All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 19.
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's how I read the problem, too. The literalist interpretation of "an embryo is biologically human, and alive, therefore it is a human being" could equally be said of sperm and eggs before they have combined. So I draw the line of "morally human" when the fetus has developed a cerebrum (forebrain) and thus is at least capable of being a moral agent -- roughly the 13th-15th week. So I have no problem with an abortion ban after the 15th week if it allows for saving the mother's life. Late term abortions for any other reason are pretty rare anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I guess that depends on what you think "respect" implies. I fully expect my own beliefs to be laughed at, too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well observed, and Thank You!!! . using the faith banner to justify
    interference in others' lives is particularly reprehensible,
    in my view. . yet the confidence in a possible better day tomorrow
    can carry you through ....... and that faith is good!!! . imho. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    and those are kinda like race-baiters, in my view, picking fights
    just to make a living ... or to mooch from others. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    do we have enough definition of "libertarian" to know what is
    intrinsic in their view? . I have been wondering for years!!! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with Dr. Kelley! . this principle has proven itself in my life
    time after time.

    if "religious faith requires belief in something that is, by definition,
    intrinsically unknowable" then that's not my religion. . mine involves
    trusting or having confidence in things which are appropriately gathered
    into the "too hard pile" as things put off until later. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have a friend's t-top '86 camaro in the basement here, waiting for
    some serious mechanicking....... great car!!! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 10 years, 11 months ago
    I would prefer that this question use "Religious" rather than "Christian" and not stray into anything about woman's body, while Choices are necessary to each and all.
    I am assuming that all religions are based on some version of some god. Being Christian by parental decree, I rejected that at age 18; then and in '64 Atlas Shrugged became my bible as Rand's rational attack on religion struck me.
    But along the way I came to realize "I can't know, I don't know, so why bother?" which marks me agnostic.
    My problem with religion is Blind Faith, which I view as a stupid way of making choices. In the "political" bloggers I simply ignore those who use their Bible to justify anything whatsoever. Proof must be better than that!
    The only Gulch I can envision in whatever remains of my lifetime is my own homestead, and those of others about which we rarely know.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    wonderful news, sir!!! . the 3d printing business is a very fertile area
    and I hope that it treats you well. . and pays you well. . we'll call
    and check in soon -- keep the faith!!! -- john
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can be more rational than most Christians, but altruism, the center of Christianity, is irrational. Essentially, in order to be a rational Christian you have to reject its most fundamental tenant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have exactly as much proof of God as you have there is none. This is and has always been the basis for the major disagreement, and extreme dogmatism on both sides of the discussion.

    I can provide massive amounts of mathematical "evidence" that this Universe could never have "popped" into existence out of nothing especially considering the extreme precision with which everything operates. Even our Atomic Clock has to be adjusted due to its inaccuracy as compared to everything else in the universe. The Atomic Clock did not just pop into existence "because it needed to."

    I accept that in your view there is no God, thus no Morality except what each individual deems is their personal morality which also by default means there should be no laws either. Without God and or an acceptance of a higher power, morality does not and cannot exist.

    Also I did not call you a liberal, only expressed a similarity in how the arguments are presented. I do agree with Timothy and what you quoted completely and that was in context. I could go into great detail on the scriptures you quotes and show you logically and reasonably why my I say they are mis-quoted and out of context but that would take months because each of those scriptures you quoted is surrounded by hundreds of years of history and context you must also understand.

    I would encourage you to watch an excellent movie, "God's Not Dead" stars Kevin Sorbo "Hercules."

    God much like Gravity and Wind is not proven, nor can be proven since you cannot see it or touch it or capture it, however, you can see empirical evidence of its existence and the effects of it.

    I am sure you have never seen or touched your brain, but I am sure it exists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 years, 11 months ago
    Personally, I'm appalled that this question is even being asked, with its implied bigotry and political correctness. Faith and logic are not competing elements of a person's makeup. An Objectivist focuses on logic, facts, and productive outcome, but that doesn't mean that the spiritual side must be abandoned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by jtrikakis 10 years, 11 months ago
    This discussion is creating more awareness of Jesus than the model church does every Sunday. Why? Because we discussing the question in an open forum, not in a closed building. I just love it and yes, I'm a Christian.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    no, my life is a wonderful and mysterious truth, Zen, as is yours --
    I respect and honor both. . my enlightenment comes daily as I
    see truth in the words of others, the actions affecting my life, and
    the circumstances in which I find myself. . meditation does help in
    integration of the new data, and in adjusting my combination of
    confidence and humility so that I do not abrogate my responsibility
    to recognize and accept the truth here. . with Rand as my foundation,
    I seek to build forward constantly. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In my philosophy class (many eons ago) we used this definition of God:
    A being who is 1)All-powerful, 2)All-knowing, and 3) good.

    I don't take credit for that definition, nor do I defend it. But you asked for a definition, I assume sincerely. So there is one.
    VG
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rand illustrated it by picturing the mystic shaman and the Hun joining forces. Justifying any atrocity with their religion. Sound familiar?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How nice of god. He gave the spoils of war to his friends. By the way, which god was this? I assume you refer to Yahweh (Jehovah). That god was a nasty one, alright. However, before one can assert the words or works of a god, one must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2). Can you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JeffG 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your comment contradicts Objectivism’s tenent of "full respect for individual rights" because you promote disrespecting Christians' right to quote Scripture. Galt wouldn't give it a thumbs up.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The quotations were not misquoted and do not appear out of context to me. I don't think children should be exposed to such a filthy book as the Bible.

    Hey, do not call me a liberal. I have no idea how how you came to that conclusion. Tell me, upon what basis did you form the conclusion I am a Liberal?

    I am an Objectivist. Besides, ad hominem argument is never productive. My goodness, but you theists get your amygdalas in a knot easily.

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy, Ch 3:16.

    However, before one can assert the words or works of a god, one must present (1) an intelligible definition of the god and (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. No one has ever presented me with (1), so we never got to (2). Can you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JeffG 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Quite welcome. Your comment is much more Galt than jdg’s “if Christian’s come here and quote scripture at us, they will and should be laughed at.” jdg’s comment contradicts Objectivism’s tenent of full respect for individual rights..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Each person who holds individual views has in their mind already prioritized the importance using whatever their value system describes as critical thinking. At one end are those who believe all their beliefs are right and need implementing now. Both an extremist and a liberal viewpoint . At the other end are those who couldn't care less if they tried; They are the other extreme and ultra conservative. IF you use the proper definitions. In the middle are people who know what is the sacred ground (religious or secular) and know what are their core values. These they defend and support. The rest of the list is open to negotiation and eventual consideration.

    Which brings us to coalition politics. I'll use myself as an example. My sacred ground and the center of political discourse is the Constitution. To regain that one most find like minded people who are willing to realize it's hang together and get the important thing down first then work on the rest of the list. At present the rest of the list is an unobtainable dream without preserving and working from the sacred ground.

    Much the same as it was in the 1770's. Now we have the supporters of the Government Party i.e. the new aristocracy chanting the latest slogans as approved by St. James of Carville. Nothing new there same SOS or stuff on a shingle. The other extreme is the non-realists indulging in wishful thinking. The my way or the highway and no matter cannot back up my dogma.

    Which makes it.. they win we win or they win

    However the Sorotistas and their counter parts provide a valuable service in telegraphing their latest thinking - or that of those who program them.

    Thus giving them some value

    Try jotting down what is important to you. From must have all the way to nice to have.

    I'm still working on some reference material for the History section. The last part of the development of the party system in the USA gives a major example of third party faction splitting which also brings more fascist barriers to anybody but the Government party.

    Despots don't seize power they are given power. But they never willingly give it back. That's all you need to know about the extremists on the left.But I included their development anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Aquinas is a definer of your Christianity and he said knowledge of god is the sole purpose of man. Man may come to know god through his works which is that part of the universe you set aside. But god is not there; there is science and reason. According to Aquinas Man's moral obligations to God are faith, hope and charity. These are the ties to letting other do your thinking for you and for living for others. No living Christian came up with the theology by themselves and are under a moral obligation to take what they are told by faith. The great curse of Christianity is original sin which has psychologically destroyed so many people through accepting the faith and thinking of others that they believe they are inherently evil. Read Rand;s the Comparchicos. and then tell me of your beliefs. Read Jefferson's Bible for a thinking persons assessment of what can be learned from Jesus
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo