be in your argument? Or you?  I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that I was engaging with you about what you believe about the morality of abortion.  Apparently though, I'm engaging with a pretend igr that you created who is talking about something that the real igr doesn't believe.  No thanks champ, I don't roll like that.

Quote
When I say that "Abortion is a physical action with no inherent rightness/wrongness" I am talking in the natural sense.  Nature does not care.  To say that something is right/wrong is to impose meaning.  We impose a meaning either that we figure out for ourselves or that we have been taught.  If we are all taught that murder is wrong (as we (hopefully) have been taught), then we will see murder as wrong.  But possibly not, if we have not been taught that and have not figured it out for ourselves.  Our sense of right/wrong exists in the brain/mind, not in the person being murdered and not in the act itself.
Now, I'm not sure if you believe this, or if faux-igr believes this, but whichever one of you said this, this actually captures the issue.  You believe that morality is subjective.  Therefore, you don't have a problem with abortion.

It's really that simple. If morality actually is as you [wrongly]think it is - a human fabrication, then there is in reality no objective way to demonstrate that abortion is wrong. It can't be done. 

The pro-life position is predicated on the belief that human life possesses inherent moral worth and value. Therefore, killing an innocent human life for convenience sake (which is why 99% of abortions are conducted) is morally wrong.

The anti-life position claims that humans do not possess inherent moral worth and value. They create a subjective, arbitrary, and non-agreed upon line and create the term personhood and say that being a human being is different than being a human person, and then they go on to say that within this distinction, only the human person has moral worth.  Thus, any action that we want to commit against the human non-person that we would otherwise consider immoral, is permissible.  This is why the distinction is fabricated. 


17
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 13, 2017, 07:57:12 am »
igr, unfortunately your attempt to set the terms for how you will engage in the conversation are honestly left wanting.

Whether or not we think an action (practice) is moral or not is going to depend upon our foundational beliefs (principles).  Thus, your continual dodging and intentional ignoring of my direct questions are not helping to further the conversation.

So let's try again, shall we? You said this:

"So if the morals of a person do not state that abortion is murder, then for that person abortion is not murder... This idea that abortion is wrong is a human construct.  Abortion is a physical action with no inherent rightness/wrongness."

Moral Nihilism: The meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.

Would you classify your principle beliefs regarding morality as moral nihilism?  Yes or No.  If no, can you please briefly explain your understanding of morality and whether or not something can be objectively right or wrong?

This is an important thing to understand before the conversation can progress.  What you've said about abortion, specifically - "This idea that abortion is wrong is a human construct." would mean that you don't think it's wrong for a woman to abort a zygote, embryo, fetus, or even kill a 1 day old baby. 

Thus, your position is not requiring me to focus in on only the zygote.  For the simple truth is that so long as you maintain your position of moral nihilism, I am incapable of demonstrating to you that abortion at any stage of development is immoral.  Why? Well because you think morals are make believe!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as for everyone else, the abortion issue is actually much more simple than we make it.  In My Reply #102 I demonstrate how the abortion issue is 1)not about women's rights, and 2)not about when life begins.

The morality of abortion stands or falls exclusively on how we understand the nature of human life. We have two primary options:

    1)Humans possess intrinsic moral value.

    2)Humans do not possess intrinsic moral value.

It's that simple.  At the end of the day, each person arguing falls into one of those two camps.  Those that feel the need to create an arbitrary and fabricated distinction between a human being and a human person would fall under position 2. They argue that abortion is acceptable up to a point, because human beings don't possess moral value, only human persons possess moral value.  Thus, they create subjective ideas and lines that separate a human being from a human person.  And viola, abortion becomes an acceptable action.

For me, I'm a Christian.  As a Christian, I accept and believe what Scripture says about mankind.  Namely, that we are all created in the Image of God and that we all have intrinsic moral value that is unique among all of God's creation. 

On the other hand, if I wasn't a Christian, I would most certainly be like igr and think that ""This idea that abortion is wrong is a human construct."


18
Quote
Obama's policy was more restrictive, such that fewer non-criminals were deported.
Can you specifically outline what Obama's actual policy was in comparison to what the policy is now? Honestly, I'm so disillusioned with the media on both sides I don't really believe anything anyone says anymore. You stated so confidently and matter-of-factly that you should be able to support what you've said.

And again, why should we be only concerned with deporting illegal criminal aliens as opposed to illegal aliens? It honestly doesn't compute to me.  If someone is an illegal alien, they shouldn't be here.
https://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction
Relativist, you didn't actually answer my question.  I'm wondering if you actually know the answer.  One would think if you knew the answer you would have just said it.  Linking me to Obama's policy doesn't answer the question.

Again, you said: Obama's policy was more restrictive, such that fewer non-criminals were deported.

Can you substantiate this?  Or are you just repeating what someone told you and assuming it to be true?

19
Quote
Obama's policy was more restrictive, such that fewer non-criminals were deported.
Can you specifically outline what Obama's actual policy was in comparison to what the policy is now? Honestly, I'm so disillusioned with the media on both sides I don't really believe anything anyone says anymore. You stated so confidently and matter-of-factly that you should be able to support what you've said.

And again, why should we be only concerned with deporting illegal criminal aliens as opposed to illegal aliens? It honestly doesn't compute to me.  If someone is an illegal alien, they shouldn't be here.

20
Quote
Do you agree with Trump's policy of deporting illegal aliens?
Yes, in the same way I also agreed with how Obama deported illegal aliens.  The media didn't seem to mind that Obama deported more illegal aliens during his tenure than all other presidents combined during the 20th century. 

"The Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun targeting an increased number of illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds. In Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Antonio, ICE officers arrested more than 680 individuals. “Of those arrested,” DHS secretary John Kelly said in a statement, “approximately 75 percent were criminal aliens, convicted of crimes including, but not limited to, homicide, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual assault of a minor, lewd and lascivious acts with a child, indecent liberties with a minor, drug trafficking, battery, assault, DUI and weapons charges.”

Why is the above controversial? I want to know what sane person would want violent, illegal immigrants living in their country. 

There is nothing wrong with legal immigration.  It's good for the country.  I simply don't understand why people support illegal immigration. Doesn't compute to me.

There's Nothing New About Trump's Deportation Policy


21
Confused, is there a particular reason you ignored the other passages in my post? Doesn't seem like you're being very charitable or intellectual honest by doing so.  Do the other passages I provided that you ignored help you see that self defense may be permissible?

The problem is that you're taking Matthew 5:39 to an extreme that Jesus neither conveyed, nor intended. Here are a few commentaries that discuss the passage.  I'm not posting them in full, you would do well to find them and read the entire commentary on the passage in question as there is a lot more depth and wisdom to them then what I'm posting here.  But they are going to be long as they are now, and I don't want it to appear to overwhelming a read.

John Gill:But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil,.... This is not to be understood of any sort of evil, not of the evil of sin, of bad actions, and false doctrines, which are to be opposed; nor of the evil one, Satan, who is to be resisted; but of an evil man, an injurious one, who has done us an injury. We must not render evil for evil, or repay him in the same way; see Jas_5:6. Not but that a man may lawfully defend himself, and endeavor to secure himself from injuries; and may appear to the civil magistrate for redress of grievances; but he is not to make use of private revenge. As if a man should pluck out one of his eyes, he must not in revenge pluck out one of his; or should he strike out one of his teeth, he must not use him in the same manner; but patiently bear the affront, or seek for satisfaction in another way.

Albert Barnes: The general principle which he laid down was, that we are not to resist evil; that is, as it is in the Greek, nor to set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. But even this general direction is not to be pressed too strictly. Christ did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves; rather than to make resistance. The law of nature, and all laws, human and divine, justify self-defense when life is in danger. It cannot surely be the intention to teach that a father should sit by coolly and see his family butchered by savages, and not be allowed to defend them. Neither natural nor revealed religion ever did, or ever can, inculcate this doctrine. Our Saviour immediately explains what he means by it. Had he intended to refer it to a case where life is in danger, he would most surely have mentioned it. Such a case was far more worthy of statement than those which he did mention.

A doctrine so unusual, so unlike all that the world had believed. and that the best people had acted on, deserved to be formally stated. Instead of doing this, however, he confines himself to smaller matters, to things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these we had better take wrong than to enter into strife and lawsuits. The first case is where we are smitten on the cheek. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently, and turn the other cheek. This does not, however, prevent our remonstrating firmly yet mildly on the injustice of the thing, and insisting that justice should be done us, as is evident from the example of the Saviour himself. See Joh_18:23. The second evil mentioned is where a man is litigious and determined to take all the advantage the law can give him, following us with vexatious and expensive lawsuits. Our Saviour directs us, rather than to imitate him rather than to contend with a revengeful spirit in courts of justice to take a trifling injury, and yield to him. This is merely a question about property, and not about conscience and life.


Alexander MacLaren: But, if we take the right view of this precept, its limitations are in itself. Since it is love confronting, and seeking to transform evil into its own likeness, it may sometimes be obliged by its own self not to yield. If turning the other cheek would but make the assaulter more angry, or if yielding the cloak would but make the legal robber more greedy, or if going the second mile would but make the press-gang more severe and exacting, resistance becomes a form of love and a duty for the sake of the wrong-doer. It may also become a duty for the sake of others, who are also objects of love, such as helpless persons who otherwise would be exposed to evil, or society as a whole. But while clearly that limit is prescribed by the very nature of the precept, the resistance which it permits must have love to the culprit or to others as its motive, and not be tainted by the least suspicion of passion or vengeance. Would that professing Christians would try more to purge their own hearts, and bring this solemn precept into their daily lives, instead of discussing whether there are cases in which it does not apply! There are great tracts in the lives of all of us to which it should apply and is not applied; and we had better seek to bring these under its dominion first, and then it will be time enough to debate as to whether any circumstances are outside its dominion or not.

22
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 12, 2017, 07:10:23 am »
Quote
Please refrain from calling a zygote a child - that is a gross mis-representation.  rgds, igr.
Can I be with you the next time you're talking to a woman who just found out she's pregnant and refers to the growing human in her womb as a child? I want to see you correct her and tell her that she can't call her growing baby a child.

igr, can you please clarify for me on whether or not you are a moral nihilist? You've outlined your position on this quite clearly when you said the following, which is in line with a moral nihilist.

Quote
So if the morals of a person do not state that abortion is murder, then for that person abortion is not murder... This idea that abortion is wrong is a human construct.  Abortion is a physical action with no inherent rightness/wrongness.


After you answer my first question.  I wonder if you would also be willing to make the following statement:

A 50 year old man violently raping a 7 year old girl is a physical action with no inherent rightness/wrongness.

Please answer my two question so I can have a better understanding of how to approach this issue with you.

23
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Jesus's Prophecies
« on: July 11, 2017, 08:38:46 am »
Mark 13:1-4 "As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down." As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?" 

The above is the setup.  As Jesus and the disciples were leaving the temple, one of the disciples looked at how great and massive and amazing the temple, constructed of massive herodian stones.  Then we have one of the greatest prophesies made by Christ, the destruction of the temple.  Following this prophecy, the disciples ask him two questions - 1)when will this happen, and 2)what will be the signs.

Jesus goes on to answer those two questions.  So we work our way down to verse 30, where Jesus says: "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

I would argue that "this generation" certainly did mean Jesus' contemporary generation of people who were alive at that time. 

I think attempting to argue that Jesus use of generation actually refers to a kind/type/sort is stretching, and not necessary.

THIS GENERATION

24
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 11, 2017, 07:18:30 am »
igr:
Quote
So if the morals of a person do not state that abortion is murder, then for that person abortion is not murder... This idea that abortion is wrong is a human construct.  Abortion is a physical action with no inherent rightness/wrongness.

Just so I understand more clearly where you're coming from, this sounds like you're saying there is no such thing as right and wrong.  There is no such thing as objective morality.  Correct?  Because in order to be consistent in what you've said, you would also need to say things like this:

"So if the morals of a person do not state that rape is wrong, then for that person rape is not wrong..."

or

Cold blooded murder is a physical action with no inherent rightness/wrongness.

Basically, what you're saying is consistent with a moral nihilist, correct? 

If that's the case, then there's really no point in having a specific conversation with you regarding abortion.  Before talking about something specific like abortion, or murder, or rape, we would need to fist have a discussion about whether or not we can establish that objective morals exist in the first place. 

If there is no such thing as right and wrong, then of course abortion is not objectively immoral.

The only reason that I think abortion at any stage of development is immoral is because I believe that living humans possess inherent moral worth vis-a-vis being created in the image of God. If you can't at least agree that some actions are objectively immoral, then we'll never have any common ground on this discussion.

I don't know if you're married or have children, but if you think that it's not morally wrong for a man to break into your home, tie you up, and then make you watch as he rapes and then brutally and slowly murders your wife - then we really have nothing to say to each other on this topic. 

25
Quote
So you think Jesus's teachings are "stupid"? 
No, I think your extreme pacifism is stupid. 

Psalm 82:4 - Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

I Corinthians 6:19-20 -  Or know you not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God? and you are not your own; for you were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.

I think the Corinthian passage would permit self defense.

In Nehemiah when the wall is being rebuilt, the civilians were armed with swords, spears, and bows.  They were to use them in self defense if needed.

Esther 8:11 - By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives -- to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them...

Luke 22:35,36 - And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing."   Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

If someone were to break into my home and my family was upstairs and I was downstairs.  I wouldn't look at the intruder and say, "they're upstairs, I can't try to stop you, so go do what you want."  Do you think that's loving my family? You think that's what Christ expects of me? I don't.

26
Quote
Should they love their rapist in light of the command to ‘love your enemies’?
Yes. But considering that I personally have a hard enough time loving my neighbor who's kids damage my fence regularly, or the person that cuts me off on the road, I think we all realize that actually getting to the point where a victim can actually forgive someone who has wronged them to such a violent extent would be no short process. 

Quote
Should they let their rapist continually rape them in light of the command to ‘turn the other cheek’?
No, that's honestly just stupid.  Self defense is perfectly acceptable.

27
Cross, just to be clear, you are saying that the moon landing was faked, right?!

What? No. What I was saying is that not everything should be viewed as the "moon landing conspiracy" just because it has "conspiracy" in it.

There are former conspiracy theories that proved to be correct.
Ok, I think I understand now.  But just to be clear, you are saying that the Earth is actually flat, right?

28
Cross, just to be clear, you are saying that the moon landing was faked, right?!

29
Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "[God] is a spirit, whose being, wisdom power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable."

This definition would permit God to interact with Moses the way He did. Specifically the part where God was going to destroy the people of Israel but changed His mind based upon the prayer of Moses.

And so far as I have read Scripture, all references to God being immutable are in reference to His character/nature.

God creating the universe or making any decision would in any fashion create a change in His perfect character.

30
Would it suffice to say that God is changeless in His nature/character?


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 ... 131