What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[Uphill Battle]

If the law allows such things, the Christians should have proceeded with their plans. The court would have backed the Christians if it came to that, and I suspect any school would back down if threatened with legal action.

right... put the onus on the ones protected by the law, to out of pocket expense their civil action against the school system.

 

[nvxplorer]

right... put the onus on the ones protected by the law, to out of pocket expense their civil action against the school system.

Huh? If someone tried to violate your right to free speech, would you cease speaking or ignore him? If their rights are being violated, and they choose not to defend themselves, that is on them. So yes, the onus is on them. Do you really think the school system would let such a case go to court? If what you’ve described is a clear violation of the law, no school will waste resources in defending such an action. Furthermore, if the Christians aren’t willing to fight for their rights, regardless of the financial cost, how much can these rights actually mean to them?

 

[random_guy]

really... you should visit Canada some time. Like it was said before, it's in the enforcement. I have had friends children saying Grace over their lunches with their also believeing friends, and told "you can't do that here."

I've had similar experiences with highschool/college age kids trying to start a bible study for anyone interested... not forced... and told "you can't do that here."

I know the letter of the law doesn't forbid any of the above, but my, how the spirit of the law is shown.

We have bible groups in the US and nothing prevents students from saying grace during lunches. If someone ever tried to stifle this, the ACLU (yes, the same evil atheist organization) would step in and set things straight. There's a difference between forced religion and freedom of religion.

 

[BananaSlug]

While I believe that religions is ultimately bad for society, we do have the right practice whatever religion you want to (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody).

 

[Uphill Battle]

While I believe that religions is ultimately bad for society, we do have the right practice whatever religion you want to (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody).

well, this thread is WAY off the track, but anyways... why is religion bad for society, exactly?

 

[TheNewAge]

well, this thread is WAY off the track, but anyways... why is religion bad for society, exactly?

Religion by itself is not bad for society. Infact there can be reasonable arguments made that society benefits to some degree from its presence. Religion only becomes bad for society when it impedes progress.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Religion by itself is not bad for society. Infact there can be reasonable arguments made that society benefits to some degree from its presence. Religion only becomes bad for society when it impedes progress.

and by progress, you mean... what exactly?

 

[nvxplorer]

and by progress, you mean... what exactly?

For example; supporting a couple’s right to fertilize dozens of eggs, in the hope of bearing a child, but opposing stem cell research which could save lives. This is something I’ve never understood. Why is it moral for a fertility clinic to dispose of unused embryos, but it is immoral to use them to save lives?

 

[Uphill Battle]

For example; supporting a couple’s right to fertilize dozens of eggs, in the hope of bearing a child, but opposing stem cell research which could save lives. This is something I’ve never understood. Why is it moral for a fertility clinic to dispose of unused embryos, but it is immoral to use them to save lives?

not all christians believe that it IS morally right to dispose of unused embryos.

 

[TheNewAge]

and by progress, you mean... what exactly?

Such as the discovery that the universe does not rotate around the earth, or that the earth is not flat, or that the universe is not 6000 years old.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Such as the discovery that the universe does not rotate around the earth, or that the earth is not flat, or that the universe is not 6000 years old.

right, it could be 6200 or so... dunno. So, really, to you, as long as it doesn't interrupt your evolutionary or Old earth science, your good with it eh? (yep, keeps them morons busy...)

 

[nvxplorer]

not all christians believe that it IS morally right to dispose of unused embryos.

I’m not claiming otherwise. However, the consensus is that Christians are opposed to stem cell research. The mantra, it’s wrong to create life only to destroy it, is repeated often. Why are they not picketing fertility clinics? Couples who hire the services of fertility clinics are knowingly creating life only to destroy it. Why are they not vehemently opposed like women who have abortions? An abortion terminates one pregnancy. A fertility clinic process may terminate dozens of embryos - complete human beings, according to Christians. To top it off, these embryos are kept in frozen stasis. Where is the outcry over freezing helpless, innocent people without their consent? Nope, this issue exposes a striking hypocrisy among (some) Christians.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I’m not claiming otherwise. However, the consensus is that Christians are opposed to stem cell research. The mantra, it’s wrong to create life only to destroy it, is repeated often. Why are they not picketing fertility clinics? Couples who hire the services of fertility clinics are knowingly creating life only to destroy it. Why are they not vehemently opposed like woman who have abortions? An abortion terminates one pregnancy. A fertility clinic process may terminate dozens of embryos - complete human beings, according to Christians. To top it off, these embryos are kept in frozen stasis. Where is the outcry for freezing helpless, innocent people without their consent? Nope, this issue exposes a striking hypocrisy among (some) Christians.

yes, most Christians are opposed to stem cell research, insomuch as we oppose life being created to be destroyed for scientific study. I have no problem with miscarraiges or stillborns being used for the same purposes, however.


You know how people picket abortion clinics? That is the extreme reaction. The vast majority of christians do no such thing, despite our moral repugnance for it.

and yes, there is hypocrisy. There always will be. Human nature. I personally believe that we all carry at least of small measure of hypocricy with us. noone is exempt, really. That IS gross Hypocrisy though, if they don't see the similarities. I do, however, believe there are some options for fertility clinics that attempt a single fertilization/implantation at a time. Might be les effective, but it could be argued as more morally acceptable.

 

[TheNewAge]

So, really, to you, as long as it doesn't interrupt your evolutionary or Old earth science, your good with it eh? (yep, keeps them morons busy...)

First off, no one suggested that you are a moron for believing in YEC (At least I didn't). Impeding progress is more than just disagreeing with my evolutionary or old earth science, it is impeding the acquisition of knowledge about the universe around us, such as keeping people in the dark about the shape of the earth.

 

[Uphill Battle]

First off, no one suggested that you are a moron for believing in YEC (At least I didn't). Impeding progress is more than just disagreeing with my evolutionary or old earth science, it is impeding the acquisition of knowledge about the universe around us, such as keeping people in the dark about the shape of the earth.

you do know what the is for, right?

 

[TheNewAge]

you do know what the is for, right?

Either you are laughing at me or laughing with me. Sorry if I misinterpretted the tone of your comment, I have been debating with good ole' Dad and I suppose he has gotten me a bit fired up.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Either you are laughing at me or laughing with me. Sorry if I misinterpretted the tone of your comment, I have been debating with good ole' Dad and I suppose he has gotten me a bit fired up.

Don't worry about it. I often rile people up myself.

 

[Grengor]

Dad? His responses make it blatanly obvious what his style of thought patterns are. I just tested my conjectures, and he passed with flying colors.

 

[nvxplorer]

yes, most Christians are opposed to stem cell research, insomuch as we oppose life being created to be destroyed for scientific study.

But this is not being done. As I described, the stem cells are taken from fertility clinic embryos that would otherwise be discarded. The decision to create and destroy life is not made by scientists.

I have no problem with miscarraiges or stillborns being used for the same purposes, however.

Stem cells can be harvested only before a certain point of development. I’m not positive, but I believe most miscarriages would be beyond this point.

You know how people picket abortion clinics? That is the extreme reaction. The vast majority of christians do no such thing, despite our moral repugnance for it.

Actual picketing is irrelevant. I used that as an example. The point is, there is no vocal opposition to fertility clinics as there is to abortion. If life begins at conception/fertilization, as most Christians believe, then thousands of lives are created only to be destroyed each year in fertility clinics. Not opposing the practice itself, but opposing stem cell research that could save lives, is a most baffling philosophy indeed.

and yes, there is hypocrisy. There always will be. Human nature. I personally believe that we all carry at least of small measure of hypocricy with us. noone is exempt, really. That IS gross Hypocrisy though, if they don't see the similarities. I do, however, believe there are some options for fertility clinics that attempt a single fertilization/implantation at a time. Might be les effective, but it could be argued as more morally acceptable.

If it can be morally acceptable for a middle class couple to artifically create life, knowing that the odds are against carrying that life to term, and failing - be it one at a time, or multiple fertilizations - why can it not be morally acceptable for a 16 yr. old, poverty stricken, “accidentally” impregnated girl to end her pregnancy? It’s not only a matter of hypocricy; it lacks reason. Opposing potential life saving stem cell research is beyond reason.

 

[Uphill Battle]

But this is not being done. As I described, the stem cells are taken from fertility clinic embryos that would otherwise be discarded. The decision to create and destroy life is not made by scientists.

Stem cells can be harvested only before a certain point of development. I’m not positive, but I believe most miscarriages would be beyond this point.



Actual picketing is irrelevant. I used that as an example. The point is, there is no vocal opposition to fertility clinics as there is to abortion. If life begins at conception/fertilization, as most Christians believe, then thousands of lives are created only to be destroyed each year in fertility clinics. Not opposing the practice itself, but opposing stem cell research that could save lives, is a most baffling philosophy indeed.


If it can be morally acceptable for a middle class couple to artifically create life, knowing that the odds are against carrying that life to term, and failing - be it one at a time, or multiple fertilizations - why can it not be morally acceptable for a 16 yr. old, poverty stricken, “accidentally” impregnated girl to end her pregnancy? It’s not only a matter of hypocricy; it lacks reason. Opposing potential life saving stem cell research is beyond reason.

actually, from the data that I have reviewed, an embryo has to reach a certain point before it is viable for stem cell research. If I weren't feeling particulary tired and lazy right now, I'd look it up. But it suggests later, rather than earlier "harvesting" for stem cell research, if what I have gleaned is correct.

Odds have nothing to do with morality. If a couple is in good faith trying to conceive, I don't see where there is a moral discord. There is risk and odds in natural conception, albiet far less.

the fact of less vocal opposition? Perhaps it's more than one reason. Less understanding of fertility clinic practices, as opposed to certainty of the practices of abortion clinics. A "pet cause" effect, seeing as it would be widely accepted that abortion is the "greater sin" and it would be the target. Whatever the reason, the willful destruction of life is where Christians have a problem.

As for your first point, I cannot assert one way or another. I have, from my reading, believed that it was aborted fetal tissue that was used, (because of the necessity of some development before viability.) If this is in error, so be it. I will look in to it further, as I cannot claim to have all the information required.

when you say "accidentally" what are you refering to? Unprotected sex, leading to pregancy among youth... or was there some other inference?