Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So they're made up.Of course.
I'll just leave that there.
But that's not the point. In Romans 13, rulers are to be extensions of God. Execution is described as a divine prerogative. Whether it's the "right judgement" is irrelevant.
Did God give Israel the power of the sword in the Old Testament law? Whose hand actually put people to death?
Parents have a responsibility to raise their children (Deuteronomy 6:7)That is not what the verse delineates. The verse delineates that parents teach the commandments to their children.
I was using the term raise in a general sense to show that parents have a responsibility to their children.
That is not what the fourth commandments states.
If you don't like that, see Ephesians 6:1. Children have an explicitly stated responsibility to obey their parents.
Individuals must care for their household, which includes parents caring for their childrens' needs (1 Timothy 5:8).This is in specific reference to fathers who abandon their wives and children.
So you agree the verse makes clear fathers have a responsibility not to abandon their children?
It is not only uncharitable but also inaccurate. First I wouldn't be "fine" with it; Second, throwing one's baby into a ditch would be harming the baby. And I neither endorse nor promote the harming of babies.
Alright, so you don't see it as a morally wrong to nicely set the baby in a ditch?
But expulsion is not the same as killing because the zygote/embryo/fetus dies as a consequence of its own incapacity.
Just like nicely setting a baby in the ditch isn't "killing" it.
A dark path? What dark path?
The dark path where you justify killing babies of any age, born or unborn. I don't care what philosophical lines you want to draw - leaving your child out in a ditch to die is killing it. Don't go down that path.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What exactly is your point in post #296? Are you saying the government doesn't need tax dollars because they can just print money?
There is a great deal MORE assistance available to pregnant women than there is for not-pregnant women.
You showed a few priorities that pregnant women get, but you also failed to answer the question: Do you believe pro-lifers are completely uninvolved in these other charitable activities?
What are you proposing as "punishment" ??
I never proposed a punishment. I simply stated murder should be criminalized and punishable. But you failed to answer the question: Is criminalizing and punishing murder a way to help people or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It’s only a problem because you made it one. Why do you insist that the two must go hand in hand?
Do I need to explain how babies are made?
Then God is ultimately responsible.
Really? Well that's news to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is a great deal MORE assistance available to pregnant women than there is for not-pregnant women.
Citation please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The government does not NEED your tax money.
Yes. Yes they do. As long as governments spend money, they will require tax dollars.
The moral theory of incarcerating murderers presumes the individual is a "danger to society at large" AND incarceration will make them "less dangerous".
I never argued for incarceration. But if you think you can eliminate crime through social welfare programs without a criminal justice system, you are a Marxist.
But you didn't answer the question: Is criminalizing and punishing murder a way to help people or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you trying to help people or punish them ?
Is criminalizing and punishing murder a way to help people or not?
In countries where abortion is illegal, women are much more likely to suffer permanent injury and or death from improvised infanticide.
In countries where [murdering children] is illegal, women are much more likely to suffer permanent injury and or death from [murdering their children].
The (mostly religious) crisis-pregnancy-centers are a step in the right direction.The main "problem" is that after the child is born, women are kicked out of the "we want to help you" circle.
Don't forget adoption agencies, homeless shelters, food banks, and other private donations meant to help people in all walks of life. Do you believe pro-lifers are completely uninvolved in these other charitable activities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Criminalization will not solve the problem
It will not solve the problem of people wanting sex without the responsibility of parenthood. It will solve the problem of people being able to legally poison or dismember their children.
Where do you think these "private charities" are going to get all their donations ?
If that level of income loss happens, where will the government get enough tax dollars to fully support everyone through welfare programs? The government has to take money from someone before they can give money to someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If you don't want to answer simply stop bothering me , you idiot.
No one is forcing you to take part in this forum. I started this thread, so it makes sense that I'm involved in it. Do you believe that context matters when one is trying to read text?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would love to not only SAVE the lives of as many humans as possible, but also insure they have some baseline standard of living.
Then how about this:
- We criminalize abortion to prevent the 2nd leading cause of death in America.
- We encourage people to provide for themselves instead of living off of taxpayer-funded welfare.
- We encourage localized charities RATHER THAN expanding welfare programs. These are more efficient at meeting needs with less money wasted on individuals who don't need it caused by universal programs.
- We can keep some welfare programs for those who fall through the cracks of the above measures.
It seems everyone wins in this scenario, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The video is ridiculous because no one who takes the Bible seriously argues like that. I am actually more concerned with people who take a statement like "God is love" out of context than I am with angry and bitter individuals like you who take other verses out of context.
The fact is that context always matters. That's true whether we're talking about the Bible, or a ridiculous conversation on the DebateArt forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Obviously, "god" is impotent and or refuses to fix any of the problems they created, so, either way, it's appears to be up to you and me.
Apparently, justice for the spilled blood of innocent babies is not on your list of problems to fix.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
CAN YOU FOR ONE SECOND FOCUS ON HELPING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF YOUR SEEMING OBSESSION WITH PUNISHING PEOPLE ?
CAN YOU FOR ONE SECOND FOCUS ON SAVING INNOCENT CHILDRENS' LIVES INSTEAD OF PUSHING FOR SOCIALISM?
Created:
Posted in:
(IFF) there is no god (THEN) we must decide for ourselves what kind of world we want to live in.
I'm sure you feel that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
An unwanted-foetus is just a smaller homeless person.
By this logic, we either have to criminalize the murder of babies, or legalize the murder of homeless people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) GOD MADE THIS MESS (THEN) GOD SHOULD FIX IT
(IFF) WILLFUL HUMAN SIN MADE THIS MESS (THEN)....what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
According to the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the United States admitted a total of 1.18 million legal immigrants (618k new arrivals, 565k status adjustments) in 2016.
Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Blame god.If God is made up, then you can't use this excuse. If God is real, then sin is the problem, not God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Citation please.
You don't have to accept it as true. I stand by the statement because generosity of welfare is not only determined by percentage of GDP spent. I do not consider universal healthcare and universal basic income to be welfare. But even if you reject it, there are plenty of programs that provide welfare for parents. We provide food stamps and free money to parents, as well as free health insurance programs. Lack of welfare is not the problem.
Not only that, but lack of taxpayer-funded welfare is not a justification for murdering babies. If parents can't afford to feed their toddlers, can they kill them too? Because that's the logical end of that argument.
Created:
@RM
It wasn't bait, it was an honest question. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even talk about these issues without blocking people.Not taking the bait. Blocked.
I asked because everyone I have interacted with so far who believes systemic racism is real think that black people have inferior reading, math, and critical thinking skills compared to white people, and these inferiorities inevitably cause them to be less successful in life. That seems like a low view of black people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We have the most generous welfare program in the world, yet people are still fighting tooth and nail for unrestricted access to child murder. More taxpayer-funded welfare is obviously not a functional solution. Not does it actually address the problem.
The fundamental problem is people want sex without being willing to accept the responsibility of parenthood. That is the main reason that 619,591 deaths happened in 2018, not lack of welfare.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you also condemn Critical Race Theory for it's inevitable conclusion that black Americans are inferior to white Americans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
U.S. CAUSES OF DEATH IN 2018
# 1 HEART DISEASE - 659,041
# 2 ABORTION - 619,591
# 3 CANCER - 599,601
If abortion is the 2nd leading cause of death, I would say it is well worth the prevention effort.
So what motivates these prosecutions? The reality is that, in many cases, these women are collateral damage in the fight over abortion.
There's an easy solution to ending this fight: stop trying to legalize the nationwide slaughter of babies which constitutes the #2 leading cause of death in the U.S.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you know what the second leading cause of death was in the U.S. in 2018?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
They're concepts, so they're conceived, once again, as a result of analyzing our condition. Rights are not granted; they simply are a product of moral analysis and principle.
So they're made up.
So, a death penalty imposed by a corrupt government wouldn't be an extension of God, right? So why would one endorse any exercise of such a government?
Even corrupt people can make right judgements. Most societies understand rape and murder are wrong and will condemn them as such. Both citizens and civil authorities have societal responsibilities before God, and they will answer to Him for how they fulfill those.
But you haven't really answered my question: why is the baby owed its mother's and/or father's participation in sustenance, or anyone else for that matter?
Marriage is between one man and one woman; this is the basis of the family unit (Genesis 2:24). Children are both a joy and a blessing from God, not parasites or burdens (John 16:21). Parents have a responsibility to raise their children (Deuteronomy 6:7), just as children have a responsibility to be obedient to their parents (Exodus 20:12). Individuals must care for their household, which includes parents caring for their childrens' needs (1 Timothy 5:8).
I am in no way endorsing or recommending that one not take care of one's child; but that's vastly different from stating that a child is owed its parent's care.
"I wouldn't suggest you throw your baby in the ditch, but it's totally fine if you do."
While this is an uncharitable summary, I don't think it is inaccurate. But the fundamental issue seems to involve the first question: where do human rights come from? If the answer is reason, you just have to find a logical pathway to justify killing babies. Treating the parent/child relationship like a contract that can be negated is one way to do this. It may not violate your reason, but it will send you down a dark path.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Reason, not whim. And its upon analysis of our condition, that these concepts are acknowledged. Neither an individual nor a group can "grant" you rights; they either acknowledge them, or they don't.
But where do the rights come from? Do I grant my own rights that others have the option to recognize?
The death penalty ("the Sword") in that text is seen as an extension of God himself, because the rulers were seen to be an extension of God as well. Can you honestly state that this (these) government(s) (today) are an extension of God? Who makes the decision, the president or the pope?
Government is an extension of God in the sense that God has established government to be a source of justice upon wrongdoers. But we live in a sinful world where that authority is often abused. The role of government in relation to the individual and the church has been a long-debated subject. I think the Founding Fathers established the best system to date, though it is not perfect. Our current government is corrupt, likely beyond being salvageable. Our people have abandoned God and are generally most concerned about their own personal health, wealth, and pleasure. And we are being judged for it.
And if that is correct, [it would seem that] if a parent decided to leave their one-year-old baby in a dumpster, that would also be acceptable because the baby is unable to survive on its own due to "physiological underdevelopment."Exactly.
I appreciate your consistency. But I fear for your soul if you can justify leaving a baby out to die because it can't survive on its own.
Suppose I have a daughter, and for whatever reason, she is suffering from kidney failure. The donor matching process is quite lengthy and her prospects appear bleak. It's discovered that I am perfect match, but I refuse to part with my kidney. It should be noted that up until this point, I've done everything I could for my daughter: keeping her fed, clothed, and sheltered; reading bed time stories; paying for numerous medical visits, etc. My daughter subsequently dies. So this begs the question: did I murder her in my refusal to part with my kidney? Or did I just kill her? Was it child neglect?
No I don't believe that would be murder. That being said, I can't imagine not giving my kidney if it meant saving my child's life.
I think there are a number of category differences between the scenario and a normal pregnancy. A pregnancy is typically the result of two consenting adults who should know how procreation works. If a person is not willing to accept the responsibilities of parenthood, they should not be having sex. A normal pregnancy should also not cause much in terms of permanent adverse health effects.
However, the scenario involves deviation from normal kidney function. Health failure is not the same as normal biological functions. Removing a kidney from a healthy person will probably not kill them, but it does involve risk in the procedure, as well as permanent adverse health effects.
So the main difference I see is normal biological functions vs deviation from normal functions resulting in health failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Reason. Morals/human rights come from an analysis of our condition, and thereby reflect our values.
Reason is something that humans do. So do I grant myself my own human rights based on my reason? Or does another human (or group of humans) grant me my human rights?
That verse doesn't substantiate whose prerogative it is to dispense such justice. Presumably, it's God's. This neither justifies execution nor one's seeking to take the life of another, his crimes notwithstanding.
Correct. That verse establishes the death penalty as a just punishment for murdering an image-bearer of God. There are other verses to establish the role of government. Romans 13:4 would be one example of God's ordained purpose for government to "bear the sword." That is a much more in-depth topic though.
But under the circumstances where it's merely expelled, then I'm going to reiterate that the zygote/embryo/fetus wasn't killed; it dies as a result of its physiological underdevelopment.
Let's establish what you believe the responsibility of a parent is first. It seems you are saying that if 16-week-old fetus is removed from a mother's womb and left on a table to die, that is not murder. The fetus died because of it's inability to survive on it's own. Is that a correct analysis?
And if that is correct, it would seem that if a parent decided to leave their one-year-old baby in a dumpster, that would also be acceptable because the baby is unable to survive on its own due to "physiological underdevelopment."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Your video is a great example of why climate change should not be a concern of the government and that science has been hijacked by activists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So it is your position that God charges any woman of child bearing age who consents to the act of sex with the responsibility of carrying that pregnancy to term? And that this divine obligation should be reflected legally?
Yes. Where do you believe human rights and responsibilities come from if not God?
How has that person forfeited their life?...but the intent ought to be to effectively stop the act, not to "repossess" a life you have not given in the first place.
As a citizen intervening, you are correct that stopping the murderer is my intent. But even if they are captured, execution would be a just punishment for murder. It is not repossession. It is justice. They have forfeited their right to life, and that can be supported biblically (Gen. 9:6).
Please elaborate on the responsibilities a parent has to their child and the reason or reasons parents bear this responsibility.
Are you asking why a parent has a responsibility to feed their toddler? Do you think a parent does not have that responsibility?
Why is it that a threat to her life is gauged as more significant than a threat to her person, her time, and/or labor?
The baby is not actively trying to threaten the mother's life so this is not an issue of justice. The baby isn't being punished. Both the risk to the mother and the child are factors to consider. If the baby has a 0% chance of survival, but will kill the mother if brought to term, then that is an instance where killing the baby could be justified. But it is still killing a baby so it is not to be taken lightly. I cannot emphasize that enough.
If both baby and mother have a 50% chance of surviving, I don't think the baby should be killed. But these are the extreme cases. The overwhelming majority of people kill their babies because they don't want the responsibility of parenthood, not because of personal risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So for instance, if you consider abortion to be immoral, but capital punishment to be morally justifiable and admit to being selectively moral then that is not hypocritical.
No, that just means you're simplistic in your approach to moral issues. For instance, you're ignoring the obvious category difference between executing a baby and executing a serial rapist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, not withstanding that there is no such thing as "objective morality"....(Established but variable moral expectancies perhaps).
You are free to think so. You just have to learn to live with a system that cannot condemn rape as evil. It is only a morally neutral action that you don't like.
If one is honest about ones selective morality, then one is not being hypocritical.
If one is honest about one's hypocrisy, then one is not being hypocritical. That is essentially what you just said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well at least you can admit your own hypocrisy. You're two steps ahead of the majority of subjective moralists.
The benefit of objective morality is that the moral system is independent of the moral agent. Any hypocrisy I may have is a personal failing, not a systemic one.
The benefit of objective morality is that the moral system is independent of the moral agent. Any hypocrisy I may have is a personal failing, not a systemic one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Second, in regards to Stephen, I am seldom (if ever) in agreement of his harmful and corrupt views of the Bible.
Yes, he seems like your typical militant atheist who has no interest in an honest conversation. And my guess is that he monitors the religious section so he probably won't be able to help himself from piping in.
So would you consider yourself a full preterist? I am relatively unfamiliar with those particular beliefs, other than viewing the Second Coming as being fulfilled in AD 70.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Selective morality is always going to throw up contradictions, irrespective of how I might call it.
Again, just because you call something a contradiction doesn't make it so. You have not clarified what selective morality is. If by selective morality you mean subjective morality, then I would absolutely agree with you that there will be contradictions. But I am not appealing to subjective morality.
Consciousness with intellect.....Conceptuality v instinct will create ethical dilemmas.
I feel like you're just throwing words together at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I get the impression that there are quite a few people who could never be convinced.
Well I can personally say that when government officials and organizations constantly lie or contradict themselves (both sides are guilty), it becomes difficult to trust anything they say. So even if the vaccine were completely safe and effective, they have cried wolf too often to convince anyone of anything. Then when any hint of scientific dissent is even alluded to, the information is immediately censored.
But unlike our overly-compensated government bureaucrats, I also want to be honest in evaluating arguments from both sides, so the information you gave was helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I figured there was probably some clarification needed on the general claim of never having eliminated a respiratory virus. That information is definitely helpful in measuring the consistency of that argument.
Similar to the question of eliminating respiratory viruses, do you believe that SARS-CoV-2 specifically is a respiratory virus that can be eliminated/eradicated?
Also, you have probably stated this in other posts but what is your opinion on the current vaccination effort for SARS-CoV-2? It seems to me that it is not unreasonable for people to wait for at least 2 to 5 years of safety data in human trials for a new vaccine technology. Nor does it seem like a wise plan to try and vaccinate the entire global population without said safety data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
So I did a bit of digging and it seems like one aspect that is not made clear from the generalized claim "we have never eliminated a respiratory virus" is animal reservoirs.
For smallpox, humans seem to be the only reservoir. For MERS, camels and possibly alpacas seem to be the only reservoirs apart from humans. I haven't really looked into SARS-CoV-1 yet.
So I think the argument would rather be trying to say that SARS-CoV-2 will not be eradicated in the same way that other respiratory viruses with similar animal reservoirs have not been eradicated. So smallpox would not be comparable because there are no animal reservoirs, only humans.
But what would you say the government's goal is with our current virus? Elimination, eradication, or something else?
Created:
Posted in:
I have been hearing that we have never eliminated a respiratory virus as an argument against the constant moving of the goalpost for COVID-19 measures. Since I try not to take statements like these as truth without verifying them, I thought this community would be a good one to present the claim to.
Are you aware of a respiratory virus that has been eliminated?
And as a related question, do you believe it is reasonable and achievable to attempt to eliminate any respiratory virus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just because you call something a contradiction doesn't make it so. Not to I see how "consciousness with intellect" requires such a dilemma to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So here were the two options regarding Proverbs 24:11:
- Those stumbling to slaughter others
- Those stumbling to be slaughtered
Based on post #210, it seems you would say the second option ("those stumbling to be slaughtered/killed") would be the grammatically correct choice, is that right?
"This is a false-choice."-from post #209
It's not a false choice. It's a hypothetical scenario presented to examine the application of ethics.
If terrorists were about to blow up an orphanage and the only way to stop that was to send in military forces to kill the terrorists, what would be the morally preferable choice?
From a biblical worldview, I would say killing the terrorists.
"The holy scripture does not explicitly prohibit or condemn suicide when suicide is specifically mentioned in the text."-from post #208
I will refer back to my previous syllogism:
- IF a passage mentions an action within the context of historical narrative
- AND that passage doesn't specifically mention that action as sinful
- THEN we can assume that action is not sinful
Do you believe this is a valid method of textual interpretation? Because this seems to be the method you are using to arrive at that conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The most obvious method of deciphering the essential aspect is to look at the original text in the original language.
Exactly! So what is the meaning of the original text grammatically?
- Those stumbling to slaughter others
- Those stumbling to be slaughtered
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The united states military has never been deployed to protect an orphanage.
That's irrelevant. I am looking at general principles. It seems I am being called a hypocrite because I am not a pacifist. However, it seems ridiculous to say that it would be morally better to allow terrorists to bomb an orphanage than to intervene and stop the threat. Even if that means the terrorists will be killed.
Which would be morally preferable, preventing the death of orphans with violence or preserving the life of the terrorists with pacifism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And therein lies the dilemma that is consciousness with intellect.
I am also unsure exactly what the dilemma is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Recall that the phrase in question was "those stumbling to the slaughter" in Proverbs 24:11. There seems to be two main options as to how that phrase should be read:
- Those stumbling to slaughter others
- Those stumbling to be slaughtered
Grammatically speaking, there should only be one correct answer. If you cannot even tell me what the phrase is actually saying, then we cannot take the next step of interpreting what the text means. So which option would be the grammatically correct one?
aRE yOU sUGGESTING tHE iNVERSE ?
No. Both are incorrect when you understand the genre of historical narrative. This is why a consistent method of textual interpretation is critical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Since my foundation is the Bible and not myself, I am bound by the ethics of that external source. And the Bible reveals God's will, so He is ultimately the final source of my ethics. If the Bible says all humans are image-bearers of God and thus have inherent value, then I am bound to view all humans that way. But if the Bible also says homosexuality is an abomination, I am bound to view human sexuality in that way.
But do you not care about the death of an Afghan child? When did I say that I don't? Not all actions of the military are justifiable. If a drone strike is carried out knowing that children will be among the casualties, that is abhorrent and evil. I'm guessing we can agree upon that much.
But what if terrorists are about to bomb an Afghan orphanage? Is the military justified in killing those terrorists to save the lives of the Afghan children? Or are we just supposed to let it happen and then grieve the loss of life afterwards?
I'm not criticising, as we are all the same....Ultimately the survival of one life depends upon the death of another.
You're right.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not die but have everlasting life." - John 3:16
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You just copied and pasted an article as a "rebuttal" without actually making an argument yourself. The article itself displays inconsistent methods of interpretation. I'll make an erroneous syllogism since you like if/then type statements:
- IF a passage mentions an action within the context of historical narrative
- AND that passage doesn't specifically mention that action as sinful
- THEN we can assume that action is not sinful
Do you see any problems with this line of reasoning? Is that a consistent way to read the historical narrative genre in the Bible?
Regarding Proverbs 24:11, you still didn't answer the question. You just found a different English translation that better suited your purposes. Again, that is a terrible method of interpretation. Can you answer the original question or not?
Created: