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

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 10, 2017, 07:25:57 am »
As I outlined in my Reply #102 , the only reason that personhood is brought into the discussion over abortion is that it creates a distinction between a morally valuable human being and a human being with no moral value.  And again, the only reason that this distinction is attempted is so that an act can be committed against a human being that would otherwise be considered immoral.  If anyone can demonstrate another reason why this subjective and arbitrary distinction is created, I'm all ears. 

For example, a one hour old newborn baby is now more dependent upon its mother/guardian for survival than it was while inside the womb just prior to birth. It will also now be a greater financial burden than it was inside the womb.  Yet, if the mother suddenly decided she no longer wanted the child and threw it out the window of the hospital room, we would all consider what she did as a form of murder. That child has moral worth, and what she did was morally wrong.

Yet, because this arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person is established, it would have been OK for the mother to decide to kill the child before giving birth to it.  That's inconsistent.

Moral worth and value is not established VIA location of existence, age of existence, or intelligence of existence. Yet, that is exactly what is attempted at when fabricating the subjective line of personhood. 

The only consistent approach is to say that either human beings in themselves possess moral value or they do not. Granting moral value to a human because of location, age, or intelligence has no purpose other than the excuse and justify behavior that would otherwise be considered immoral. 

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 07, 2017, 09:21:50 am »
Oh I think I understood perfectly what you meant by guardian.  What you're saying is that the pregnant woman has the right to determine whether the human inside her lives or dies. You're saying that there is no inherent moral worth possessed by the child located inside the womb. Or if there is some inherent moral worth, it's not equivalent to the moral worth possessed by the 1 day old child.

You're not consistent in the principles you're proposing. What I'm asking is why then am I not allowed to determine whether or not my 1 year old son lives or dies if the pregnant woman is allowed to determine whether or not the human inside her womb lives or dies. 

You see, you're doing what a lot of people do.  The morality of abortion stands or falls with the moral worth and value of the child inside the womb.  What the mother, or guardian thinks has absolutely no relevance in the matter.

It's quite simple.  If the child located inside the womb possesses the same moral worth and value as the child located outside the womb - then it does not matter one iota what the mother or "guardian" of the unborn child wants to do.

And this goes back to the arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person.  It is considered morally wrong and murder for the mother/father/stranger of a 1 day old child to terminate its life for convenience sake because the child located outside the womb is considered a person.  However, apparently it is not murder for the mother to terminate the life of the unborn child.  And this is because of the arbitrary and fabricated distinction between a human being and a human person.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 07, 2017, 08:41:10 am »
She (the guardian) will have her own view on personhood, if indeed she considers that as part of her decisiion making process.  You cannot compel her to consider the matter of personhood - she will decide on whatever basis she chooses.  I am not imposing a definition of personhood.  I am not imposing a set of morals.  I am allowing the freedom to decide/choose.
I am the guardian of my 8,6, and 1 year old.  Am I allowed to determine whether or not I consider them a person? Can I use whatever basis I want? If not, then what makes it ok for the guardian of a 1 month old, or a 9 month old?

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 07, 2017, 08:37:39 am »
So maybe the beginning of personhood is subjective, whereas the beginning of "a new human life" objectively begins at fertilisation.  That the first has many varied opinions and the second is unanimous would suggest that this is likely to be the case.  So it would seem that any attempt to argue objectively about the beginning of personhood is doomed to failure,
I agree, and that is why abortion is immoral.

For example, if a new mother was in the hospital holding her 2 hour old child, and the father walked in and realized what a burden financially and emotionally the child would be, and how now that the child was actually outside the womb that its dependence for survival had actually just increased - if he decided that he didn't want to go through with raising the child, so he grabs the child and hurls her out the open window..... he would be arrested and charged with murder.

But why? what's happened other than the location of the child has changed? How is the moral worth an value of a child greater simply by being located outside a womb?

Your assertion that the distinction between a human being and a human person is solely for the purposes of doing something that would otherwise be considered immoral is just an assertion
It is an assertion.  But it is an assertion that nobody has been able to show as anything but true.  You're welcome to provide an example which demonstrates it to be false, but I suspect you cannot as all you did was point out the obvious that it was an assertion.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How serious are you about abortion?
« on: July 06, 2017, 01:37:17 pm »
The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we define the growing life inside a mother’s womb.

The quickest way to derail the abortion discussion is to allow it to become a discussion over women's rights. The morality of abortion begins and ends with our understanding and classification of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside the mother’s womb.

All of us agree that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even those rights have limitations. For example, if I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from every store I walk into, there are laws in place to prevent that. My pursuit of happiness can be restricted. For people who break the law, they risk forfeiting their right to liberty either temporarily or permanently depending on their actions. It is even possible to forfeit your right to life by committing heinous acts of violence against another person. Thus, attempting to justify abortion from a women's rights line of reasoning fails because there are times when our rights can be limited or temporarily, or permanently suspended.

In order to determine whether pregnancy is one of those times or not is going to be based upon our understanding of what the nature of the baby in the womb is.

Scientifically, we know that human life begins at conception, that's a given at this point, and is not what should be under debate.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of
Pennsylvania, stated: “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of
conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from
conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a
termination of human life…I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the
discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said:  “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:  “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the
prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."

The question is simple – if we know that human life begins at conception, how can we justify terminating this clearly innocent life?

When we look at the laws in America, we can be certain that under all circumstances, the law seeks to protect the innocent. The only time when people risk losing their liberty or life it is a direct result of their individual choice to break the law. Yes, it is true that innocent people are convicted of crimes at times, but that is reflective of a failure of the practice of law as carried out by imperfect people. But the law itself never intends to do harm to innocent individuals.

It is not a difficult thing to say that the human life inside a mother’s womb is indeed innocent. So why is abortion legal? Both The Biblical evidence and scientific evidence are in agreement that human life begins at conception. The answer lies in a fabricated and arbitrary distinction known as Personhood. Advocates of abortion have created a distinction between a human being and a human person. The argument is that human beings do not possess natural rights, only human persons do.

The human life can be broken into stages such as this: Zygote --> Embryo --> Fetus --> New Born --> Infant --> Toddler --> Adolescent --> Teenager --> Young Adult --> Adult --> Elderly. People who are Pro-Choice, in order to justify the killing of innocent humans must create an arbitrary line where a human qualifies for personhood.

One simple method we can use to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this line is by looking at all the different views as to when a human becomes a person. Some Pro-Choice advocates argue viability; arguing that until the fetus is able to be medically kept alive outside the womb that abortion is acceptable. The problem with this of course is that this line is going to be slightly different for each baby, and as we advance medically, this line will change. Thus, this position is not based on anything related to the nature of the child, but upon our medical technology.

Some Pro-Choice advocates draw the line at the first, second, or third trimester. Some even approve of partial-birth abortion, arguing that so long as the baby is in the womb, or even partly in the womb that it is not considered a human person.

The point is that all these lines are entirely arbitrary. The real question we need to ask is why even make this distinction? The answer is as obvious as it is alarming. The creation of a distinction between a human being and a human person only exists so that we can justify doing something to the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

Remember, the law seeks at all times to protect innocent people. If we can say that a fetus is not a person, then they are excluded from the protection of the law.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Jesus didn't live a sinless life
« on: June 27, 2017, 08:55:07 am »
That particular word that Jesus used is found 13 times in the NT.  Jesus used the term 6 times himself, with Paul using it the rest.  3 of the times Jesus used it was in a parable, once was in the warning he gave, once was as a description, and once Jesus actually called a group of people fools (Matthew 23:17)

So really, the only question we should be asking is was Jesus justified in Matthew 23:17 for calling the Pharisees fools in light of what He said in Matthew 5:22.  And the answer to anyone who actually takes any amount of time to understand what Jesus was saying would be that there is no contradiction. 

But obviously Confused made this post in more of a troll style than a seeking style.

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus referred to the generally understood fact that murderers will be judged; however, He revealed the deeper issue by saying that not just murderers but anyone “who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.” Furthermore, Christ continued by mentioning that those who insult their brother or call their brother a fool would be held liable for those words.

Jesus did not focus just on an individual’s actions such as murder but also on the heart and attitude behind those actions. A heart full of anger toward someone can lead to insults, name calling, and even murder. In other words, murder is not the only symptom of a corrupted heart, which is the main point Jesus made.

Does this mean that calling people foolish is always wrong? Jesus emphasized the fact that not just murderers will be judged by saying that those who call people fools will also be judged. He demonstrated that sin is an issue of the heart rather than just the actions.

If you were to study each biblical example where God calls someone a fool, you will find a righteous reason behind it. When Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes fools in Matthew 23:17, He explained that they were satisfying themselves instead of giving glory to God. They glorified the gold in the temple rather than the temple of God that housed the gold, which is foolish.

Matthew 5:21–22 serves as a reminder for us to “abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22), which includes issues of the heart and not just evil deeds. When we understand the words of Jesus in their full context, there is clearly no contradiction. When we take one statement out of context in an attempt to prove an unfounded idea, we fail to interpret God’s Word correctly.

I'm not a flat-earther, I believe the Earth is round like a pancake.
Wouldn't a pankcake be how a flat-earther would describe the shape of the earth? Don't you mean you believe the earth is round like a spherically shaped ball?

Choose Your Own Topic / Flat Earth Theory: Light Argument
« on: May 30, 2017, 08:53:49 am »

The light argument begins at about the 20 minute, 30 second mark. 

For the record, I am not a FE proponent.  I am curious though what the response is about the light argument from people who are smarter than me.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Hetero/homosexuality and sexual sin.
« on: May 22, 2017, 08:41:00 am »
I can assure you that many (if not most) religious people all over the world don't agree with you
Assure me with support?

but I think divine hiddeness is pretty strong. I have never understood the logic of an omnibenevolent God who presumably wants to have loving relationships with people who does not make his existence unambiguously known. You get these oddly conflicting rationales where, on the one hand, it would supposedly overcome people's free will and/or undermine faith to have God demonstrate his existence, but on the other hand apologists claim that God's existence is clear already, and at times in history God supposedly saw no problem with speaking through bushes and Jesus raising people from the dead, worries about overcoming people's free will notwithstanding apparently.
I think part of this can be explained by how culture used to be and how culture is now.  Meaning, consider when Moses turned his staff into a snake, that's a pretty big deal. Can you imagine if someone showed up on Anderson Cooper and was like, "Hey, watch this, make sure you film it, and here are all these scientific devices to show that this is honestly, truly, legit." And then the dude turned a wooden stick into a snake.  Honestly, if that was for real, can you imagine the impact it would have on society?

Yet, when Moses turned his staff into a legit and real snake, what happened? Well, the other guys did it too. I haven't done a lot of research into atheism during the B.C. era, but I suspect it was pretty slim.  Everyone believed in gods, and I think Satan had a lot more freedom to dupe people from that perspective.

If Christianity is true, then Satan's aim is to keep as many people away from God as possible.  During this time period in history, I think anything truly, honestly, and verifiable as miraculous would be counter productive to his aims. We simply live in a time where we don't believe in miracles and the supernatural anymore.  To that end, Satan has no problem working with that. 

Personally I don't know why there is always a topic running over the source of morality. 

When Christians talk about objective morals and values, we are saying that an action is right or wrong independent of what anyone thinks or feels about the action. 

Christians believe that morality is objective because ethics stem from the character of God.  What makes ethics objective is the fact that God is defined, in part, as omni-benevolent and immutable.  So based on these two qualities of God, we can say that morals are objective because God does not change.

In a universe where there is no God, man is the measure of morality.  If man is the measure of morality, then morality is necessarily subjective.  Even if a group of people get together and agree upon a system of ethics, thereby permitting them to judge actions based upon the system they created - that system does not possess any inherent authority outside what subjective men have given it, and subjective men are able to alter and amend the system at will. 

This honestly should be obvious.

If I were an atheist, I would personally have no problem at all agreeing that morals are ultimately subjective. I would simply say that thanks to evolution we have evolved to the point where we are able to recognize actions that are beneficial for myself and society and actions that are not beneficial for myself and society and be glad that we are intelligent enough to determine as a society that these actions that are not beneficial for myself and society.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Why bring kids into the world?
« on: May 09, 2017, 10:28:56 am »
Cool but why bring kids into the world given so much suffering? That's the question
According to my friend Google, the worldwide suicide rate is 16 per 100,000.  Or 1 per every 6,250.  I think that would mean that for every 6,251 people born, 6,250 of them would rather be alive than not. 

So I don't think it's really all that bad to bring a new life into this world. 

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Did Jesus know ??
« on: April 28, 2017, 11:12:03 am »
The OP question is no different than every other topic we've had over the Divinity of Christ.  For 99% of Christianity, one of the fundamental beliefs is that Jesus is Divine.  And when I say Divine, I mean that He is God. 

We point to obvious Scriptures such as Jesus', "I Am" statements in which people picked up stones to literally kill him for blasphemy. 

Yes, Jesus knew who He was, and why He was willing to die on the cross.  If He didn't know who He was, then He wouldn't have been willing to take our place on the cross.

The only people who are going to disagree with this are people who are either not Christians and for the most part reject the Bible altogether, or the few people on this forum who deny the Divinity of Christ.

Trinity, out of pure curiosity, are you also a Flat Earther?

I think John Calvin is very misunderstood.  I strongly recommend listening to this short biography by R.C. Sproul on John Calvin.  It's very good and enlightening:

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 131