• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abortion is here to stay . . . . thank Prochoice Bush . . .

galenrox said:
But they can function outside their mother's womb. Once a fetus can do that, in my opinion it's alive, but once again, that's my opinion, meaning NOT FACT

A comatose person can't function... Are they alive?

What about Terri Schivo?
 
galenrox said:
You know a man smarter than myself once said "I never learned anything from anyone who agreed with me."
No offense intended here, but the more you talk to people you agree with, the more stubborn you will become, and the stupider your views will become.

We come to this forum to debate, not to sit around and talk to people we agree with to convince each other how right we are. That's a sign of a weak mind to be drawn to those agreeing with him rather than to those who wish to debate.

And considering that it's an opinion, this I can't be wrong. You know why? In absence of fact, opinions CAN'T BE WRONG. You can't be so dense that you don't get that simple little concept, right?

Everything that science can come up with that proves that a human is alive, can be attributed to a fetus... So how is it that a fetus is not alive... Thats silly... The point is that it is wrong to murder unborn babies...
 
galenrox said:
You know a man smarter than myself once said "I never learned anything from anyone who agreed with me."
No offense intended here, but the more you talk to people you agree with, the more stubborn you will become, and the stupider your views will become.

We come to this forum to debate, not to sit around and talk to people we agree with to convince each other how right we are. That's a sign of a weak mind to be drawn to those agreeing with him rather than to those who wish to debate.

And considering that it's an opinion, this I can't be wrong. You know why? In absence of fact, opinions CAN'T BE WRONG. You can't be so dense that you don't get that simple little concept, right?

Wow this must have been the "fruit" of one of your favorite past times: smoking pot and intellectual conversations . . . . I take it this "wisdom" was the result of this combination from your profile? :lol: :lol:
 
Shamgar said:
Wow this must have been the "fruit" of one of your favorite past times: smoking pot and intellectual conversations . . . . I take it this "wisdom" was the result of this combination from your profile? :lol: :lol:
Oh boo hoo, I have had some incredibly interesting conversations with people who are high. Just becasue he does that doesn't mean you can't take in what he says and evaluate it based upon the content. Jeez, ever heard the don't judge a book by its cover line? Well, don't.
 
ShamMol said:
Oh boo hoo, I have had some incredibly interesting conversations with people who are high. Just becasue he does that doesn't mean you can't take in what he says and evaluate it based upon the content. Jeez, ever heard the don't judge a book by its cover line? Well, don't.

I have no problem with liberals smoking pot... It is said to make them impotent... That means that Darwin is right... Survival of the fittest... The Dems will remove themselves from the Gene Pool!
 
ShamMol said:
Oh boo hoo, I have had some incredibly interesting conversations with people who are high. Just becasue he does that doesn't mean you can't take in what he says and evaluate it based upon the content. Jeez, ever heard the don't judge a book by its cover line? Well, don't.

I have read the book's cover and it's content . . . implausible storyline . . . answer: the author is probably baked to a frazzle . . .
 
I have no problem with liberals smoking pot... It is said to make them impotent... That means that Darwin is right... Survival of the fittest... The Dems will remove themselves from the Gene Pool!
Hmmmm, Democrats and abortion. :think:
 
Squawker said:
Hmmmm, Democrats and abortion. :think:

Hmmmm, Republicans, conservative christians, libertarians and abortion. :think:


Yup here is the wolf pack . . .

 
AHH! This stuff just drives me insane! I don't speak hebrew, but I do know for a fact (I started a thread on the subject) that the 6th commandant's true translation from hebrew to english is "Thou shalt not murder". Murder is killing, but killing isn't murder (kind of like saying a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square).
 
Repub05 said:
AHH! This stuff just drives me insane! I don't speak hebrew, but I do know for a fact (I started a thread on the subject) that the 6th commandant's true translation from hebrew to english is "Thou shalt not murder". Murder is killing, but killing isn't murder (kind of like saying a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square).


Wow you started a thread so that makes you an expert . . . imagine that hahahahahaha.

Killing is the ending of life . . . . whether authorized or not. Murder is the unauthorized ending of life. So killing is murder but murder is not necessarily a killing since murder is not authorized. So it appears the "expert" had it backwards.
 
Shamgar said:
Wow you started a thread so that makes you an expert . . . imagine that hahahahahaha.

Killing is the ending of life . . . . whether authorized or not. Murder is the unauthorized ending of life. So killing is murder but murder is not necessarily a killing since murder is not authorized. So it appears the "expert" had it backwards.
Well, it's a good thing Jesus never killed anyone. Wait! He did. Nice try.
 
Murdering (Killing unlawfully) is always killing because killing just means ending life. Killing isn't necessarily murder, because if you kill someone in combat, then you did it lawfully and it's not murder. "Thou shalt not kill" could be the correct translation because God may have been trying to end all wars and murder, which makes sense. If it's "Thou shalt not murder" then God understood that the Israelites would need to defend themselves in combat against non-followers of His word. This translation makes the most sense to me. So abortion is not against Ten Commandments since currently it's being done lawfully. I'm not sure how the Bible refers to abortion in other areas of the Bible, but it could be legal according the to 2nd translation posted of the Ten Commandments. I personally am pro-choice (Except partial birth abortion since those are kind of gruesome and not necessarily beneficial), but I think that it's the woman's chioce to do with her body what she wishes. I don't consider something life until it can perform all necessary functions on its own. Since the mother supports the baby's life, the mother should have the choice.
 
MikeyC said:
Since the mother supports the baby's life, the mother should have the choice.

And women have a history of "wise" choices . . . .

 
Shamgar said:
And women have a history of "wise" choices . . . .

That's VERY sexist. You should remember that killing Jesus was the choice of some men. I could easily list more examples of poor choices by men, but I figured killing your savior was enough to make a point.
 
shuamort said:
Well, it's a good thing Jesus never killed anyone. Wait! He did. Nice try.
You're speaking of Gnostic Gospels that were kept out of the compilation because they are so how or another radically flawed, as opposed to the books that were included in the Cannon. Jesus didn't kill anyone, and this book was not accepted because of multiple reasons, including its inconsistancy with what all the other accounts of Christ's life said. It amazes me that you don't believe the books that are about Christ in the Bible, but the ones that were cut because they were not reliable and flawed you believe. Do you normally go with the accounts that the historical community agree is not an acceptable account over the ones they do accept as an accurate account?
 
sebastiansdreams said:
You're speaking of Gnostic Gospels that were kept out of the compilation because they are so how or another radically flawed, as opposed to the books that were included in the Cannon.
They have made rotations in and out of bibles over the ages. What makes it funny is that you think that they are flawed and the books of the bible aren't as if that's the concept for acceptance.

sebastiansdreams said:
Jesus didn't kill anyone, and this book was not accepted because of multiple reasons, including its inconsistancy with what all the other accounts of Christ's life said.
Wrong, there is no inconsistancy at all because the rest of the bible doesn't deal with that time frame of Jesus' life nor do they even hint at it.


sebastiansdreams said:
It amazes me that you don't believe the books that are about Christ in the Bible, but the ones that were cut because they were not reliable and flawed you believe.
Who said I believed 'em. There's a huge strawman if I've ever heard one. I don't have time for all of your mythology.

sebastiansdreams said:
Do you normally go with the accounts that the historical community agree is not an acceptable account over the ones they do accept as an accurate account?
They have been accepted and have not been proven to be flawed. They've only been discounted because of the stories they tell would harm christianity.
 
shuamort said:
They have made rotations in and out of bibles over the ages. What makes it funny is that you think that they are flawed and the books of the bible aren't as if that's the concept for acceptance.

Small inconsistancies in minor story events and lineage are not equal to whether or not Jesus killed someone. There is a difference between slight error and great error. And I have yet to see where the Gospel of Thomas has ever been accepted into the Cannon. Your information is incorrect.

Wrong, there is no inconsistancy at all because the rest of the bible doesn't deal with that time frame of Jesus' life nor do they even hint at it.

I'm not speaking of the timeline inconsistancy. I'm speaking of the character inconsistancy and the storyline inconsitancies between the various manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas and the inconsistiancies in the storyline between the Gospel of Thomas and the other manuscritps of the rest of the various gospels (even the others that were not included in the Cannon). The Gospel of Thomas is the only one that suggests Christ killed someone, and that book was excluded from the Cannon for many many reasons. None of which are as you proposed because it is damaging to Christianity. Your eagerness to accept the various conspiracy theories regarding the Gnostics show your ignorance on a great many things.

Who said I believed 'em. There's a huge strawman if I've ever heard one. I don't have time for all of your mythology.

You did. You said Jesus killed someone. You did not say the Bible says so. You did not say that this is according to the Gospel of Thomas. Your words were Jesus killed someone. If you don't believe something, then do not state it as though it is a fact. If I didn't believe the world was round, I would not state that it is.

They have been accepted and have not been proven to be flawed. They've only been discounted because of the stories they tell would harm christianity.

By who? By you? No sir. They have not been accepted into the Cannon, and I don't know about "being proven flawed" but I can certainly show you various examples of how they are inconsistent on a great many levels (even within their own manuscripts) and/or they are irrelevent to the infallible message of God and/or they were not accepted as valid historical accounts.

Please stop and study the process used in deciding what books would be entered into Cannon at the council of Nicaea. Do not be ignorant enough to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy behind all of this. Yes, the books were left out because they were damaging to Christianity. All false or flawed testaments and teachings regarding Christ and His mesassage are incredibly damaging to the Church, because the Church, we the Body of Christ, rely on the truth and pure guidance of Christ, and how can we learn His will and message if we are continually studying incorrect information?
 
MikeyC said:
That's VERY sexist. You should remember that killing Jesus was the choice of some men. I could easily list more examples of poor choices by men, but I figured killing your savior was enough to make a point.

Obvioulsy you mean you don't like me identifiying the "feminists" god haters . . . .

 
In response to Shamgar's cartoon.

Stop posting these. If you have a verse in them, please post it. I can't quote the verses in your cartoons. I have to type them out. Thank you.

1 Corinthians 4:34

Let your women be silent in the churches, for it is not allowed for them to speak, but to be in subjection as also the law says.

I request that every Bible owner in here locate that verse. It may take a little longer than planned because, well, it doesn't exist. I quoted that verse from the cartoon. 1 Corinthians ch. 4 only has 22 verses in it. So it's hard to find the 34th.

Maybe the cartoonist made a boo boo. I don't know.

This is 1 Timothy 2: 11-15

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

But now we're overlooking the paragraph before it.

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Shamgar, do you think women that wear pearls or braid their hair are God Haters? I don't. I think maybe Timothy was a little bit misogynistic.

Seriously, the Bible's writers said a lot of things that we really shouldn't be okay with. Do you think we should make slaves of the people in countries we conquer? No. I hope not anyway. You've got to think about the time period this was written in in relation to the time period you're trying to apply it to.
 
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas:
Topics covered in this essay include both the 4 Gospels which form part of the New Testament canon, and a number of other gospels that which were widely accepted by the early Christian movement but which were never accepted into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).


This is one of a number of gospels which were written about the life of Jesus as a child. They attempt to fill in the gap between the birth stories of Luke and Matthew, and the visit of Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41-50). A church father, Irenaeus rejected the gospel as heretic about 185 CE. Other early Christian leaders condemned the gospel as well, during the late 2nd and early 3rd century. Jesus is portrayed as a human child with super-human abilities. It survives in at least 4 versions in various languages. The oldest copy dates to the 6th century. The text indicates that the gospel was written by "Thomas the Philosopher". But the actual authorship and date of writing is unknown. Some of the events described by the gospel are:

At the age of 5, Jesus formed twelve sparrows out of mud, clapped his hands and told the birds: "Off you go!". The flew away.
Later, Jesus collected some water. Another boy, Annas, scattered the water. Jesus cursed Annas and he instantly withered up.
Later, Jesus and Zeno were playing on the roof of a house. Zeno fell to the ground and was killed. Jesus restored him to life
At the age of 8, he planted a single seed of wheat. It yielded 100 bushels of grain. He distributed most of it to the beggars of the village.
Chapter 19 of the Infancy Gospel describes the visit to the temple when Jesus is 12 years old. It parallels the account of Luke 2:41-52.
 
galenrox said:
Wait, excuse me? Feminists are god haters? Are you f***ing kidding me?

Really, justify that to me in NON cartoon terms.


Oh but the bright colors attract the attention of people who are drug induced such as you. . . Ah I did already didn't you see the verses . . . .too much pot today?

Gandhi>Bush said:
In response to Shamgar's cartoon.

Stop posting these. If you have a verse in them, please post it. I can't quote the verses in your cartoons. I have to type them out. Thank you.

Of course that is bogus . . . since here is an online source right here.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/

Ooops! 1 Corinthians 14:34

Gandhi>Bush said:
But now we're overlooking the paragraph before it.

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

Shamgar, do you think women that wear pearls or braid their hair are God Haters? I don't. I think maybe Timothy was a little bit misogynistic.

I must have missed the part where Paul condoned abortions . . . . oh yeah it doesn't exist. . . . only the God haters add that part.
 
Last edited:
shuamort said:

Okay, I've read all this. I'm not suggesting the Gospel of Thomas did not say this. But what I am arguing is that the Gospel of Thomas (though accepted by some in the early Christian movement) was left out of the Canon because it is not in sync with the other gospels or its various manuscripts on many levels.
 
Shamgar said:
Oh but the bright colors attract the attention of people who are drug induced such as you. . . Ah I did already didn't you see the verses . . . .too much pot today?

How old are you? Stop acting like a child and communicate. Answer the questions and leave out the silly distracting insults. It makes you seem like an idiot.

Ooops! 1 Corinthians 14:34

This is 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35

(33)For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints, (34)women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. (35)If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.


Do you really think that women should not be allowed to speak in church? I've been to many churches and women tend to break the hell out of this rule in every single one of them. Are they God Haters?

I must have missed the part where Paul condoned abortions . . . . oh yeah it doesn't exist. . . . only the God haters add that part.

I agree that abortion is wrong. We see eye to eye on that. I just don't see how feminst=God Hater.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Okay, I've read all this. I'm not suggesting the Gospel of Thomas did not say this. But what I am arguing is that the Gospel of Thomas (though accepted by some in the early Christian movement) was left out of the Canon because it is not in sync with the other gospels or its various manuscripts on many levels.
I disagree. I believe it was only kept out because it did not reflect well on the mythology. The basis for that is simple, there are plenty of inconsistencies that haven't been edited out, for starters:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.
I'd love to copy and paste the whole thing... but that would be about 5 or 6 posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom