[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Actually, what some might consider PC, other's might concieve as Jesus' teachings of not to cast the first stone.

I find it curious, Bart, that someone who has admitted killing for his country, also not really in line with Biblical teachings, has no issue taking someone to task for their sins.

"Thou shalt not kill" is an imperfect translation of the original Hebrew that uses the word ratsah as the verb, which literally means murder.

Killing in war or in defense of one's life violates neither the Commandments nor the teachings of Jesus who told his followers to sell their cloaks and to buy a sword before they went on a dangerous journey.

Further, Samson, who was blessed by God until he sinned, slaughtered 10,000 Philistines (aka Palestinians ) with the jawbone of a donkey and was revered for it.

There's no end of people who served God in battle and God Himself ordained military triumphs in the Bible such as at Jericho.

Here's a suggestion, before building an argument on the Bible do try to read it first. Bear in mind, that is the same advice I'd give you were you to argue from the Quran.

[Gunnair]

"BartSimpson"

$1:

"Thou shalt not kill" is an imperfect translation of the original Hebrew that uses the word ratsah as the verb, which literally means murder.

Killing in war or in defense of one's life violates neither the Commandments nor the teachings of Jesus who told his followers to sell their cloaks and to buy a sword before they went on a dangerous journey.

I'm curious to read that in context. Have a chapter and verse?

$1:

Further, Samson, who was blessed by God until he sinned, slaughtered 10,000 Philistines (aka Palestinians ) with the jawbone of a donkey and was revered for it.

There's no end of people who served God in battle and God Himself ordained military triumphs in the Bible such as at Jericho.

Hmmm... going back and forth between New and Old Testement. I've always wondered at the conveniance at quote mining of the two messages for justification of whatever.

$1:

Here's a suggestion, before building an argument on the Bible do try to read it first.

What about not casting the first stone... or did I screw that up to?

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

Fair enough. So where do you think human life starts?
According to Bart, it starts at fertilization. I don't agree, scientifically. Since Barts reasoning was religiously, and you asked me about human life and a chicken while we were talking about fetuses who are aborted and harvested, I assumed you agreed with him, meaning that human life starts (in this case) in a petri dish.
We are talking "a few days old fetuses", which cannot be detected in the human body yet, thus not aborted either.

What is a human life? Legally in many countries and parts of the USA, a baby can be aborted as it is being born if the doctor aspirates the brain from the skull before the baby draws a breath. Under the law, it magically becomes a person only if it breathes on its own.

I consider that an act of infanticide.

In your own Netherlands it is not a secret that babies are allowed to die or are even murdered after they are born if they are deficient in some way.

http://www.chninternational.com/why_gui ... etherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

And this is what I mean when I say that stem cell research has crossed an ethical line because it is now acceptable in a Western country, an allegedly civilized country, to kill children who are imperfect.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

What about not casting the first stone... or did I screw that up to?

I've never cast a stone at anyone if that makes you feel better.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

What about not casting the first stone... or did I screw that up to?

I've never cast a stone at anyone if that makes you feel better.

What a relief.

[Brenda]

That is an opinion piece and a total load of bullshit. There are a couple of cases where doctors are prosecuted for murder, because they didn't follow the rules.
It is always up to the parents if they want to euthanize their child (or more, pull the plug, because it will never have a life outside of a hospital, and it will be unbearably painful). You make it sound that a child with half a leg can legally be murdered in The Netherlands, because is has a birth defect. It is not the case.

Premature born children, even as early as 24 weeks into the pregnancy, will ALWAYS be treated. Sometimes, it has so much damage, that life will be unbearable. Then it's legal to euthanize, under certain circumstances. Abortion is illegal after 13 weeks, unless it is a life threatening situation for the mother, or the fetus has so many defects, it will never be able to live a life in a human way (I don't know how to put it in English), and then still it is not legal after a certain amount of weeks.

Still, that beats NO ABORTION LAW AT ALL.

[HyperionTheEvil]

In the matter of stem cells the simple fact is that they are harvested from

$1:

fetuses that are either aborted or created in a lab and then destroyed for the purpose of stem cell harvesting. I appreciate that many of you see no ethical issue with creating human life for the express purpose of killing it but for myself and many others we see this as an ethical line that should not be crossed.
If a human fetus can be created and then destroyed in the name of research then why not create a full-term baby? Or why not use a six-year old for research? Once these lines are crossed and rationalized then what ethical barrier will fall next?

Oh yes the 'slippery slope' where human life is degraded. Funny how you value the form of human life as a fetus and want to give it legal rights. But when it comes to gay marriage and gays serving in the US military that value is suddenly not quite as valuable as hetero-sexual life

$1:

In the issue of the gay/lesbian lifestyle I also appreciate that the inherent political correctness of many of you effectively prevents an objective discussion of the fact that many aspects of gay-lesbian lifestyles are not socially acceptable when practised by heterosexuals. Further, many of those practises are patently unhealthy in the modern era such as 'barebacking' or not using a condom.

These are not practises unique to gays and lesbians, granted, but these practises are openly tolerated when they occur in the context of the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

you mean the political correctness of working against the the religiously justified discrimination against minorities, and what excatly is 'socially acceptable" . Please provide some scientifically reviewed articles that being gay is 'socially unacceptable'.

And what exactly is the 'context of the gay and lesbian lifestyle'. What is their lifestyle, why is that some people think they're have to be laws denying them equal right because of this mysterious 'lifestyle' ?

$1:

Am I condemning anyone over this? No.

Yes

$1:

Am I addressing the original question? Yes.

No

$1:

Do I give a flying f*ck if what I say is unpopular?

Interracial marriage was "unpopular" one too

[commanderkai]

Brenda Brenda:

Fair enough. So where do you think human life starts?

In my opinion, I'd say the brain. Once a brain is developed, fully functioning or not, that's when human life begins. This is why I am personally against late term abortions as well. That's what makes us unique from other species, and from one another. When a baby is born, it's impossible to tell if they're going to be the next Hitler or the next Gandhi. The next Hawking or the next Mozart. Genetics might give some insight, but certainly it won't provide all the answers.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Science has merely progressed to the point where we can do this; it is silent on the issue of whether or not we should be doing it.

And I agree with this too. I explained my views in another thread:

current-events-f59/preston-manning-proselytizer-of-science-t89235-15.html

Science isn't morality or ethics. Only we, as a society and as a people can weigh the "Goodness" or the "Evilness" of a scientific innovation. And along with that, not everybody will agree about the "Goodness" or "Evilness" of any particular scientific development either.

And, in my opinion, that's not particularly a bad thing.

[Brenda]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Brenda Brenda:

Fair enough. So where do you think human life starts?

In my opinion, I'd say the brain. Once a brain is developed, fully functioning or not, that's when human life begins. This is why I am personally against late term abortions as well. That's what makes us unique from other species, and from one another. When a baby is born, it's impossible to tell if they're going to be the next Hitler or the next Gandhi. The next Hawking or the next Mozart. Genetics might give some insight, but certainly it won't provide all the answers.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Science has merely progressed to the point where we can do this; it is silent on the issue of whether or not we should be doing it.

And I agree with this too. I explained my views in another thread:

current-events-f59/preston-manning-proselytizer-of-science-t89235-15.html

Science isn't morality or ethics. Only we, as a society and as a people can weigh the "Goodness" or the "Evilness" of a scientific innovation. And along with that, not everybody will agree about the "Goodness" or "Evilness" of any particular scientific development either.

And, in my opinion, that's not particularly a bad thing.

Great post. I totally agree with you.

[sandorski]

djakeydd djakeydd:

Yeah, thats why ppl like hawkins and suzuki are fails, their religion of paganism and humanism is a proven abject failure

wut??

[HyperionTheEvil]

$1:

Science isn't morality or ethics. Only we, as a society and as a people can weigh the "Goodness" or the "Evilness" of a scientific innovation. And along with that, not everybody will agree about the "Goodness" or "Evilness" of any particular scientific development either.

And, in my opinion, that's not particularly a bad thing

I tend to agree with you, science in of itself is neutral. The problem with religion is that it bases judgments of right and wrong on flawed or mythical materials.Most major religions think homosexuality is bad, is doesn't actually have anything that proves that it is bad, it just says it is bad. and often the things that we accept are evil, are in fact encouraged in the bible or koran or whatever, with the ready excuse at hand that because some god or other said to go do this evil thing that it is no longer evil, but good.

Therefore what you have today is 'mainstream' churches working to deny minorities equal rights of child rearing, marriage amongst other things because they 'believe; that homosexuality is bad. But even after centuries of debate they still can't come up with any proof of such

[HyperionTheEvil]

sandorski sandorski:

djakeydd djakeydd:

Yeah, thats why ppl like hawkins and suzuki are fails, their religion of paganism and humanism is a proven abject failure

wut??

Yes because the example of the catholic church, the largest in Christianity has been such a glowing success

[commanderkai]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

I tend to agree with you, science in of itself is neutral. The problem with religion is that it bases judgments of right and wrong on flawed or mythical materials.

In your opinion. Even if you consider the Bible fiction, the stories and the lessons it teaches are no less important and thought provoking. Think of it as reading 1984 or Animal Farm, which are both based on purely fiction and yet can still inspire political, ideological, and moral views. Aesop Fables, basically any science fiction show, or anything else.

The fact you see the Bible as flaws or mythical does not negate the lessons or the morality or the guidance it can provide. If you have ethics and morality, most likely you got them from somewhere, be it from your parents and upbringing, or from your education, or anything else.

$1:

Most major religions think homosexuality is bad, is doesn't actually have anything that proves that it is bad, it just says it is bad. and often the things that we accept are evil, are in fact encouraged in the bible or koran or whatever, with the ready excuse at hand that because some god or other said to go do this evil thing that it is no longer evil, but good.

Okay...*Shrugs* Like I said, your interpretation. . If you don't believe, that's your choice. I do believe, and that's my choice. Beyond this, is you want to be insulting to those who do believe, then fine. But I have no desire to argue with you if you enter a discussion with your mind totally closed.

[PluggyRug]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Further, Samson, who was blessed by God until he sinned, slaughtered 10,000 Philistines (aka Palestinians ) with the jawbone of a donkey and was revered for it.

I thought it was Tarzan who slew 10,000 sillyswines with the assbone of a Giraffe.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

And here we go equating the research on stem Cells to baby killing, women have a right to abortion. I'ts her body she has the perfect right to control her own body. religion teaches that a fetus is a human being and has a soul

Prove that humanity has souls scientifically, i eagerly await peer reviewed articles on such

Kinda funny how you demand such evidence yet provide none yourself to the contrary.

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Science isn't about control

H the E meet Eugenics. Eugenics, meet H the E.

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Science is based upon open debate, research, experiment and testing. Can you say the same of religion?

Really, didn't seem that way with the AGW group that wanted to ram their "science" down our throats, correct or not. Any reasonable debate was shouted down cuz they had "proof". Sorry but I'm not buying your "scientists are altruistic and have no personal or professional agendas" argument.
See, science is SUPPOSED to be based on open debate, research, experiment and testing but it isn't always. Like religion, there will always be humans to try and pervert it.