Why would the "big bang" imply anything other than the moment of the actualization of love into creation from the theological standpoint. Why wouldn't God still be the author of life? I guess what I'm asking you to clarify is whether or not you are approaching the question of creation from pure material cosmology, or are you supportive of the theological creation only? It sounds as if you are a Christian, by use of this statement, (which I am also), but reluctant to embrace the idea that in a sense physics and metaphysics work together in description of the universe in both material and theological/philosophical perspectives. In other words, are you a Christian who rules out the theory of "intlligent design", wherein the Christian ends up by necessity denying the material science?
Government shutdowns are a joke. It is just bad politics to make one party or another look like bad guys for holding a belief that they find important enough to go to the mat over. In this most recent case, it is in order to ensure the defunding of "Planned Parenthood", which has not business with Federal tax money to begin with. I personally think the ones who would look like schlemiels in this instance would be the Democrats who insist on continuing to fund an immoral, unethical, killing machine, with the hard earned tax money from poor and middle class people who aren't even being asked what they think about it. EVERYTHING that isn't a specific Federal Government entity should be defunded with American tax dollars. Tax dollar are suppsed to be going to run the Federal Government and it's agencies. Period. So yeah....I think the Republicans need to truss up their cajones, and take this think wherever it goes, never giving an inch, with strength and authority. The Goverment may "shut down" for a few days in the process, but as a former 35 year Federal Employee who is a veteran of two such shut downs, it doesn't effect anything in the long run. You get emergency pay during the shut down, and you square up afterwards. Those who are "essential personnel" even stay at work. It's just political maneuvering. Those in favor of defunding planned parenthood, if they believe it's important, should do whatever it takes to ensure that this is done.
Thank you Texas. The Supreme Court is on my last nerve. I don't think they even cracked open a copy of the constitution in their last 4 or 5 so-called "landmark decision". They're just one branch of the Government in the balance of powers, and they've screwed that up, because they are supposed to interpret the constitution and apply it to challenges which are not resolved in the various states. They instead take cases which ARE resolved at the various states and use their personal opinions rather than the U.S. Constitution to muddy things up even more. On top of which, we already have a congress for legislation. Congress makes law. The Court applies it, and clarifies it. Everybody needs to remember what their job is.
Only before I was even of voting age. I mean I assumed I was they same political affiliation as my parents, grandparents etc.. When I got old enough to vote and make those decisions I found myself quite outside the politics of my family tree. Is this what you mean? No one since has persuaded me one way or another, and I make my decisions, based on research, one election at a time, not being a member of either established party.
Eventually, the GOP and the DEM will disenfranchise a sufficient number of their own membership that the two major parties will either have to change or fold their tents. This would already happen if their members bothered to read the planks of their parties honestly, and consider all that their party expects them to accept by virtue of membership. I'm amazed that we don't already have 4 viable political parties. In any event. There are more "independents" every election cycle. Granted, these "indies" are simply Republicans and Democrats who are at odds with their parties over 1 or 2 issues. Or are tired of insider politics, and life time politicians. I voted for the candidate from the American Constitution Party (Chuck Baldwin) during the unbelievably bad choice given us between Barak Obama and John McCain. I got suckered into the party once more in the following cycle to vote for Romney over Obama. So, my vote had no effect either way. When I voted my heart, my candidate didn't win. When I voted a major party, my candidate didn't win. What I want to vote for is American conservatism, in the mold of Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. Strong leadership, a vigorous economy, Sane foreign policy, and laws which are moral, and just. Better appointments for the Supreme Court. In the USA, we don't get these things from either the Democrats or the Republicans in their current states because they have become to large, to institutional and too cocky. Even though they use rhetoric during their campaigns and build smoke screens, in the final analysis, you couldn't fit a playing card in between the candidates actually nominated to represent the DEM and the GOP. They they just hate on each other for another 4 years, until we have another worthless election with milktoast candidates lacking hormones or human traits of any kind lest somebody get offended and they don't get elected.
Anyway, unless one the parties gave us real candidates we could sink our teeth into and really get behind. Another Lincoln or Reagan, or Roosevelt, or Ike, or Kennedy, then we're stuck with a bunch of Bush's and Clintons, and we're just one big glop of worthlessness in our leadership and politics.
By all means we should feel good about voting outside of the 2 parties. If it doesn't have an effect for a few cycles, so be it. At least you can sleep better knowing that you didn't have any part of the guy or gal the party forced down your throat. Eventually, people will catch on, and a strong willed outsider will get the job over the Dems and Pubs, and they the parties will either change to the will of the people, or they will disappear over time like the Whigs.
There's no wrong answer. I like what's happening in the GOP right now. They're starting to figure it out. The top three candidates are NOT politicians. We'll see what happens.
The top candidate in the DEMS, at least in NH and Iowa, is Socialist Bernie Sanders, so maybe the DEMS are starting to feel the strain as well. So eventually, maybe 3rd and 4th parties won't be necessary to get the attention of the major parties, but in the mean time, you don't lose anything. I promise that no matter what your leanings, whether Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton is president makes little or no difference whatsoever. So fight on. Be independent. Vote other parties. Vote for who YOU BELIEVE IN. Candidates that really resonates with you and your particular needs and wants out of this country for you and your family. Do real research. Listen to debates. Find the right candidate for you, no matter what party they are in or not in, and support them with all you've got. Tell your detractors this.
If we always do what we always did, we'll always get what we always got.
Just my 2 cents.
Peace,
Steve
The idea that a fetus is a human being, while you may be correct that there is some miniscule fragments of contention still lingering, they are contending a fiction by emotion. It is quite resolved, settled science that a human being is formed at conception. The question, then is whether or not a woman has a "right" granted by ?_? to end the development of the human life to full potential by contracting for the killing of her own child. This "right" would not be granted by God, who is the genesis of life, so it can come only from a secular body, removing the baby from the realms of both biology and theology, and placing the baby at the mercy of 20th century western politics and civics. On it's face, this hardly seems the proper arbiter for matters as important as the nurturing of human life.
Regarding your second paragraph, you're referring to a "quasi-concession" that the taking of human life be allowed in some instances. I've been gone for a while, and will have to re-read my original premise to see what exactly I said, but I can guess I was willing, as a STARTING point, and for political reasons to put those who advocate for abortion on demand to a test. When pressed in the political arena, even the most hard core abortion advocates come up with the challenges "What about in the instance of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother". Well of course, in the instance of rape, it would not be right. It is simply adding violence to violence. The innocent child did not commit a crime, and deserves the right to live. Same with incest. As regards "saving the life of the mother", this is I think what the call a "straw man" argument. That is disingenuous. First because it is so rare, and second, this potential doctor/surgeon is supposed to do all he/she can to save the lives of the mother AND her baby. Sometimes in the course of efforts to do so, the baby would die. But this is a secondary effect, and not the INTENTION of an ethical doctor. So that instance doesn't really belong in the argument.
You are correct that abortion is wrong in every instance. My false willingness to allow (for political reasons ONLY), the rape/incest idea, is actually intended only to make a point. When presented with this offer or idea, the political parties who are in favor of abortion, who use this argument to keep abortion legal, would still not actually put an abortion restriction law into practice if given a chance. It's just something they say to themselves to make themselves not feel like monsters for fighting for abortion rights.
No. I am not personally in favor of ANY procured abortion happening. But law is only a part of this. Hearts must change. So perhaps if you COULD get people to go for an abortion ban with the 2 exceptions, it would be enough of a start, that down the road, as the facts about human life and development became more commonly known, it would then be politically possible to lose he exceptions as well, over time. Meanwhile, a law allowing only for those exceptions will successfully put an end to 99% of abortions, and they would then indeed be quite rare as a procedure.
This is one of the saddest things about the whole mess. The civil legality of this horror has over time dulled the cultural psyche to the sanctity of all human life. I wish I knew the answer. How to bring the cultural conscience back to sanity, and more importantly to love.
Yes. It is still murder. And no, I don't personally condone the exceptions. I am being conciliatory. I'll take what I can get. If the pro-aborts would really concede to no abortion save for those few exceptions which they wish to keep it legal for, then we're more than 99 percent on the road to restoring the sense of the sanctify of human life. But, I think the "exceptions" are disingenuous rote learned talking points used to assuage the conscience of the pro-aborts, and to keep the whole shebang legal.
No. It should not be legal to seek and procure abortion. It is barbaric. It's contract murder.
There are some rare exceptions, which account for less than 1% of all abortions which are performed. (rape, incest, save life of mother). These are not valid reasons to murder a child either, but could be considered on a case by case basis, as they occur, in an environment where procured abortion is NOT legal.
Yes and no. (Not sure how to do that here). That is, the answer is much deeper than the question. People generally DO have the right to live in whatever country they want, subject to that countries immigration and naturalization laws. So, if I decide one day, I wish to live in Swtizerland, I must contact the Swiss government first, and express my desire to do so. If the country has the resources to support me, and has some use for me, or if I am retired, and wish to spend my retirement money on their economy, and if I'm willing to go through a citizenship program, orientation classes, etc., then generally, a country will issue the appropriate paperwork, and invite you to come in. If I just buy a plane ticket, (one way), to Switzerland, then rent an apartment, and never have any dealings with the government, then I am an unwelcome guest. If discovered, they will have me leave their country until such time as I go through the proper channels to be there. So yes.....I should be able to live in any country I would like. No.....I shouldn't be able to do it outside of the laws of that country. It throws off their census, their tax structure, it drains resources that weren't alloted for because of the skewed census, and inadequate taxing, and to top it all off, I am living as an outlaw. A criminal.
"Do you think it is moral to convince gay people that they are bad?"
First, you're creating a straw man, since I have no problem with persons who experience same sex attraction. There is no immorality in our attractions. It is actions on things which we know in our hearts to be immoral, or which have been defined as immoral which form immorality. This doesn't apply to homosexuals any more than it applies to heterosexuals who commit sexual acts prior to marriage, or during marriage with someone they are not married to as well. In fact, this is much more common than homosexual sex. It is not an external act convincing anyone that something they're doing is immoral. It is themselves, knowing that they are doing something immoral when they act out. That's called guilt, and at's a perfectly normal and natural response within us to that which is immoral. We are obsessed as a culture with trying to remove guilt from things rather than trying to avoid that which elicits a guilt response, which is a protective measure inside ourselves to assist us in remaining moral in our action.
"Do you think it is moral to convince people to be Christian?" I'm not sure how this connects with anything I've been talking about, but since you've asked, God is love. Jesus is God. Therefore Jesus is love. To attempt to convince someone to live in love would be within the limits of morality, yes.
"Do you think it is moral to attack people for not following your morality?"
What do you mean by attack? I've never attacked anyone in my life. If one attacks someone, either physically, or in some cruel mental way, this is immoral in and of itself. If you mean attacking (figuratively, I assume), immoral acts, it is actually a duty of citizenship. We should always be fighting, rather than acquiescing to the foisting of immorality into our culture, presented as a good. It just makes good sense. If we lay back and just let everything happen to us, then we end up in the kind of confusing mess we find ourselves in now.
"Maybe those work."
Work for what?
Having embassies, (diplomatic relations)? Yes.
I don't however think we should be lifting any sanctioned until these new diplomats have much discussion and come up with some real progress on human rights, etc. An embassy, ambassador, and diplomacy are good first steps. Now let's let all of them do their work before doing anything else. But yeah. I'd like to see an American embassy in every country in the world. If we don't have communication at that level, how can anything ever be expected to change?
OP -
Pro-Life: "I know what's better for you and I want control."
Pro-Choice: "I know what's good for me." or "I don't know what's good for you."
---------------------------------------
I know this is not the position of pro-life, and I suspect that your posted position for pro-choice is not that accurate either.
Here's the thing. We didn't used to have the firm science. The science is in. Human persons are created at conception. Period. There is no contest to this. Pro-life stance is much better stated that all human beings once conceived have the right to complete their lives. To be nurtured through pregancy, through infancy, through childhood, through adolescence and up to adulthood by either their parents, or another responsible set of parents (via adoption), so that they are not deprived of their right to personhood. Their right to flourish, and their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our morally sickened culture has determined, that this only applies to human persons at (?) weeks/months old (can't a a straight concensus from pro-lifers, but even if you could it wouldn't make any sense, since it is a human person with a right to life from the moment of conception). To intentionally take a human life while it is surrounded by placenta is called "abortion", or worse yet "women's health care"(?). The moment that the baby is delivered, then killing it intentionally is called murder, and is a felony punishable by imprisonment or even death. So in the space of a few inches and a couple seconds we go from a "choice", and an abortion to a murder. It doesn't follow any sort of logic. Anyway, the prolife position isn't about "we know what's best for you and we want control". It is simply an acknowledgement of the importance and dignity of human life, and that every life has a right to be once brought into being. It is the essence of civil rights. It is fundamental. Not sure how it ever got lost, especially in the USA, where we are founded on these principles. We don't wish to "control" anyone. We wish civil rights for human persons of every age group. Especially the tiniest among us, who can not speak for themselves. Their rights must be looked after. An adult person already has a right to abstain from sexual activity if they don't like the potential bilogical result. They don't deserve additional rights for bad decision making.
This supports my point. These were all people who believed they were getting to a "good" end, and used that to justify evil means. That is the heart of my answer to the original debate.
P.S. There was no sneakiness implied or intended by adding Margaret Sanger. I stand by that, and I stand by it as obvious.
"I am sure there are some things you think are moral that I find immoral,"
I don't think this would be possible. Do you have an example? I already know that the transverse is true, based on your posts. But I don't know where you would get that there are things I think are moral that you would think are immoral, since I am saying that morality is sufficient unto itself, and unchanegable. Only ones personal opinions and consequences change. Not the immoral thing itself.
What would be a good example of a non-relativist such as myself thinking is moral, that a relativist would possibly find immoral. I'm not asking for examples the other way around. I'm sure there are plenty of those.
I'm going to guess that you're relatively young, and hold an appreciation for sexual immorality, so essentially every thing that feels good, and is civillly legal is moral. That is the State, and not God/or some natural process common to all determines morality. If this is your position, and then it would follow that some things which are immoral may be moral later, if only the State changes the law to accomodate an element of immorality. This could go on and on to the comfort level of the majority of persons in any given community of persons. That morality changes with the subjects of the propositions. If this were true, than morality would always be the province of the State, and the community. If State A decides on cannibalism, but doesn't mess with State B one way or another, than State A is being moral in their cannibalism, since they don't find it immoral, and no one in State B is being attacked or hurt.
Things are immoral, because they ARE. Voters, states and courts can have no bearing on what is and isn't wrong. They can only make civil law, which may or may not be morally sound. This is one of the purposes of moral conscience.
What separates moral persons from Nazi's, Pol Pot, Stalinists, Tojo, Margaret Sanger, etc., is that moral persons understand that evil can not be a means to an end. Even an "imagined" good end. Immorality can not be made right by circumstance.
It doesn't surprise me that the other side is winning this debate. This is the problem with morally relativistic, post-Christian culture. Morals don't change. They can't. If it was ever wrong, then it still is. And it certain has been since the dawn of man. That doesn't mean that people don't do it. It just means that when they do, they are being immoral. Nobody wants to admit to immorality anymore, so they have bent, or even done away with morality, as is it was some man invented thing that can simply be discarded.
