Jump to content

philpot123

Members
  • Posts

    1,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. They're the same. The same as any other person that's ever existed. Willful cosmic treason against their creator. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:18-25, ESV) Why is killing wrong?
  2. There are lots and lots of individual denominations that have divided on small issues, but when you break it down to individual Protestant traditions, consolidating offshoots, and counting Lutheranism and Anglicanism as "Protestant" by definition, there's seven at most.
  3. I've seen that quote from "Why I Am Not A Christian" before, and it's still flawed. That entire chapter is pretty easily rebutted. He first assumes supremacy of human reason, being able to mine out facts about the world and God with absolute certainty. This ignores the idea of a corrupted nature, which Christianity also teaches. If man is fallen, and all humans are sinful, it is perfectly expected to find confusion about God. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23, ESV) The point seems to be a valid one, but he attempts to solve it, or rather disprove it, by positing one point of the Christian worldview apart from the others that better explain the issues involved. If a supremely powerful being exists... etc. But the Christian worldview isn't piecemeal, it's a unified whole. He argues in that chapter that a loving God would communicate His message to all people. The Christian agrees, and points to Romans 1 (and other places) to show that God has revealed Himself in the works of creation and providence, such that all men can see the truth of God's "invisible attributes, eternal power, and divine nature," but they subsequently suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because they are by nature at enmity with God (Romans 3, Ephesians 2, etc).
  4. "You cannot say your opinion is correct universally so keep it to yourself." Is that not telling me I'm wrong? If not, my reading comprehension must be lower than I thought. It's an argument based upon justice, like any other law regarding public policy should be. I just happen to believe that justice needs a standard by which to judge that which is just. I believe abortion is a moral travesty that should be abolished after the fashion of slavery. I believe I have a moral obligation to submit to civil authority where they aren't commanding me to sin, so I don't believe in breaking laws to achieve the goal of abolition or physically restraining people who are seeking abortions, if that's what you're driving at. Along the same lines, I believe aid and help should be offered to mothers. Christian morality demands more than "forcing people to have babies." True religion is caring for widows, orphans, etc. There's more to it than the law. Anyways, I'm out for the night folks. Thanks for the rousing conversation, as always.
  5. ... you're shaming me and telling me I'm wrong and need to stop practicing my religion that I feel obligates me to attempt to save lives that are being murdered.
  6. Let's pause for a moment to appreciate the irony in me being told I'm wrong for telling other people they're wrong, and that no one should ever tell anyone something is wrong. ... Yup.
  7. Not a problem I ask questions because I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting your position when I respond. I can define it, but at this point it doesn't appear to be necessary. You cannot say your opinion that there is nothing morally wrong with abortion is correct universally so keep it to yourself.
  8. So it's your opinion that it's wrong for me to tell other people my opinion of what's right and wrong? A broken adoption system doesn't justify murder, if abortion is such.
  9. Are you saying it's wrong to tell other people what's right and wrong? That's really just medically untrue... Abortion
  10. And none of those things would be morally okay, because I believe it's always sinful to intend to kill a child, in the womb or otherwise. I put it in quotes because there is a distinct difference between people who are only personally opposed to abortion and people who consistently support its abolition, just like there was a difference between certain enlightenment thinkers who were morally opposed to slavery and the abolitionists who fought to eradicate it.
  11. Abortions kill a fetus and then remove it from the womb.
  12. Now that's just simple wordplay. You terminate a pregnancy by killing a fetus.
  13. The vocal minority. Part of the documentary includes a sampling of interviews at last year's March for Life, and shows how few pro-life people are willing to call abortion murder, or to call women who choose abortion murderers. It's not the majority sentiment.
  14. Where do these "human rights" come from exactly? You've clearly never run into Abby Johnson (famous pro-life advocate who bans people from her Facebook page for calling abortion murder), or most of the mainstream pro-life movement. The majority of people who attend March for Life and whatnot refuse to call abortion murder. The majority of people, even who go to clinics and stand outside, don't use the word "murder," don't quote the Bible, and offer simply pragmatic, medical, and natural law arguments. This documentary is taking a stance in opposition to those sorts of "pro-lifers."
  15. Why does being able to live outside the womb make it wrong to kill it? Is there an arbitrary line before which it's alright to kill it and after which it's not? A day/week/month perhaps? How does one determine this? Why is it ever wrong to kill a child in the womb? Did you watch the entire thing? Not saying watching the whole thing would change your mind, just curious.
  16. I'm curious as to why you think late-term abortions are wrong? I'm assuming you mean they're morally wrong by saying they could be considered murder, so I'm just curious as to why you think that. My point was for people to watch the documentary and react to it, whether in agreement or in indignant rage. I believe it's a true message that needs to be heard, but if you want to be on top of what garbage (from a pro-choice perspective) is being spread around in the pro-life community, there's your breaking news.
  17. I've discussed the general topic plenty, and I think everyone knows my position here. Will using the word murder make people happy with pro-lifers? Nope, not one bit. But I truly believe that's what it is, so I'll call it that. Anyways, I shared the link so that you guys could see what's being passed around by us radical pro-lifers lately, and display the appropriate rage in response. FYI, that documentary was endorsed by a Fox News anchor on his Facebook fan page, if you're looking for another reason to hate Fox.
  18. I'm surprised nobody here has caught wind of this yet. I'll just leave this here...
  19. So just to be clear, you would say that anyone who gains possession of any property should have to provide sufficient justification for why they deserve said property? I find that disgusting. Property rights are basic. I own my property. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (read:property) and whatnot. You can disagree, but at that point, we just have a fundamental philosophical gap that we won't cross through the internet. First, do some research on how many millionaires are first-generation rich. Last I checked, it's the vast majority. So don't assume rich people are just born into it. That's a widespread misconception, but reality doesn't line up with that. Now to your hypothetical. If someone has a terrible IQ, going to good schools won't help them because they'll fail out. If they have the ability to graduate from those schools, great. If they have the ability to gain position at a company, fine. I believe inheritance is a perfectly legitimate way to gain money, so I wouldn't see a problem with someone gaining funds that way. Again, I believe that person would have a large responsibility to provide good wages and to give charitably based on their elevated economic status, but the government does not have the authority to coerce them into doing those things. As for your only "fair" system, that sounds nice, but unfortunately it doesn't exist and can't exist. No one is born with equal talents, gifts, and abilities. No one is born into the same situation. Fairness is absolutely impossible. /assuming we have capitalism in America.
  20. If anyone can find evidence of a CPC that falsely claims to provide abortions in order to deceive women into waiting till past the legal date, I'd love to see it. I've never seen a CPC advertise as anything BUT a provider of abortion alternatives, but perhaps deceptive ones exist. If they do, I would find that sort of tactic reprehensible.
  21. Again, you're shifting the burden of proof, and you are thereby changing the nature of basic property rights. I don't have to justify to you whether or not I deserve what I have or whether or not I need what I have, because it is MINE. What I do with it may be immoral, but my mere possession of it is not. I shouldn't have to justify it. No one can say whether or not that person "deserves" it. Not with legal force, anyways. You can offer your opinion on the matter, but that doesn't mean that your subjective, arbitrary salary cap can or should be enforced on anyone.
  22. Okay, this is patently ridiculous. You've gone from making objective statements about economic theory to making moral/value judgements about how much a person should or should not be able to earn if they have the capital invested in the right areas. By what standard do you claim that the people at the top don't "deserve" that much money? Why is a salary cap a good thing? If I have my money invested in the right areas of business such that I can make Y amount, what right do you have to tell me I can only make X amount, and the difference must be forcibly taken from me? THAT is theft, and I can make a moral judgment on that. But I'm at a loss as to where you get this idea that there's an abstract level of income that's just objectively obscene, such that it warrants government intervention. Do people who make ridiculous amounts of money NEED that much money? Of course not. If necessity is determined by ability to survive, perhaps with some basic comforts, they absolutely don't need it. But you're screwing with the way that property works. I shouldn't have to "prove" to anyone that I need what I have earned. The burden is on you to show why I should be coercively deprived of that which belongs to me. I wholeheartedly agree. I believe I have a moral responsibility to care for those who are struggling by giving of the surplus that I've been blessed with. I just don't think that I should be forced to do so.
  23. Nobody is neutral, and it could be expected that someone who believes the minimum wage is useless/harmful would fight against it. Address the particulars of the studies. Where are they flawed? What about the NBER one? Any response to that? I'll respond to the rest of you all as soon as I can. I have a road trip ahead today, so I may not get back to it very soon. Blessings.
  24. "...multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty." http://epionline.org/... "This study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway shows convincingly that minimum wages, because of inefficient targeting of the poor and unintended adverse consequences on employment and earnings, are ineffective as an antipoverty device. The report relies on an impressive array of empirical evidence showing that, however one views the data, in the United States, state and federal minimum wages have not reduced poverty." http://www.epionline.org/studies/vedder_06-2001.pdf "The evidence indicates that in the wake of minimum wage increases, some families gain and others lose. On net, the various tradeoffs created by minimum wage increases more closely resemble income redistribution among low-income families than income redistribution from high- to low-income families. Given these findings it is difficult to make a distributional or equity argument for minimum wages." http://www.nber.org/papers/w6127
  25. We aren't qualified to keep our current insurance under the ACA. The best approved alternative raises our deductible from $1,000 to $5,000. I find that a little bit obscene, just personally. Our family skates well below median income. Where before, we were economically secure with an insurance that covered what we needed with a deductible we could manage, now we're stuck with a deductible that I couldn't even cover if I sold my car. Forced debt, yay!