Again, any sane libs out there who can follow a thread, remember what was previously said, are able to support their position with arguments, and are pro-abort? To be competitive, this thread needs you.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

you are leaving yourself open for disappointment, blade. instead you call out to people who are willing to entertain your baseless arguments.

__________________

Now I believe we're making some progress, we're scraping the bottom of the barrell on this issue; but I think we're beginning to see eye to eye. It's tough to say what is humane and what isn't, what works and what doesn't, what's reasonable and what's justified. An unyielding, dare I say fiery, solution to a very important problem. (And it's going to take more than cooperation to find that answer)

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

You said: “usgrant7, without the promise of a reward would you still be religious? if the bible offered no compensation for your devotion to its teachings, would you still follow?”

Then you added in this next post: “no better afterlife...” and “…or afterlife in general”

My question is this: Am I to assume that you think evangelicals can’t read?

Now to address this point…

What good is a system if it doesn’t provide value? This is an insipid question geared more towards trapping the unwary than actually producing some constructive dialog. What you are really asking me, for the viewing pleasure of your audience, is “If there were absolutely no reason to follow God, would you still follow him?” And what I took great pains to say in my previous post, was, no. But even God doesn’t expect us to go that far. His plan is foolish to people who think like you seem to. And it is designed that way. Beautifully, perfectly, utterly foolish… So that only when you get over yourself, and come to an understanding that no “freak accident” could spawn both a flagellum and a pulsar, you will continue to think it’s foolish. If I were you, I would stop looking at God with a smug, “I know better.” And do a little more careful examination of the facts.

Then you condescend by using words like “playing it safe...” and “assuming you knew…”. Please forgive me for being so shallow, for not assuming that you meant no value at all.

Arguing with a liberal is like hitting a moving target. As soon as you zero in, then they change the definitions on you to duck and cover before you land a dose of conviction on them.

And to be honest, the only humble, benevolent, atheist, agnostic I know of is the Bishop of Canterbury. And those attributes exist only his public persona.

Now to address your next point…

If there were no God, humble, generous, benevolent, and even kind would only be currency in an economy governed by humble, generous, benevolent and kind rule makers. The fact that this is a positive list is a whole other discussion. But suffice to say you prove my point in considering them virtues, more than you know.

This I just flat out can’t believe. If you are looking for section (b) paragraph (iv) of Article 7, strictly prohibiting the evacuation of an unborn child from its mothers womb, and in the process, painfully dismembering it. Then I don’t think you would find it. However if you “researched” life and death in the Bible, you know three things: 1) God controls it. 2) A man or woman isn’t allowed to decide for them self who lives and who dies. And 3) Greater love has no man, than this, that he lay down his life for his friend.

If you want verses; Old Testament or New? How about both…

Old: Genesis; 1st and 2nd Kings; Ester; Proverbs; Isaiah; Daniel
New: John; Romans; 1st Corinthians

There, that should keep you reading for a while. Oh, wait, chances are likely you have no intension on finding the truth, you are just here to pad your ego by picking on Christians.

I have seen war, and pain, and lands near and far. I have been to places that only live in the nightmares of beasts. For every intellectual excuse you toss at me, I have a hundred reasons why you’re wrong. So keep them coming. I set my sites on that second little green dot they hold just out of my grasp.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

no. okay, thats a clear answer. your previous response was not clear. im very surprised at your answer, actually. its curious that you take my saying no reward, no afterlife as no value at all. you had some examples of positive influence in other posts and i was pretty surprised to see your response here. okay, so thats a no.

"that no “freak accident” could spawn both a flagellum and a pulsar"

no, not a freak accident, evolution.

"If I were you, I would stop looking at God with a smug, “I know better.” And do a little more careful examination of the facts."

thats some nice irony youve got there.

"Arguing with a liberal is like hitting a moving target."

and im no moving target, its apparent from your first response that you knew exactly what i was talking about. virtue is its own reward, i think thats a philosophy most people agree with, if they possess such qualities. i prove no point for you on considering virtues virtues. religion has no monopoly on virtuousness - appealing to others has a tendency to engender reciprocity, action and reaction.

on the matter of abortion and christianity, i have a few things id like to cite here. im sure youll readily point out mistakes if there are any, i know that im no expert:

Ecclesiastes 6:3 (King James Version)

"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he."

Exodus 21:22-25 (King James Version)

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

__________________

No takers, eh? That speaks for itself.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

This is describing a sentiment, and not a law. "Untimely birth" is a way of saying, "its better if he wasn't born". Or to put it another way, "it would be better if his parents never got together." It isn't advocating abortion.

This passage is describing a law. What this passage is saying is: If two guys get into a fight, and that fight spills into the kitchen. And a man's wife is in the kitchen, and she gets hurt because of the fight, and looses her baby. The husband can bring suit against him for whatever he may ask. And the judges, if they side with him, will grant him his wish.

Kinda puts new meaning to the words, "Take it out-side!"

More on your most excellent post coming soon.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

C.S. Lewis is my inspiration for how I am going to answer this question. So please forgive me if I go too far into an unoriginal response. But it is worthwhile, trust me.

If I may suggest, the very presence of the concept of virtue is proof of an author. Here's why:

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If' two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of' the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

The whole point of this is: The fact that virtue existing in anyone is not a natural phenomenon. If there was no instilling of virtue, then it would never survive on its own. It would have died well before the instinct to survive or to protect one's own space.

To put it another way, if you were walking along a path in the woods, and you found a bunch of blocks, and they spelled out your name and date of birth, where you lived, and your mother's name. You could presume with mathematical certainty that a human who spoke English arranged them that way. You don't have to have a picture, a statement from a witness, or anything else.

Tell me, at what point did the first "anything" decide it was better to go hungry and let the weaker have it's food instead?

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

i see what youre saying on the first one, i wont disagree. but it does seem sympathetic to one prochoice argument, which is not bringing children into a world where theyll be given up. seems like a quality of life issue to me.

ok, the second one. i dont get where you get the kitchen stuff, perhaps you can clue me in. although, i shouldve posted a little more, to provide more perspective.

Exodus 21:22-25 (King James Version)

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

the unborn child has already been lost, and it says if no further harm is done to the woman, the husband and judges can decide the punishment. then it provides details on punishment, should the woman be harmed, applying the wellknown eye for an eye, life for a life rule. if that isnt applicable for making a woman lose her child, then the bible doesnt seem to share the same antiabortionist view.

aside from that, back in those days miscarriages were probably more common than they are now. without modern medicine its very likely that successful births were rare, and women were probably more at risk as well. thats not even taking into account the infant mortality rate, which was probably pretty bad back when this was first written.

on the issue of virtue, i have to disagree. animals demonstrate qualities like this. there are some who say there is no such thing as a selfless good deed. now, i dont necessarily agree with that, because some people can just make a cold decision for others and inadvertently do some good - it happens. on that no-selfless-good-deed note, the desire to survive is every living thing's strongest instinct, the desire for a pleasant life is probably the second strongest. many animals will make what we can be seen as moral decisions because it benefits them in some way, whether directly or indirectly. the same can be said of people. as i mentioned earlier, action and reaction. if you make people happy, theyre not only less likely to do you harm, they may even return the favor, and youre safer in a group this way. on the other hand, if you go around striking random strangers, youll expose yourself to vengeance.

continuing with animals, there are some cases where they actually put themselves in danger to protect animals, even ones from other species. humans are obviously more intelligent, so its not surprising that our actions and reactions are typically more complex (at least to us). i present youtube videos for your viewing pleasure and consideration:

faces danger to save another animal of different species


abstains from eating offspring of prey, instead is affectionate


and just for fun, the marlboro chimp

__________________

Conceded. Just not to the extent of pre-emptive punishing of a child for the sake of the parent's irresponsibility.

Sorry, kitchen was creative license. I just needed a place to put the woman which might have been typical back then.

The later part of these verses mean this:

"Mischief" goes to motive. The three elements of a crime are means, opportunity and motive. All it is saying is that if the one at fault didn't intend to harm the victim, he must pay, but not with his life. However, if the intent was to harm the victim, then the culpability deserves consequence.

I think I see where you are going. I don't think what you are observing, actually exists in this passage. No further harm is not equal to "mischief".

This is a very astute observation. No one really has a clue about the infant mortality rate of people back then. However, it was pointed out in the Bible, that at times, the infant mortality rate was observably low in comparison to others. Exo 1:19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

Interesting...

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address