Abortion

[Raeyh]

And Yahweh is a character. He is made to be a loving character. So we go by that.

If they wanted him to be loving, they would have been more obvious about it. People who worship him are called "God-fearing," not "God-adoring" or whatever. It's pretty obvious from various parts of the Bible that he will screw people over just for fun.

[The Cummunist State]

And Yahweh is a character. He is made to be a loving character. So we go by that.

If they wanted him to be loving, they would have been more obvious about it. People who worship him are called "God-fearing," not "God-adoring" or whatever. It's pretty obvious from various parts of the Bible that he will screw people over just for fun.

Oh no, I know. Tell that to believers.

[Maineiacs]

Or her menses are irregular. Ever heard of this?

No. Every body is 100% normal and perfect in every way, and pregnancy never carries complications, and all lives work out exactly how you plan them. Every time. From this fact, I deduce that all abortion is evil and all women are stupid whores.

It's all so clear now. It's all been in my head the whole time! *slowly rises from wheelchair* I can walk! *falls on face* Nope. False alarm.

[Camicon]

No. No it does not. The New Testament overrides the Old Testament. That is one of the reasons, apparently, that God became human. To introduces new rules and guidelines for his people to follow. Jesus never said, in any sense, that raping children or murdering people is condoned by God.
Why would he say it in the first place, then?

Calm down Sparky. He said some atheists. Not all atheists, or most atheists. He didn't say that these people were moral degenerates for believing infanticide should be allowed (although I certainly think so). Yes, the source took that stance, but the poster did not. He used the source to provide evidence that, yes, some atheists do believe infanticide should be legal.
He should have been more clear. Atheists get told all to many times that they are immoral for some shitty reason or another.
And you might be shocked to learn this, but all atheists share the belief that there are/is no gods/God. Otherwise they would not be atheist.
You have no idea what the word Atheist means, do you? That's cute.
No, they share a disbelief. That is not the same as belief that there is no god. You might be referring to strong Atheists, whom I disagree with. I think Agnostic Atheism is the correct position.

He said that, while he is religious and believes abortion is wrong, that he is pro-choice, because abortion is a purely moral topic, and morals are personal and subjective.


Whoa. Angry much? Learn about another religion before you tear into it like a 10-ounce steak. There are a wide variety of religions that worship God, with an even wider variety of opinions on the sort of "person/god" that God is. If He is a murderous avenging monster, or if He became human, and died an extremely violent and painful death for the sake of everyone on Earth, so that everyone (no matter creed or code) could find His salvation.
I have learned all I need too. You might be surprised that the bible is actually a argument against these religions. And yes, there are three religions that worship Yahweh, the god in the bible. There are lots of religions that worship a personal deity. And to the "die on earth" shit, source? Cause I'm pretty sure he didn't. I mean,
He creates man and woman with original sin, then floods the earth to kill all of them, but they still have original sin, so he finds a loophole in his own rules which he refuses to change for no reason so he can sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself.
That's a little hard to believe.
Pilgrims never specified which religious denomination he belongs to, and he never claimed any sort of moral highground.

God did not say that, or put it in the Old Testament. Moses said it (Moses =/= God), and the other Israelites put it in the Old Testament.

You shouldn't have made assumptions and blown up at him for something he neither said, nor implied.

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
Thus, atheist's share a belief that there is no God. I call it a belief, because they cannot provide any evidence that there is no God. In much the same way those of faith believe in their God/gods despite lack of tangible scientific proof, nobody has yet to tangibly or scientifically disprove the existence of a God/gods. Atheists have faith that there is no "higher power", or what have you. Yes, they base their faith on science, but that science has not conclusively disproven the lack of a God. Thus, they base their beliefs on something that has not been proven by science, thus: faith, and consequently, belief.

The Bible is not an argument against religion, Silly. Many religions agree that God did not create man with original sin, but that sin was introduced to man after he has been created (Such a view is purely subjective to the religion under purview, however, and so using such a varied perspective on the origin of man as an argument against the Bible is utter foolishness).
Now, It is stated in the Bible that God flooded the Earth because humanity, with the exception of Noah and his family, was corrupt. Now, this does make God seem like an asshole. However, stating your disbelief in God, and then using an act of God as an argument against religion, is really quite childish. If God does not exist, how did he flood the Earth? If he did not flood the Earth, why do you use that to paint God as a dickwad?
That being said, Noah's flood is easily reconciled with religion and science. Is is agreed upon by many a religion, that God does not exert such an extreme influence on world, to the extent of flooding it. However, at the time Noah's flood occurred (there is scientific evidence to support the occurrence of Noah's flood, though not a world-wide flood as is suggested by the Bible) the people in the region in which is occurred were very religious (everybody was, back in those days). They wondered why God would flood their world (in reality, only a very, very, very small portion of the world. Unfortunately, that part in which they happened to live) and so they came upon the conclusion that mankind (as far as they knew, they were the entirety of mankind) must have been corrupt, and that God was purging them because they had fallen from goodness. Thus, this explanation helped explain a catastrophic event in their lives, and was subsequently included in their religious works.

Then he sends Jesus to teach his followers that God is forgiving, and loving, as the people of the time did not believe so. As the ultimate expression and proof that God loves all his people, and forgives them for all their sins, he sacrifices himself, in the process giving people who want to reconcile themselves with God an avenue in which to do so.

Anything else?

[Raeyh]

Then he sends Jesus to teach his followers that God is forgiving, and loving, as the people of the time did not believe so. As the ultimate expression and proof that God loves all his people, and forgives them for all their sins, he sacrifices himself, in the process giving people who want to reconcile themselves with God an avenue in which to do so.

I'll start believing in God's forgiveness and loving the moment he turns Hell into a second Paradise and gives Lucifer his angel status back.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I think we're off topic here...

[Thatchland]

Could those arguing religion please move it to a different thread? thank you.

This is a debate about abortion. If the only source you are going to use to backup your opinion is the bible then you are in the wrong thread. Even the catholic church has evolved its idea of when human life begins in the past 2000 years. Prior to 1869 the church held that the human life did not begin until approximately the quickening. Also until then abortion was only truly frowned upon if it was used to hide a sin such as adultery. Documented abortions go back as far is 1500 BCE And were common place throughout history.

Since every christian faith is either a direct or secondary offshoot of the original catholic church, That means in some point of every christian religions history they shared that same opinion. So to use as your support "the bible says so" or "god says so" is a fallacious statement as not every religion using that tome can even agree on the what is the proper interpretation of that tome.

Please take your bibles and find the nearest exit. Thank you.

[Condunum]

Could those arguing religion please move it to a different thread? thank you.

This is a debate about abortion. It's the only source you are going to use to backup your opinion is the bible then you are in the wrong thread. Even the catholic church has evolved its idea of when human life begins in the past 2000 years. Prior to 1869 the church held that the human life did not begin until approximately the quickening. Also until then abortion was only truly frowned upon if it was used to hide a sin such as adultery. Documented abortions go back as far is 1500 BCE And were common place throughout history.

Since every christian faith is either a direct or secondary offshoot of the original catholic church, That means in some point of every christian religions history they shared that same opinion. So to use as your support "the bible says so" or "god says so" is a fallacious statement as not every religion using that tome can even agree on the what is the proper interpretation of that tome.

Please take your bibles and find the nearest exit. Thank you.

But, but, professor! God says abortion is wrong!

[The Pretend Pub]

Could those arguing religion please move it to a different thread? thank you.

This is a debate about abortion. If the only source you are going to use to backup your opinion is the bible then you are in the wrong thread.

Since this is a thread about abortion, if one's opinion about abortion is informed by his or her religious belief, then religious origins of that belief are perfectly appropriate here by way of explanation and questioning that explanation.

Since every christian faith is either a direct or secondary offshoot of the original catholic church, That means in some point of every christian religions history they shared that same opinion. So to use as your support "the bible says so" or "god says so" is a fallacious statement as not every religion using that tome can even agree on the what is the proper interpretation of that tome.

Lack of universal agreement on what the correct interpretation is is not the same as there being no correct interpretation.

[Wiztopia]

Something that I don't get is why people claim abortion is mentioned in the bible. Abortion is never mentioned in the bible.

[The Cummunist State]

God did not say that, or put it in the Old Testament. Moses said it (Moses =/= God), and the other Israelites put it in the Old Testament.

You shouldn't have made assumptions and blown up at him for something he neither said, nor implied.

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
Thus, atheist's share a belief that there is no God. I call it a belief, because they cannot provide any evidence that there is no God. In much the same way those of faith believe in their God/gods despite lack of tangible scientific proof, nobody has yet to tangibly or scientifically disprove the existence of a God/gods. Atheists have faith that there is no "higher power", or what have you. Yes, they base their faith on science, but that science has not conclusively disproven the lack of a God. Thus, they base their beliefs on something that has not been proven by science, thus: faith, and consequently, belief.

The Bible is not an argument against religion, Silly. Many religions agree that God did not create man with original sin, but that sin was introduced to man after he has been created (Such a view is purely subjective to the religion under purview, however, and so using such a varied perspective on the origin of man as an argument against the Bible is utter foolishness).
Now, It is stated in the Bible that God flooded the Earth because humanity, with the exception of Noah and his family, was corrupt. Now, this does make God seem like an asshole. However, stating your disbelief in God, and then using an act of God as an argument against religion, is really quite childish. If God does not exist, how did he flood the Earth? If he did not flood the Earth, why do you use that to paint God as a dickwad?
That being said, Noah's flood is easily reconciled with religion and science. Is is agreed upon by many a religion, that God does not exert such an extreme influence on world, to the extent of flooding it. However, at the time Noah's flood occurred (there is scientific evidence to support the occurrence of Noah's flood, though not a world-wide flood as is suggested by the Bible) the people in the region in which is occurred were very religious (everybody was, back in those days). They wondered why God would flood their world (in reality, only a very, very, very small portion of the world. Unfortunately, that part in which they happened to live) and so they came upon the conclusion that mankind (as far as they knew, they were the entirety of mankind) must have been corrupt, and that God was purging them because they had fallen from goodness. Thus, this explanation helped explain a catastrophic event in their lives, and was subsequently included in their religious works.

Then he sends Jesus to teach his followers that God is forgiving, and loving, as the people of the time did not believe so. As the ultimate expression and proof that God loves all his people, and forgives them for all their sins, he sacrifices himself, in the process giving people who want to reconcile themselves with God an avenue in which to do so.

Anything else?

Bahaha! You didn't even read the dictionary you went to! Wow. That gave me a laugh, I needed that.
No, disbelief isn't a belief something doesn't exist. And their disbelief is not necessarily because of science. There are many many other reasons. The fact is, disbelieving in a god has no burden of proof. It's not asserting anything except "I do not believe a god exists."
Also, you still keep assuming god exists in your arguments and that the bible is wrong and yadadadad. So I'm just ignoring that entire last half as preaching "OHhohohoh but god loves you so he exists and abortion is wrooong hohohohooo"

I do have to ask one thing, though. If all of that shit is metaphores, why couldn't the god speak some fucking clear words? Or better yet, just put "E=mc squared" in the bible. That'd be some good proof. But then, why doesn't he just reveal himself? His goal, after all, is to get humans to heaven.

[Tlaceceyaya]

God did not say that, or put it in the Old Testament. Moses said it (Moses =/= God), and the other Israelites put it in the Old Testament.

You shouldn't have made assumptions and blown up at him for something he neither said, nor implied.

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
Thus, atheist's share a belief that there is no God. I call it a belief, because they cannot provide any evidence that there is no God. In much the same way those of faith believe in their God/gods despite lack of tangible scientific proof, nobody has yet to tangibly or scientifically disprove the existence of a God/gods. Atheists have faith that there is no "higher power", or what have you. Yes, they base their faith on science, but that science has not conclusively disproven the lack of a God. Thus, they base their beliefs on something that has not been proven by science, thus: faith, and consequently, belief.

The Bible is not an argument against religion, Silly. Many religions agree that God did not create man with original sin, but that sin was introduced to man after he has been created (Such a view is purely subjective to the religion under purview, however, and so using such a varied perspective on the origin of man as an argument against the Bible is utter foolishness).
Now, It is stated in the Bible that God flooded the Earth because humanity, with the exception of Noah and his family, was corrupt. Now, this does make God seem like an asshole. However, stating your disbelief in God, and then using an act of God as an argument against religion, is really quite childish. If God does not exist, how did he flood the Earth? If he did not flood the Earth, why do you use that to paint God as a dickwad?
That being said, Noah's flood is easily reconciled with religion and science. Is is agreed upon by many a religion, that God does not exert such an extreme influence on world, to the extent of flooding it. However, at the time Noah's flood occurred (there is scientific evidence to support the occurrence of Noah's flood, though not a world-wide flood as is suggested by the Bible) the people in the region in which is occurred were very religious (everybody was, back in those days). They wondered why God would flood their world (in reality, only a very, very, very small portion of the world. Unfortunately, that part in which they happened to live) and so they came upon the conclusion that mankind (as far as they knew, they were the entirety of mankind) must have been corrupt, and that God was purging them because they had fallen from goodness. Thus, this explanation helped explain a catastrophic event in their lives, and was subsequently included in their religious works.

Then he sends Jesus to teach his followers that God is forgiving, and loving, as the people of the time did not believe so. As the ultimate expression and proof that God loves all his people, and forgives them for all their sins, he sacrifices himself, in the process giving people who want to reconcile themselves with God an avenue in which to do so.

Anything else?

1: Yes, just as you and I (hopefully) share a belief that leprechauns do not exist, despite lack of conclusive proof that they do not exist.
2: Science has also not proven that we live in the Matrix, yet only crazy people believe so.
3: What's childish about it? The flood is used as an example of how the being over a billion people worship is actually evil. Very few people (none I know) use that as an argument against the existence of a deity. However, they do use the notion of a world-encompassing flood which left no evidence of ever happening as an argument against the existence of that specific deity. It's like telling a delusional person that there is no trollface eating their arm.
4: He builds those people, tells them not to do something, and is surprised when something that he completely designed from scratch does what he told them not to do. Therefore, he punishes them. Then he sends himself to their world as a human then gets himself killed to show that the sin which he allowed to happen has been forgiven. Therefore, he's not really forgiving or loving. He enjoys pointless drama.

[Raeyh]

Something that I don't get is why people claim abortion is mentioned in the bible. Abortion is never mentioned in the bible.

It says if you hit a pregnant woman and the child dies because of it, the person who hit should be stoned to death as per an eye for an eye. You might base it on that, but that's pretty weak.

[The Cummunist State]

1: Yes, just as you and I (hopefully) share a belief that leprechauns do not exist, despite lack of conclusive proof that they do not exist.
2: Science has also not proven that we live in the Matrix, yet only crazy people believe so.
3: What's childish about it? The flood is used as an example of how the being over a billion people worship is actually evil. Very few people (none I know) use that as an argument against the existence of a deity. However, they do use the notion of a world-encompassing flood which left no evidence of ever happening as an argument against the existence of that specific deity. It's like telling a delusional person that there is no trollface eating their arm.
4: He builds those people, tells them not to do something, and is surprised when something that he completely designed from scratch does what he told them not to do. Therefore, he punishes them. Then he sends himself to their world as a human then gets himself killed to show that the sin which he allowed to happen has been forgiven. Therefore, he's not really forgiving or loving. He enjoys pointless drama.

Um, no. Atheism is not the positive belief there is no god. Please speak for yourself and your group of strong Atheism.
That said, I agree completely with your other points.

[Thatchland]

Something that I don't get is why people claim abortion is mentioned in the bible. Abortion is never mentioned in the bible.

It says if you hit a pregnant woman and the child dies because of it, the person who was hit should be stoned to death as per an eye for an eye. You might base it on that, but that's it pretty weak.

Exodus 21:22-25
New International Version (NIV)

²² "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or causes a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury [to the woman], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. ²³ But if there is serious injury [to the woman], you are to take life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ²⁵ burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

So, as you can see - the only near mention in the Bible - refers to something that happens while something else happens (if a pregnant woman is hit while others are fighting - or fighting with her ... and she either gives birth or loses the fetus). If the woman is physically fine after, the only retribution stated in the Bible is monetary.

[IshCong]

God did not say that, or put it in the Old Testament. Moses said it (Moses =/= God), and the other Israelites put it in the Old Testament.

You shouldn't have made assumptions and blown up at him for something he neither said, nor implied.

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
Thus, atheist's share a belief that there is no God. I call it a belief, because they cannot provide any evidence that there is no God. In much the same way those of faith believe in their God/gods despite lack of tangible scientific proof, nobody has yet to tangibly or scientifically disprove the existence of a God/gods. Atheists have faith that there is no "higher power", or what have you. Yes, they base their faith on science, but that science has not conclusively disproven the lack of a God. Thus, they base their beliefs on something that has not been proven by science, thus: faith, and consequently, belief.

The Bible is not an argument against religion, Silly. Many religions agree that God did not create man with original sin, but that sin was introduced to man after he has been created (Such a view is purely subjective to the religion under purview, however, and so using such a varied perspective on the origin of man as an argument against the Bible is utter foolishness).
Now, It is stated in the Bible that God flooded the Earth because humanity, with the exception of Noah and his family, was corrupt. Now, this does make God seem like an asshole. However, stating your disbelief in God, and then using an act of God as an argument against religion, is really quite childish. If God does not exist, how did he flood the Earth? If he did not flood the Earth, why do you use that to paint God as a dickwad?
That being said, Noah's flood is easily reconciled with religion and science. Is is agreed upon by many a religion, that God does not exert such an extreme influence on world, to the extent of flooding it. However, at the time Noah's flood occurred (there is scientific evidence to support the occurrence of Noah's flood, though not a world-wide flood as is suggested by the Bible) the people in the region in which is occurred were very religious (everybody was, back in those days). They wondered why God would flood their world (in reality, only a very, very, very small portion of the world. Unfortunately, that part in which they happened to live) and so they came upon the conclusion that mankind (as far as they knew, they were the entirety of mankind) must have been corrupt, and that God was purging them because they had fallen from goodness. Thus, this explanation helped explain a catastrophic event in their lives, and was subsequently included in their religious works.

Then he sends Jesus to teach his followers that God is forgiving, and loving, as the people of the time did not believe so. As the ultimate expression and proof that God loves all his people, and forgives them for all their sins, he sacrifices himself, in the process giving people who want to reconcile themselves with God an avenue in which to do so.

Anything else?

A character named God exists in a book. This character is fictitious, according to the people you refer to.
The fictitious actions of this fictitious being are non-benevolent.
Just like you have people taking stances over the nature of, say, Dumbledore, Snape, Ender Wiggin, Gandalf etc, you can have people comment on the nature of god(s), despite their...uh...'stance' god(s) do(es) not exist.

EDIT: Phrasing. Freaking English.

[Thatchland]

Since this is a thread about abortion, if one's opinion about abortion is informed by his or her religious belief, then religious origins of that belief are perfectly appropriate here by way of explanation and questioning that explanation.

I would not agree due to the fact that every response to a point or counter-point is "bible says so" or "god says so." In a healthy debate ... if that is what these threads are intended to house ... more than one source is requisite. Also, "bible says so" or "god says so" is fallacious in the fact that there is not peer-reviewed (religious peers) overall consensus of what the bible means or what god's intent is.

Lack of universal agreement on what the correct interpretation is is not the same as there being no correct interpretation.

I concur with this. However, since just about every faith believes theirs is the one true interpretation - and the only true way of knowing is, if god is real, from divine proclamation (which appears to never gonna happen) - then using "bible says so" or "god says so" is unacceptable in a healthy debate.

[The Pretend Pub]

This is a debate? I never thought of it that way.

I always thought of these as discussions, where we are mutually and collegially seeking a better understanding of each others' positions to help better understand our own, rather than adversarially trying to prove the other "wrong."

Furthermore, if indeed one's only source for his position on abortion is the Paulinist Bible, then what else does he need to produce to explain his position, other than be willing to discuss why he chooses to interpret it in that manner?

[Republic of Tropical Partiers]

I support abortion being legal but I'm just wondering how many people support abortion support government regulating what people can and can't eat?

[Condunum]

This is a debate? I never thought of it that way.

I always thought of these as discussions, where we are mutually and collegially seeking a better understanding of each others' positions to help better understand our own, rather than adversarially trying to prove the other "wrong."

Hi, welcome to NSG!

[The Pretend Pub]

I support abortion being legal but I'm just wondering how many people support abortion support government regulating what people can and can't eat?

I suspect no one.

Except conservatives, because they hate freedom.

[Thatchland]

This is a debate? I never thought of it that way.

I always thought of these as discussions, where we are mutually and collegially seeking a better understanding of each others' positions to help better understand our own, rather than adversarially trying to prove the other "wrong."

Furthermore, if indeed one's only source for his position on abortion is the Paulinist Bible, then what else does he need to produce to explain his position, other than be willing to discuss why he chooses to interpret it in that manner?

My purpose is not trying to prove right or wrong. For me a healthy debate is a discussion - however, if the topic is one item and then we end up having a lengthy tangential discussion about a source that is the basis of one's opinion, then the discussion has become derailed. That is why it is my contention that those tangents move themselves to a separate thread so that the original topic could be continued to be explored.

This is kind of derailment is curtailed if a person has more than one, sole source that they have at hand to support their opinion(s) ... because when a counter-point is made, the person can utilize a separate source so that the discussion/debate can continue forward.

PS: Holy cow, I'm a bit far outside of the abortion ellipse ... time to change my angle of trajectory to get back on orbit

[IshCong]

I support abortion being legal but I'm just wondering how many people support abortion support government regulating what people can and can't eat?

I suspect no one.

Except conservatives, because they hate freedom.

I suspect a lot of people support regulations guaranteeing that the food they are purchasing is not riddled with parasites, bacteria, etc. Does that count?

[Republic of Tropical Partiers]

I support abortion being legal but I'm just wondering how many people support abortion support government regulating what people can and can't eat?

I suspect no one.

Except conservatives, because they hate freedom.

I should make a topic out of this? Seem like from my experience the major ideologies and parties pick and choose the freedoms they like.

[The Germania Alliance]

*Comes into thread to debate abortion

*Religion being forced down everyone's throats

Yep, that's basically normal for NSG.