doug yowell Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 “I really don't place human life above other life. I think as a species we are a plague and a parasite on this planet.” Given your understanding of human life every discussion about human morality becomes irrelevent.
doug yowell Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Originally Posted By: BobRyan As for Noah beging "A preacher of righteousness" during that time just before he entered the ark with seven other person - 2Peter 2:5. Great point and verse Bob. Even if it were not in the Bible at all, just plain common sense tells you that your next door neighbor would've been curious, don't ya think? Yep.
doug yowell Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 [i believe that there is a huge moral contrast between killing a hardened criminal and the killing of an innocent human being who has never done any harm to anybody. I hope you agree with me on this. Lets take the case of an individual who has murdered ten or fifteen innocent people. If the evidence against the accused is overwhelming, I would not cry over his execution. But, in the event the evidence is not very strong, I think that it would be wrong to execute him/her. Actually, there have been many cases where DNA evidence has proved the innocence of people who were incarcerated for a long time and were released following the examination of said DNA evidence. For this reason, I am opposed to the death penalty, unless the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that no amount of DNA would be able to prove their innocence. Then you are both pro-life AND for the death penalty!And let's be honest in this thread, there are many pro-lifers who are also adamantly opposed to the death penalty including many Catholics.But they would never call their CP opponents non-pro-choice.
doug yowell Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 If life begins at conception, God is the greatest abortionist, since between 40 and 80 percent of fertilised ova never implant. So you'd be OK with changing the start of life point to implantation?
M. T. Cross Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 “I really don't place human life above other life. I think as a species we are a plague and a parasite on this planet.”
doug yowell Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Abortion in America is a warzone, and the first casualty of war is truth. Bizarrely, it's also a war fought mostly by men... Yes, it is true that the overwhelming number of abortionists are men.
jasd Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Quote: Quote: Quote:Bravus My point was just that God *did* pardon the people of Ninevah after Jonah preached to them, and did not bring down destruction on them. That seems to be different to what you are saying was the case in the days of Noah. Quote:Bob Ryan The people repented in sack cloth and ashes in Noah's day. But later then returned to their sins and so at that time God wiped them out. Text please, otherwise it is as I said, “Dogmatology.” Quote: Quote: Quote:Bob Ryan As for Noah beging "A preacher of righteousness" during that time just before he entered the ark with seven other person - 2Peter 2:5. Quote:jasd though Noah is described as a preacherman, Gd never told him to preach to the people whilst building the Ark. Matter-of-fact, Gd had already determined that except for Noah and his family, all mankind was to be destroyed – because..., [ed.jasd] I’d already addressed the fact that Noah was described as a ‘preacherman’; however, it appears that you’ve invested 2 Peter 2:5 with more than is textually inherent. Would you please provide the substantiating phrase, clause, or other?—to wit: ‘Noah, a preacher of righteousness, rather than building as Gd had charged him – stood upon the scaffolding of that which he builded and preached doom and gloom, salvation and righteousness... to all who came; moreover, he went thither and yon doing likewise – even unto the men of renown.’ Remember the prophet of 1 Kings 13? “And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard [thereof], he said, It [is] the man of God, who was disobedient unto the word of the LORD: therefore the LORD hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake unto him.” That which you suggest re Noah cannot be found in Writ, anywhere. Noah was 600 years old when the earth was flooded. It could have been one sermon at one camp meeting or any one or more centuries of his life preaching - that attached to him the designate “a preacher of righteousness”. However, nowhere in Writ can it be found that he did his preaching whilst building the Ark. Man’s fate had already been determined by then. I’ve seen attested that that sort of determination is known as ‘the close of probation’.
jasd Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Neighbour’s curiosity is never mentioned in relevant text(s); therefore, their curiosity being met by salvific words from Noah must remain – speculation. I repeat, the entire Noachic narrative begins with Gd determining (that is, making the determination): Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [...] Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. ...and finishes without a word that the expositor may glean that which showed or indicated that Gd planned to save other than the eight – and therefore, Noah preached whilst building.
jasd Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 The authors of ”Renaissance America” make the case that the earth can easily sustain 35-40 million people – by which time we ought to have mastered the means to move our species offworld to other bodies and systems... even inhabiting space itself. One, traveling anywhere in the world, notices that even the most densely populated lands have vast reaches of empty land than may be put to use to sustain and/or to shelter peoples. What is lacking is insight, cheap energy, and the will to “make it so”. All attainable and doable. That is where any one of us may come to the matter – to educate oneself and attempt to “make it so.” However, that – ‘any one of us’ – will certainly be destroyed by others. The above noted, Jesus Christ, in a display of great insight, said, “The poor you will always have with you”.
Dr. Rich Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 True! Murder can ONLY happen between humans. There is no such thing as murdering an animal. There is NO record of any animal being raised from the dead to go to heaven. It therefore appears to me that those who hold the life of an animal on par as a human are mocking God. The blood of a sacrificed animal could never pay the penalty for the sin of Adam.
Dr. Rich Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Thanks Jasd, the words of Jesus would invalidate what Peter wrote IF it was the apostle Peter who wrote 2nd Peter. History buffs say that Peter was long dead when this letter came out, and there are many errors attached to this letter to also invalidate the apostle Peter as writing this. Jesus said that NO ONE KNEW anything about the flood before it came. Noah was never commanded by God to tell anyone why he was building the ark, and furthermore, God specifically told him that NO ONE WOULD be saved other than Noah and his family.
bonnie Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 EmptyCross wrote: “I also have said nothing to support abortion, I just think it is based on personal morals, and I don't think that the government should have anything to do with it.” How far are we from this?? http://liveaction.org/blog/outrageous-ethicists-argue-for-acceptance-of-after-birth-abortions/ According to two Australian ethicists, the baby in that photo should be killed if the parents so wish it, in what they call “after-birth abortion”. It’s not infanticide or murder to them. No, it’s just another form of abortion, because newborns aren’t really people yet. And while it sounds crazy and horrific, this unfortunately isn’t something I’m making up. Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns. Everything you do is based on the choices you make. It's not your parents, your past relationships, your job, the economy, the weather, an argument, or your age that is to blame. You and only you are responsible for every decision and choice you make, period ... ... Wish more people would realize this. Quotes by Susan Gottesman
M. T. Cross Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Then you are in agreement with the Bible view on the human race-"There is none good,no,not one!"
doug yowell Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 The authors of ”Renaissance America” make the case that the earth can easily sustain 35-40 million people – Did you mean billion? I think my California alone has just under 35 million and we've already spaced out on our politics.
doug yowell Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Originally Posted By: doug yowell Then you are in agreement with the Bible view on the human race-"There is none good,no,not one!" Well no - cause I said "as a whole" we are no good. There are also some very good people.
M. T. Cross Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Originally Posted By: doug yowell Then you are in agreement with the Bible view on the human race-"There is none good,no,not one!" Well no - cause I said "as a whole" we are no good. There are also some very good people.
doug yowell Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Well no - cause I said "as a whole" we are no good. There are also some very good people.
BobRyan Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Romans 3 says "There is none righteous no not one... there is no one that seeks after God". That is the state of mankind without the supernatural element of "enmity" between man and Satan mentioned in Gen 3 and without the John 12:32 "drawing of all mankind" unto Him. The lost may only respond to that drawing with repentance and confession. It is God who then supernaturally provides the "new Creation" of 2Cor 5:10 where "all things become new). And it is only through the power of the Holy Spirit as we see in Romans 8 - that saved saints are enabled to "put to death the deeds of the flesh". Those who suppose they can do that in their own power - are trusting in a straw gospel. in Christ, Bob John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
jasd Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Quote: Quote: Quote:jasd The authors of ”Renaissance America” make the case that the earth can easily sustain 35-40 million people – Quote:doug yowell Did you mean billion? Sacré bleu!—I fade faster than my memories. Good catch. >>California alone has just under 35 million and we've already spaced out on our politics.<< I hear you. I spent the better part of forty years there, and their politics were indeed spaced-out – making me lawless at practically every turn. Oy vay!—Californian politicos were addicted to laws and regulations. Is it still part of the Union?
BobRyan Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Heard of the "caliverse"? It is where we sent California so they can think of themselves in their own universe. John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
doug yowell Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 How far are we from this?? http://liveaction.org/blog/outrageous-ethicists-argue-for-acceptance-of-after-birth-abortions/ According to two Australian ethicists, the baby in that photo should be killed if the parents so wish it, in what they call “after-birth abortion”. It’s not infanticide or murder to them. No, it’s just another form of abortion, because newborns aren’t really people yet. And while it sounds crazy and horrific, this unfortunately isn’t something I’m making up. Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns. Well, this is actually nothing new. A professor (Robert?) Singer at Princeton Univ.has been advocating this for about 25 or more years. Additionally, our current President has supported the same thing in principle while he was a state senator. Singer believes that the parents should have up to 3 months to decide whether or not they want to keep the child or dispose of it. Mr. Obama argues that if the parents wanted to abort the baby and the abortion failed, the baby, though delivered alive, should be left to die because that was the original intent of the parents.These actions don't get much media attention because they don't want the public to see who the real radicals are,the pro-life, religious right!!
doug yowell Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Heard of the "caliverse"? It is where we sent California so they can think of themselves in their own universe. "I'm not the man they think I am at all,oh no,no,no.......Can you hear me Major(Jerry)Brown?"
Recommended Posts