Jump to content

potterwolf

Members
  • Content Count

    4,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by potterwolf

  1. I absolutely love when there are storms at night. Thunder storms put me to sleep like nothing else.
  2. Agreed. I'm pro-choice, I just think it's important to distinguish why the issue of abortion is a trickier issue than a lot of pro-choicers make it out to be.
  3. That's a very good point, and I'm in no way disagreeing with you there. My point was just that it isn't fair to frame this issue in such a way that pro-lifers are valuing the "life" of a clump of cells over the "life" of a woman. The example you use is slightly different than the issue of abortion though. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman most likely had a role in the creation of the life she is being forced to save. Presumably, if it wasn't for her, there would be no dying person worth saving, right? That doesn't make your point entirely invalid, but it's an important qualification because abortion is a tricky issue. It's not going to be solved by making false comparisons.
  4. Oh yeah, I have no doubt the 3ds version looks pretty amazing! I was talking mostly about the older GBA versions, where the sprites are so little you can't even see much of them. Unfortunately I don't have a 3ds, so I can't play Awakening. Maybe someday.
  5. This isn't quite a fair question. Unless you're talking specifically about situations in which the woman's life is in imminent danger as a result of pregnancy, the conflict isn't between valuing the "clump of cells" over the woman. Presumably a person's right to life is more valuable than a person's right to choose not to carry a pregnancy to term. If this premise is accepted, then it would make sense that a fetus's right to life would override the mother's right to choose. The point of contention between pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates is not about whether the fetus is more important than the woman. Rather, it is about whether or not a fetus has rights at all. If not, then its right to life doesn't factor into the equation. If, however, a fetus does possess human rights, then the protection of those rights would have to take priority.
  6. My roommate just introduced me to the Fire Emblem series this year, starting with Path of Radiance for the Gamecube. It's so amazing, I can't even stand it. I'm playing my way through Radiant Dawn right now, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I can't say that I cared for Sacred Stones much when I tried it, but I think I just prefer console games. I'm a sucker for some good graphics!
  7. I see what you're saying, although I wasn't talking about a Left Behind-ish apocalypse per se. I think we can both agree that type of Biblical interpretation is way off-base. I do think, however, that an understanding of Jesus's words in terms of Jewish apocalypticism is not unreasonable. There was still a belief among apocalypticists (which Jesus appears to have been) in an end-times event or era where God's kingdom would come defeat the forces of evil and such. It may very well be that Jesus spoke those words in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem that was coming, but didn't he also say in Matthew that some of his listeners would not taste death before his second coming? Are you suggesting that the so-called second coming already happened? As a side-note, historical evidence seems to suggest that Matthew was written after the destruction of the temple, so it would make sense if the author wrote it in such away that its prophecies seemed already to be fulfilled. To get back to the original point, I bet that Joseph Smith was just trying to sound prophet-like when he made that prophecy of sorts. He was probably just trying to indirectly reference these same sorts of passages from the NT.
  8. I know this isn't my conversation, but I felt I had to intrude a little bit a this section. It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, phil, you're a Christian? I just got through taking a New Testament class, and we spent a somewhat significant amount of time on the passages of the Bible where Jesus himself claims that the apocalypse would come during the generation of the disciples. By your own reasoning in criticizing Joseph Smith, wouldn't you also have to reject Jesus as a prophet?
  9. Freerice gets the money to donate rice from sponsors who put advertisements up on the site. If nobody was clicking answers, nobody would see the advertisements, and they wouldn't get sponsored. That's how I understand it anyway.
  10. I don't think that this is technically a double post, since it was months ago. I just wanted to bump this because it's a great website, and it's really fun to make an account and see how much you can help with hunger! There're lots of different categories: languages, vocabulary, geography, math, etc. (My personal favorite is still Flags of the World) Anyway, my group Accio Freerice! is still open for recruits, but you need a freerice account to join. Do it! /shameless advertisement
  11. They might be referring to Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." But I think it's heavily debated, even within Christianity. There may be no clear answer. I'm not sure.
  12. ...Wait, what? I'm sorry to butt in, but I'm curious. NobleOwl, do you actually hold the position that you can't make any moral judgments about anything that God hasn't spoken of? I would imagine that there are lots of issues that aren't in the Torah or other alleged inspired writings. Do you have to remain neutral then? Also, if you can't judge that something is wrong without God's permission, can you judge something as being right? - Truly Confused
  13. I'm going to have to side with Princess Artemis on this one. I understand what you're trying to say, I think. But...I don't think it's 'right to life' that we're talking about when we discuss DNR patients. As I understand it, having a right to life means that nobody else can take away your life against your will (legally anyway). This isn't the same issue that we're talking about with DNR patients. A person who has chosen to be DNR is simply saying that they don't want extra measures to be taken to resuscitate them in the event of a medical emergency. That has nothing to do with their right to life. When doctors resuscitate people, it's not because they are trying to protect their right to life. Nobody has a 'right to life' in the sense that they have the right to defy all damage and disease to their body. That would be ridiculous. Nobody has the "right" to survive through a medical emergency. As medical professionals, the doctors are obligated to try to preserve their patient's lives as long as they can, but not against their patient's will. Doctors will attempt to resuscitate those without DNR status based on the assumption that most people would choose to be saved if given the choice. Not because they're fulfilling a person's right to life.
  14. I made one. I'm not really sure if it's good or not, but whatever. It was just for funzies anyway. Sources Triforce Logo Link
  15. NobleOwl, you don't ever answer a question halfway do ya? Interesting stuff. I'm going to have to admit that even though I'm pretty interested in religion, I don't think about Judaism that much. I like to learn about Christianity and Islam, but I usually end up ignoring Judaism out of the same misconception that you mentioned. Christianity - Jesus = Judaism. I guess I just don't know the differences... Judaism always seems to involve a lot of history...and I'm awful in history. I just get bored with it. I'm not trying to slam the religion itself, just trying to explain why I ten to skip over it when I think about religion.
  16. I don't know what you mean by "Jewish comedy". It's a comedic movie about a story from the religious text of Judaism/Christianity. Does that make it a Jewish comedy? I don't really understand why people blame the Jews for killing Jesus for a couple reasons. 1. You can't blame Jewish people now for what a group of Jewish people may have done two thousand years ago. 2. Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection supposedly enabled the salvation of the world, so shouldn't Christians thank the Jews? Without the Jews killing Jesus, wouldn't everybody going to hell according to your doctrine anyway?
  17. ...It's specifically about the Biblical version of the Noah/flood story. It has Bible verses. It's not about many religions. It's a somewhat clever, funny way of bringing a well-known Biblical story into the modern day. ...I don't even know what else to say.
  18. I'm just going to point out that Evan Almighty is specifically about the story of Noah's Ark. It also contains references to specific Bible verses. So, it sort of does portray a specific religion.
  19. Um...the school probably wouldn't be legally required not to take them to the movie, but they probably could have made a smarter, more neutral decision. There had to have been other PG movies showing. Also, isn't it a slightly different situation with art and literature? Those are historically relevant. There're good, non-religious reasons to discuss art and literature that contains religious references. There's no good reason to show Evan Almighty when it might be sensitive to some people. No. The atheist doesn't have the burden of proof unless they make the claim that God does not exist. Which a lot of atheists, like myself, would hesitate to do for that very reason. You can't prove that God doesn't exist. And I don't claim to know that he for sure doesn't exist. But I also don't share in the faith that he does. There's a difference between that and claiming that God for sure does not exist.
  20. I think it depends on the way the issue comes up and the positions are stated. If a theist says "God is real" and an atheist says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof is on the theist. If an atheist says "God is not real" and a theist says "I don't believe you", the burden of proof would be on the atheist, but I don't think that situation occurs very often. If a theist says "God is real" and and atheist replies by saying "No, he isn't", then both of them would have the burden of proof, because they're both making claims. Right?
  21. I think what's probably going on is that people are more likely to judge you for making mistakes if you're christian because there's some sort of perceived moral 'standard' that christians are supposed to live by. If a christian does something wrong, people are liable to say "that wasn't very christian of you" or "you're not a good christian", whereas that doesn't happen so much to non-religious people. I know that my Mormon friends have to suffer through a lot of people telling them that if they do something wrong they're being a bad Mormon. I think it's just easy to judge people when there's a clear notion that they're meant to be morally superior to the rest of society in some way.
  22. For the same reason that killing someone in self-defense is okay, but murder is not okay. A person dies either way, but self-defense is justifiable. Oh, okay. I misunderstood what you were trying to say. My bad. Just out of curiosity, where does that belief come from? Why is a soul necessary for murder... I just can't think of any situation where that issue would come up besides abortion. Maybe the killing of animals?
  23. There are acceptable forms of killing. There are not acceptable forms of murder.
  24. If you want to quote something extra just copy and paste it into your post and put quote tags around it. The tags look like this without the extra spaces. [ quote ] copy/paste here [ /quote ]