Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem

[PastorJim]

Can anything outside of the bible verify this public event happened exactly like it was supposed to have happened? No? oh.... that's strange, with it being such an extraordinary event

Why does it have to be outside the Bible?

 

[stan1980]

Why does it have to be outside the Bible?

Well, most people have questioning minds, I accept some people are more willing to 'believe' than others but I'm afraid not me. If I'm to believe a story, it helps if there are independent sources to verify the story. If there is a lack of this, how can you be sure the events that were supposed to have happened, actually did happen?

I can only conclude, if God exists, she doesn't want me to know about her existence. In modern times, it would be unrealistic for God to expect me to buy the story with the information that is currently on offer.

 

[KarateCowboy]

If we call the Creator of this Universe God then it's pretty logical to conclude Its existence.

I mean, claiming the Universe created Itself < Creationism.

Meaning: EPIC FAIL

 

[stan1980]

If we call the Creator of this Universe God then it's pretty logical to conclude Its existence.

I mean, claiming the Universe created Itself < Creationism.

Meaning: EPIC FAIL

That's fine, but Christians and other religions normally have a very particular idea of what or who God is, pretending that they know God's 'nature'. It is these very specific ideas that I am arguing about, as they are extremely unlikely to be true as the evidence just isn't there or is incredibly unreliable. More than likely, they have simply been made up.

 

[PastorJim]

Well, most people have questioning minds, I accept some people are more willing to 'believe' than others but I'm afraid not me.

But you still haven't demonstrated that the Bible is an unreliable account.

If I'm to believe a story, it helps if there are independent sources to verify the story. If there is a lack of this, how can you be sure the events that were supposed to have happened, actually did happen?

Because the Bible has deonstrated itself to be trustworthy.

 

[stan1980]

But you still haven't demonstrated that the Bible is an unreliable account.

The specific story of the resurrection of Jesus, has not been verified by independent sources. That's not a good start.

Because the Bible has deonstrated itself to be trustworthy.

Oh please!! How?

 

[PastorJim]

The specific story of the resurrection of Jesus, has not been verified by independent sources. That's not a good start.

Actually, it has but, even if it didn't, that still wouldn't make it unreliable.

Oh please!! How?

I find the Bible to be trustworthy because of it's prophecies, because it internally consistent, in spite of being written by over forty people on three continents over thousands of years. I find it to be convincing because of the archaeological evidence and, while is not a science book, I find the fact that it makes many statements relating to science hundreds and even thousands of years before those things were discovered to be evidence of God's hand.

Don't bother telling me why you think those things are not true. I don't care if you believe it or not. I'm just explaining why I believe it.

 

[fated]

with abortion of adult americans? Thats something i don´t understand.
Isn´t that bigot to demonstrate against abortion and at the same time to support death penalty?

The death penalty (hopefully) doesn't kill an innocent party but a guilty one. Anyway, for many, the death penalty, or abolishing it is a priority, but the magnitude is very small, with only a several instances a year. But, again, it still doesn't lie on the same plane of killing innocent people as abortion, which actually kills innocent people.

Why does a woman get an abortion? She doesn't want a baby. She kills the baby. Over a million time a year in the US. That's why it seems to dominate peoples votes in many cases.

 

[jcook922]

Why does it have to be outside the Bible?

Because it's a biased source when it comes to being questioned.

 

[KarateCowboy]

That's fine, but Christians and other religions normally have a very particular idea of what or who God is, pretending that they know God's 'nature'. It is these very specific ideas that I am arguing about, as they are extremely unlikely to be true as the evidence just isn't there or is incredibly unreliable. More than likely, they have simply been made up.

OK well that's a Red Herring because the fact that people debate, sometimes furiously, the fine points of the Creator's nature does not negate the mind-numbing level of denial it takes to conclude that the alternatives to a Creator are more logical.

 

[jcook922]

OK well that's a Red Herring because the fact that people debate, sometimes furiously, the fine points of the Creator's nature does not negate the mind-numbing level of denial it takes to conclude that the alternatives to a Creator are more logical.

I think his point is that we have no factual knowledge of the great beyond, and that however ludicrous the opinion is, all opinions are equal to eachother. And by factual knowledge I mean more than a holy book, I acknowledge that religion is based on faith in things you can't see, but I'm just stating my interpretation of Stan.

My opinion on creation is just as valid as anybody else, not based on the quality of the opinion, but based on the total lack of physical proof that we have.

 

[fated]

I think his point is that we have no factual knowledge of the great beyond, and that however ludicrous the opinion is, all opinions are equal to eachother. And by factual knowledge I mean more than a holy book, I acknowledge that religion is based on faith in things you can't see, but I'm just stating my interpretation of Stan.

My opinion on creation is just as valid as anybody else, not based on the quality of the opinion, but based on the total lack of physical proof that we have.

But, abortion doesn't have to be discussed using a religious platform, because abortion is used to terminate a human so that it won't be born. It kills a human, and if a society believe that it exists to prevent killing those under its protection, then they won't accept abortion. On the other hand, if you put a relativistic value on a person's life, typically, whether the life is desired, then you can justify abortion, and then euthanasia, war, and so forth.

 

[stan1980]

Actually, it has but, even if it didn't, that still wouldn't make it unreliable.

Can you point me to these historical documents?

What is quite damaging for Christianity, is that none of the historians whilst Jesus lived ever even mentioned his existence. Later historians, maybe, but they never met him, they only reported rumours and stories they heard.

One person claimed there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection, not 500 people claiming that they saw the resurrection. BIG DIFFERENCE.

The gospels, were not even written until decades after Jesus' supposed resurrection!

I find the Bible to be trustworthy because of it's prophecies

Anyone can make a prediction in one book, and that same person can write a fulfilment of the prediction in the next book. It's quite easy actually.

I find the fact that it makes many statements relating to science hundreds and even thousands of years before those things were discovered to be evidence of God's hand.

The bible isn't that strong on science. Where is the mention of electricity, DNA, atoms and so on?

The bible makes many, many errors. The moon is not a light as the bible claims, the earth is not motionless, the earth is sphere, a bat is not a bird, rabbits do not chew their cud, they only appear to due to mistaken human perception, insects have 6 feet not 4. An all knowing God would know all this stuff.

Don't bother telling me why you think those things are not true. I don't care if you believe it or not. I'm just explaining why I believe it.

I think it is fair to say the bible has been metaphorically torn to pieces, so if you are going to make claims from it, indeed as some do (I'm not sure about you in particular), but actually make bigoted, hurtful claims, you better darn well make sure it's reliable, otherwise you have made a poor, poor choice.

 

[jcook922]

But, abortion doesn't have to be discussed using a religious platform, because abortion is used to terminate a human so that it won't be born. It kills a human, and if a society believe that it exists to prevent killing those under its protection, then they won't accept abortion. On the other hand, if you put a relativistic value on a person's life, typically, whether the life is desired, then you can justify abortion, and then euthanasia, war, and so forth.

My value on human life is slightly skewed, but I support Choice, the Death Penalty, and feel that war is at times(Not all times) unavoidable. But that's my personal opinion, which I wouldn't force on anybody else.

 

[PastorJim]

Can you point me to these historical documents?

I could but, like I said, I'm not really interested in discussing it. The question was why I, personally, believe it and I believe I've answered that question.

The gospels, were not even written until decades after Jesus' supposed resurrection!

Most accounts of historical events and biographies were not written until well after the event. That doesn't make them untrue.

I'm a big fan of Shelby Foote. Most of his books were written nearly 100 years after the end of the Civil War and yet, he's considered to be one of the greatest historians on that subject.

Anyone can make a prediction in one book, and that same person can write a fulfilment of the prediction in the next book. It's quite easy actually.

You're absolutely right. However, not everyone can cause that event to come to pass.

The bible isn't that strong on science. Where is the mention of electricity, DNA, atoms and so on?

Like I said, the Bible is not a science text book and was never meant to be.

The bible makes many, many errors. The moon is not a light as the bible claims

I disagree. I live out in the country, far beyond the lights of the city. Many nights, the moon provides the only light we have to walk from one place to the other.

the earth is not motionless

I agree. I assume you're referring to Ps 93:1. Ps 93:1 doesn't say that the Earth doesn't move, but that it will not be moved. There's a big difference.

the earth is sphere

I agree. That's why the Biblical authors used the Hebrew word chewg, which means sphere.

a bat is not a bird

I agree. That's a translation error, not an error in the text, itself.

An all knowing God would know all this stuff.

An all knowing God does know this. That doesn't stop translators from making mistakes or atheists from not doing their homework.

I think it is fair to say the bible has been metaphorically torn to pieces, so if you are going to make claims from it, indeed as some do (I'm not sure about you in particular), but actually make bigoted, hurtful claims, you better darn well make sure it's reliable, otherwise you have made a poor, poor choice.

I'm sorry you feel that it's "bigoted and hurtful" for me to say that I believe the Bible, but I have made sure that it's reliable.

 

[WatersMoon110]

But, abortion doesn't have to be discussed using a religious platform, because abortion is used to terminate a human so that it won't be born. It kills a human, and if a society believe that it exists to prevent killing those under its protection, then they won't accept abortion. On the other hand, if you put a relativistic value on a person's life, typically, whether the life is desired, then you can justify abortion, and then euthanasia, war, and so forth.

No. If society wants to admit that all humans own their bodies, then it cannot ethically force a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes. Taking away control of someone's body, in my opinion, is about the worst thing that can be done to someone. Likewise, euthanizing someone against their will is ethically unacceptable, as is not allowing someone who is terminally ill to painlessly end their life.

However, pregnancy (and abortion) are different from euthanasia, because one human is living inside and off of another human. Until there is an alternative method to immediately remove an unborn human without resulting in its death, elective abortion must remain legal.

 

[BlackSabb]

Well people who are sentenced to the death penalty did something wrong, whereas an unborn fetus is a total innocent...

I don't feel strongly either way about abortion or the death penalty, but hello. This is a stupid question.

Hahaha. Yeah, I read the OP and I thought "Is this a joke? What a stupid question!"

Like it's obvious to blind Freddy, isn't it? One is being terminated though no fault of its' own, and one is being terminated for committing a very grievious crime. Also, when you receive capital punishment, you are not "aborted". Seriously, how can anyone post such nonsense? A fetus is aborted because it has not fully grown and developed, whilst a serial killer, terrorist etc is executed, because the person is fully grown. I feel like such an idiot even typing such basic knowledge, but there you go, for some people it seems you have to.

Of course, I could go into the difference between murder, killing and execution, but I think that would be way too advanced for you. Better stick to the basics.

Today's post was sponsored by the letter 'A'.

 

[stan1980]

I'm sorry you feel that it's "bigoted and hurtful" for me to say that I believe the Bible, but I have made sure that it's reliable.

Let me just address this part I don't think believing in the bible is hurtful or bigoted but some people (maybe or maybe not you) use parts of it to oppress other groups. When I see (some) Christian's hurting people (with or without bible backing) or showing a lack of tolerance, I see that as wrong in my book. Other than that, I haven't really got a problem with Christians that I can think of off the top of my head. I just think one or two messages are misguided, and if that is the case, then people will discredit the bible.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Why does it have to be outside the Bible?

If I read a story on an internet forum, I would look for other sources to back up the accuracy of that story. Why is it so outlandish to ask for alternative sources?

You can't use a source to back up itself. If I told you that I owned the London Bridge, would you just take my word for it?

Of course you are going to believe the Bible, you have personal evidence in your life that backs up the validity of its statements. That is, things have happened in your life to prove to you that God exists, Jesus is Lord, and all of that.

I have personal evidence in my life that proves my religious beliefs (obviously, or I wouldn't believe in it). But you haven't had the same experiences that I have, and I wouldn't expect you to believe in the validity of my beliefs. Not without you having gone through something with me, and come to the same conclusion I have.

But there are people who have not had any experiences that confirm the existence of a deity, people who have personal evidence that shows to them that no deities exist. Why would you expect such people to just take your word that your God exists? Faith is a very personal matter, and it makes no sense to me to try and convince others of the validity of one's personal beliefs. Either they haven't had the same sort of experiences that one has had, or they have come to different conclusions.

Why should it matter to you if someone doesn't believe in the validity of your Faith? And why on Earth would you try to use your Faith to back up your opinions on a secular section of this Forum? There are plenty of areas where Only Christians are allowed, and where it is basically a given that everyone believes in the Christian God. This is not one of those places. Here it is necessary to provide multiple, independent sources for one's statements...

 

[WatersMoon110]

Hahaha. Yeah, I read the OP and I thought "Is this a joke? What a stupid question!"

Like it's obvious to blind Freddy, isn't it? One is being terminated though no fault of its' own, and one is being terminated for committing a very grievious crime. Also, when you receive capital punishment, you are not "aborted". Seriously, how can anyone post such nonsense? A fetus is aborted because it has not fully grown and developed, whilst a serial killer, terrorist etc is executed, because the person is fully grown. I feel like such an idiot even typing such basic knowledge, but there you go, for some people it seems you have to.

Of course, I could go into the difference between murder, killing and execution, but I think that would be way too advanced for you. Better stick to the basics.

Today's post was sponsored by the letter 'A'.

"Aborted" also means "stopped". As in: "The mission was aborted." And it isn't nice to make fun of non-English speakers.