What kind of Conservative are you?

[BADWOLF]

Sure, I get it murder, rape, vaginal mutilation and anything else goes as long as it is cool with your own moral code.

Not quite correct the things you are referencing are violations of an other persons right to life liberty & happiness my statement would look like this

"Sure, I get it suicide, self hurting sexual acts, self imposed vaginal mutilation and anything else goes as long as it is cool with your own moral code."

And I would answer by saying "correct".

 

[BADWOLF]

I think that's a bad angle to argue abortion from, because in the end to be morally consistent and against abortion you'd need to be a vegan.

It's best off accepting it as murder but questioning whether convenience out weighs moral responsibilities or not. I don't think someone's a horrible person for having an abortion any more than I would for someone eating a hamburger. I think someone is a horrible person for not stepping up to the plate and raising a child properly because it's an inconvenience to them, just like how I feel that putting a child through a divorce is a horrifically selfish and immoral action.

In the end I don't believe it's the government's business to enforce my personal set of moral values on everyone else around me under the threat of force. And safe guarding your opinions as some sort of universal fact that can't be argued with or debated against really doesn't help the argument either.

And I'm sorry to say one cell a plant does not make just as one cell a human does not make. Unless you want to assign human rights to every cell in the human body.

 

[BADWOLF]

I think that's a bad angle to argue abortion from, because in the end to be morally consistent and against abortion you'd need to be a vegan.

It's best off accepting it as murder but questioning whether convenience out weighs moral responsibilities or not. I don't think someone's a horrible person for having an abortion any more than I would for someone eating a hamburger. I think someone is a horrible person for not stepping up to the plate and raising a child properly because it's an inconvenience to them, just like how I feel that putting a child through a divorce is a horrifically selfish and immoral action.

In the end I don't believe it's the government's business to enforce my personal set of moral values on everyone else around me under the threat of force. And safe guarding your opinions as some sort of universal fact that can't be argued with or debated against really doesn't help the argument either.

Then I know plenty of Christians that aren't morally consistent. Here is a trick bible question, as Christians as basic as basic can get we are to live our lives as god intended? Because are morality should reflect gods morality Yes, no.?

 

[DragonGunner]

Then I know plenty of Christians that aren't morally consistent. Here is a trick bible question, as Christians as basic as basic can get we are to live our lives as god intended? Because are morality should reflect gods morality Yes, no.?

Our righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord. You want facts…? here are the facts….Thou shalt not kill (murder). When is it human….The bible says that God said.."Before you were born, I knew you, before you were born I knew your name." David said in the Psalms…"I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Thou O'Lord knitted all my bones and sinews together when as yet there was not, and thou hid me in my mothers belly." There are some facts that trump any silly school biology "facts".

 

[ATM]

Then I know plenty of Christians that aren't morally consistent. Here is a trick bible question, as Christians as basic as basic can get we are to live our lives as god intended? Because are morality should reflect gods morality Yes, no.?

No, as Christians, our morality should reflect Christ's morality.

 

[2A_Tom]

Overcomeing the selfish flesh that encapsulates a human is the desire of many saved people. Not all, by any means. Some who desire to live for Chrtst have more success than others. Some who are truely saved have very little success. It is not the office of a believer and certainly not an unbeliever to judge another's sincerity.

God is the only just judge. To judge your fellow man is to put yourself in Gods stead.

You do realize I am not talking about judicial law. Please I really don't want to argue this with you. It is a matter of FAITH I shall not be moved.

I will never accept that mans intelece is gerater than God's. I accept Science. I reject science so called or pseudo science. Do you realize that the same "scientists" (that are funded by folks who desire specific outcomes or the funding will dry up)that you listen to are the same ones that gave us global warming.

 

[Stickfight]

No, as Christians, our morality should reflect Christ's morality.

Whatever fictional character you want to role model is no skin off my back, but what does that mean at a low level? Say if your neighbor is running a sex change clinic...are you obligated to intervene?

 

[Stickfight]

I accept Science. I reject science so called or pseudo science.

What do you use as a guide to know the difference between the 3 (or 2, I can't be sure)?

 

[TheHive]

Just to the right of Ted Nugent here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk

 

[Tombs]

Sure, I get it murder, rape, vaginal mutilation and anything else goes as long as it is cool with your own moral code.

There's a difference between viewing my own morality as higher than everyone else's, and sitting down at a table with everyone else and us coming to an agreement on what our set of morals as a society needs to be and how it needs to be enforced.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Whatever fictional character you want to role model is no skin off my back, but what does that mean at a low level? Say if your neighbor is running a sex change clinic...are you obligated to intervene?

Just curious, have you always been acting like a jerk on this board or is this a new thing? I don't recall reading your posts before tonight and every one is a jab at someone or a snarky question back to someone.

 

[2A_Tom]

What do you use as a guide to know the difference between the 3 (or 2, I can't be sure)?

Well, that is the question of a "modern thinker".

Obviously science is anything that can be proved by the scientific method.

Pseudo-science, referred to as science in the bible is what they foist on you in the name of science but can not be reproduced by the scientific methos. Just because someone who you think is smarter than you says there is a concensus.

I did gave an example.

Lott used the scientifis method to gather data that changed his mind about guns.

I recently heard of another economist, a black man who started out to prove Lott wrong, the problem is he used scientific principles for his research and wound up on Lott's side. I will try to find a reference.

NASA attempted to use the scientific method to prove East Anglia's claims about global warming. This lead to East Anglia being discredited.

I really don't want to go on, because I see your utter disrespect for people of faith. When you have no argument just slam someones faith.

 

[ATM]

Whatever fictional character you want to role model is no skin off my back, but what does that mean at a low level? Say if your neighbor is running a sex change clinic...are you obligated to intervene?

Fictional character? You deny that Jesus existed? You may deny His claims of divinity but to call him a fictional character is historically laughable!

Regarding my neighbor, speaking the truth in love rather than condoning their behavior is the sort of intervention that comes to mind.

 

[Stickfight]

Obviously science is anything that can be proved by the scientific method.

Not really.

Pseudo-science, referred to as science in the bible

Can you point me to chapter and verse? I've read the thing but not sure what you mean here.

Lott used the scientifis method to gather data that changed his mind about guns.

That is great I've read some Lott and he is a rational guy. Does it matter to you that he used logic to arrive at his conclusions or just that they agree with your own?

NASA attempted to use the scientific method to prove East Anglia's claims about global warming. This lead to East Anglia being discredited.

Ok

I see your utter disrespect for people of faith.

I never take pains to hide my discontent for people with no principals.

 

[Stickfight]

Fictional character? You deny that Jesus existed?

One of the guys who mows my lawn is named Jesus, so no I don't deny he exists. If I based my entire worldview on a made up story surrounding him then I'd allow I'm delving into fiction.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I never take pains to hide my discontent for people with no principals.

i bet you're tough in person too

 

[ATM]

One of the guys who mows my lawn is named Jesus, so no I don't deny he exists. If I based my entire worldview on a made up story surrounding him then I'd allow I'm delving into fiction.

What evidence swayed you to believe that any or all of the stories surrounding Jesus were made up? You didn't just adopt that position without some sort of contrary evidence, did you?

 

[hoosierdoc]

What evidence swayed you to believe that any or all of the stories surrounding Jesus were made up? You didn't just adopt that position without some sort of contrary evidence, did you?

Sure sounds like a leap of faith to me

 

[Stickfight]

What evidence swayed you to believe that any or all of the stories surrounding Jesus were made up? You didn't just adopt that position without some sort of contrary evidence, did you?

I think you misunderstand the nature of proof.

 

[ATM]

I think you misunderstand the nature of proof.

I think you misunderstand the nature of refuting evidence. You're claiming that the evidence presented is false. This is much different than claiming that there is insufficient evidence to claim proof of claim.

Lacking proof but unable to refute the evidence presented, a reasoning individual would remain neutral rather than jumping to the unsupported conclusion that the evidence was fabricated.

So, do you have anything but blind faith to counter the evidence?