Yeah, I can, it's called the Bible. And this thread wasn't about them, it was about the hypocrisy of 'fundie' Christians.
Yeah, I can, it's called the Bible. And this thread wasn't about them, it was about the hypocrisy of 'fundie' Christians.
Really? The New Testament says salvation is not possible unless one professes faith in Christ here on earth before physical death? Interesting...which part of the New Testament is this?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
The new covenant if from Jesus... he makes the rules... he said through him one gains salvation... that's what he told me anyway.. if salvation through Jesus is possible after death... the assumption is that there is a sorta waiting room where souls gather until the soul's mind is made up about heaven or hell... guess no one need opt for hell.... givin that chance... I'm not gonna be fond of seeing some folks teeing it up at heaven's Augusta... not happy at all... but, I'll be in heaven so maybe I won't care at all..
Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
I'm not going to pretend the path to salvation is defined in the Bible in any simple way, there are a lot more examples than the one above, and many of them center around differing aspects from one another, but ALL of them show it requires some conscious act or decision on your part during your lifetime to be saved. And these people we are executing are the very people who need the most oppurtunity to find that path. (Not that I am implying that they be anywhere other than in jail while they look, or even after they find it).
That is not what I requested. This is one way to salvation. I'm asking where the New Testament says its the only way and no others are possible.
On Edit: Not that I put a lot of stock in the Bible. I was raised in a Christian community, but not necessarily a Christian family. I attended church about five or six times with a friend while growing up, but only so I could get free donuts. I attended a Bible class for like two weeks one summer, but I told my mom it was boring, she said I only had to go if I was interested in learning about the Bible. I said I would rather be fishing, so that was that.
In order to cut-through all the distortions, misrepresentations, mistranslations, and equally plausible but mutually exclusive interpretations of the Bible, hereafter collectively referred to as "bullsh-t", one would have to spend 20 years of their life studying ancient languages like Greek, Assyrian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, and a half dozen other languages, then spend another 20 years pouring over copies of all known manuscripts and scrolls and books of the Bible before one can decide definitively for themselves the "true" meaning of these artifacts - which will inevitably be just one more meaning out of several dozen meanings that have already been extracted from them.
Is this what God wanted? For everyone to spend 40 years of their life becoming Biblical and Historical Scholars? Didn't He want some people to be doctors? Or farmers? Or fisherman?
The Bible smacks from cover to cover of human imperfection, not Divine Intervention. If God exists, He really dropped the ball big time on this Bible thing and I intend to tell Him so.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
The "problem" with any "viability" argument is that left uncared for a newborn baby will not survive
The baby needs food which comes from the mother, and it also needs protection which comes from the mother. The only thing different is the way the baby gets oxygen and nutrients. CkG
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
I agree with you. Honestly, the Bible doesn't deal with how to run a government. It's there to give the person, the individual, reading it instruction and guidance. A Christian state cannot exist because 99% of the laws would be made up by men because the Bible doesn't explicitly cover gun control and tax deductions etc and as soon as men begin making the rules the state ceases to be Christian. And making laws solely to eliminate people sinning goes against the fundamental Christian principle that men are given a choice to follow God. I believe God wants people to choose to live for Him and not be forced into it. That's why He made Adam and Eve and let them fall from grace.
Abortion, however, isn't about enforcing Christian beliefs on the government. It's not a Christian thing to believe life begins at conception. Christians, however, are more inclined to believe this because we believe God, as it says in the Bible, knew each of us before we were born so we assume that since an unborn baby (fetus) WILL develop into a fully functional human being if left unhindered that God, logically, embues that life with a soul the second it begins its development rather than throwing it into the life at some random time.
Moonbeam can't stop and think rationally about this because he ties everything back to religeon or party affiliation. This isn't even about that. It's about life and when it officially begins. By the scientific definition it begins at conception. The only remaining question is, at what point does that life gain rights as a human. Moonbeam and others argue that it doesn't gain those rights until it resembles us and is "full functional" as he put it. That's a pretty horrific path to take. Each of us today is still developing and changing. I argue that early human development is stil human development and that human life deserves protections and rights.
The passion comes into play because, once you can no longer be absolutly certain that an unborn baby (fetus) doesn't qualify for human rights, you view each abortion as a homicide and standing idly by while this goes on tens of thousands of times a day is unconscienable. And, seriously, why even debate it? Give that human life the benefit of the doubt. why take the chance that you're condoning murder. The only reason not to is that it isn't convenient or conducive to some other agenda you have.
All depends on the arguement for capital punishment and against abortion, usually what is cited is the "absolute sacredness of life". If all life is sacred irregardless you cannot advocate killing anyone for any reason. In certain religions a child is born with "inherent" sin, should we kill them immediately?
My only beef with abortion laws is a man has no choice and is held responsible for someone else's decision, whereas a woman can change her mind as many times as she wants, and never has to consider the feelings of the father, "you want the child, too bad ahole, I will abort it and there is nothing you can do, don't want it, too bad ahole, I am going to have this and you will pay for 18 years". Until the laws protect the rights of both parents equally I will agree they need to be changed, but not in the direction the GOP would like.
Besides, we know now, thanks to one of our late great senators bestowing his wisdom down upon us peons, that it is scientifically impossible for a woman to get pregnant unless her "juices are flowing" and if she is raped and that's happening, she's enjoying it and does not deserve an abortion. Bonus points for whoever remembers who made that lovely comment......
Maybe abortion is a good thing. 99.99999% of parents are unfit in the first place. Hell, look at the families most children are born into. If only we could get port-birth abortion to take care of the rest of the degenerates we would be fine...
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
One minor difference is that a criminal has committed a crime, whereas an unborn baby is completely innocent.
As far as the laws being unfair to men, I'd say good. Most of the spuming from the liberals over abolishing abortion is that it takes control of the woman's body away from her. I say it takes control of the babies life away from her so she isn't losing anything that she shouldn't have had in the first place. Nobody, man or woman, deserves the power to summarily decide to kill someone unless it's out of self-preservation. Anyway, they're main argument is that its unfair that men get to sleep around while if women do it they end up pregnant. I guess they could raise a furor over women getting periods too...they're both physiological traits. Back to my point. As much as I delcare women should be made accountable for their irresponsible actions when removing that accountability means ending a human life, so I think men should be accountable. You don't want to get pregnant, say no, or use protection and take a calculated risk. You don't want to pay child support, then keep it in your pants or wrap it up and take a calculated risk. Anti-abortion isn't aimed at oppressing women; it's aimed at saving the lives of unborn children when the alternative is merely less inconvenience on the part of BOTH the man and woman engaging in irresponsible and reckless behavior. Men suffering equal inconvenience is proof that anti-abortion isn't aimed at women's rights since the man is affected similarly.
The fact is, only a few thousand women per year become pregnant by rape; whereas there are about 1 million abortions per year (correct me if my statistics are wrong). That means that probably 95-99% of all abortions are really birth control used because the woman couldn't control herself.
We live in a strange time where it is acceptable for women to kill their own children.
We live in a strange time where it is acceptable for women to kill their own children.
Abortion is needed because genes are selfish and pull any trick to get into the next generation. The way to end abortion is to contunue it till the most selfish genes are eliminated from the population via abortion. This will allow self control more naturally and it won't be just Fundies not having any fun.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The "problem" with any "viability" argument is that left uncared for a newborn baby will not survive
CkG
Well.. the fetus if removed from the mother is "birthed" in an unnatural manner.... the feeding etc need not be performed by the mother for that point to be achieved. I assume there are points all along the continuum of the pregnancy that provide for possible "birthing" of the fetus... and where ever society agrees I agree... given I don't agree with abortion for my kingdom.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter