Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

You're craze.
His response was honest and sensible. Ryan didn't defend his position that "life begins at conception" except from a theological pov. That's useless. That means he's using government to enforce his religious views on abortion.

Which is what his religion tells him to do, no matter how wrong it is. If we come from the premise that Biden and Ryan are Catholics, then they must therefore believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church, which includes speaking out against abortion in both public and private. It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."

As if "not following Christ's example" makes one not a Christian...

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

You're craze.
His response was honest and sensible. Ryan didn't defend his position that "life begins at conception" except from a theological pov. That's useless. That means he's using government to enforce his religious views on abortion.

Which is what his religion tells him to do, no matter how wrong it is. If we come from the premise that Biden and Ryan are Catholics, then they must therefore believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church, which includes speaking out against abortion in both public and private. It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."

As if "not following Christ's example" makes one not a Christian...

Yes, not trying to follow Christ's example makes one not a Christian. Trying is the key word there I think.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

You're craze.
His response was honest and sensible. Ryan didn't defend his position that "life begins at conception" except from a theological pov. That's useless. That means he's using government to enforce his religious views on abortion.

Which is what his religion tells him to do, no matter how wrong it is. If we come from the premise that Biden and Ryan are Catholics, then they must therefore believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church, which includes speaking out against abortion in both public and private. It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."

As if "not following Christ's example" makes one not a Christian...

Yes, not trying to follow Christ's example makes one not a Christian. Trying is the key word there I think.

I agree that "trying" should be inserted there and is, indeed, the key word. However, that makes for frighteningly few Christians.

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

You're craze.
His response was honest and sensible. Ryan didn't defend his position that "life begins at conception" except from a theological pov. That's useless. That means he's using government to enforce his religious views on abortion.

Which is what his religion tells him to do, no matter how wrong it is. If we come from the premise that Biden and Ryan are Catholics, then they must therefore believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church, which includes speaking out against abortion in both public and private. It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."

Your position is that if you don't publicly speak out against abortions then you're not a Catholic?

Juan_Bottom wrote:I made an inconsequential mistake there, because I was speaking from memory. The actual line, which was everywhere, was 27 lies in 38 minutes. You can google it, it's everywhere.

Some people are being stupidly polite and calling them "myths." But saying something that's not true is not what "Myth" means.

Sure it is, but you forgot the make-or-break between a Lie and a Myth.

A lie is committed when the speaker believes that it's false.
For example, person A: "When I make posts related to politics, I am sincere and wish to engage in honest debate!"
(this is a lie because person A knows that he's trolling).

A myth is committed when the speaker believes that it's true even though the claim is completely false.
For example, person A: "the Great Depression was ended by FDR's public policies. All praise be to the glorious leader! And minimum wage does not cause unemployment!"
(The speaker is well-intended yet uninformed).

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

You're craze.
His response was honest and sensible. Ryan didn't defend his position that "life begins at conception" except from a theological pov. That's useless. That means he's using government to enforce his religious views on abortion.

Which is what his religion tells him to do, no matter how wrong it is. If we come from the premise that Biden and Ryan are Catholics, then they must therefore believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church, which includes speaking out against abortion in both public and private. It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."

Your position is that if you don't publicly speak out against abortions then you're not a Catholic?

No. The Catholic Church's position is that if you vote for laws that support abortion and support the implementation of policies that support abortion, you're not Catholic.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ar ... 6336?eng=y

My position is that Catholics should be able to separate their lives in government from their religious lives.

thegreekdog wrote:It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."

and then thegreekdog wrote:My position is that Catholics should be able to separate their lives in government from their religious lives.

Ok me no understand? Because Biden pretty much said exactly this. That he is a Catholic, but keeps his personal faith separate from his Government life. So why are you yelling at the screen when he said essentially exactly what you feel?

thegreekdog wrote:My position is that Catholics should be able to separate their lives in government from their religious lives.

How do you propose that this happen when the people who oppose abortion oppose it because it's killing an innocent life? Should people who believe that killing is wrong based on their religion no longer be able to espouse that view in government?

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:My position is that Catholics should be able to separate their lives in government from their religious lives.

How do you propose that this happen when the people who oppose abortion oppose it because it's killing an innocent life? Should people who believe that killing is wrong based on their religion no longer be able to espouse that view in government?

Do you actually believe that religion is the only reason someone might believe that abortion is killing an innocent life?

I suppose you probably do, given that you seem convinced that morality comes from religion.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:My position is that Catholics should be able to separate their lives in government from their religious lives.

How do you propose that this happen when the people who oppose abortion oppose it because it's killing an innocent life? Should people who believe that killing is wrong based on their religion no longer be able to espouse that view in government?

Do you actually believe that religion is the only reason someone might believe that abortion is killing an innocent life?

I suppose you probably do, given that you seem convinced that morality comes from religion.

No, religion is not the only reason people oppose abortion, but it seemed to me that TGD was saying that if it is your only reason for opposing it, then you shouldn't share that belief in politics.

thegreekdog wrote:My position is that Catholics should be able to separate their lives in government from their religious lives.

But this isn't a question of "religious lives." This is a question of basic fundamental rights. If you believe that life begins with conception then you are bound by your own moral code to protect the lives of others starting from the moment of conception. This is more than a "religious life" this is a fundamental keystone of human rights and the cornerstone of the just war theory (it is good to oppose those who oppose the fundamental rights of others).

Now if we were talking about enforcing the notion that no work or children's sports should be done on Sunday, or that no meat should be sold, served, or eaten on Friday, or that sex outside of legal marriage should be outlawed, I could see a valid point, since this is "their religious lives" as it were. It is not a moral fundamental truth.

No, to separate ones moral standings from their lives in government would produce such horrors the likes of which the world has only seen on occasion.

Life beginning with conception is purely a religious notion , nothing more, It is not a fundamental truth in any shape or form.

comic boy wrote:Life beginning with conception is purely a religious notion , nothing more, It is not a fundamental truth in any shape or form.

And that is 100% opinion.

comic boy wrote:Life beginning with conception is purely a religious notion , nothing more, It is not a fundamental truth in any shape or form.

Life begins with issue #1 and ends with the last issue. It's a fairly logical definition.

So, does this mean to an athiest ... nothing is living?

tzor wrote:

comic boy wrote:Life beginning with conception is purely a religious notion , nothing more, It is not a fundamental truth in any shape or form.

Life begins with issue #1 and ends with the last issue. It's a fairly logical definition.

So, does this mean to an athiest ... nothing is living?

Why ask atheists in particular,not all theists agree with your definition nor do all atheists oppose it?You might as well say "does this mean to a vegetarian....nothing is living?"

It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

Juan_Bottom wrote:It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

In other words, is this you Juan?

Juan_Bottom wrote:It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

that egg isn't even fertilized yet.

high school biology ftw?

patrickaa317 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

You can argue whether or not conception defines if the fetus is a person but as far as whether or not life has begun is a completely different story. Your cute little pictures don't really relate to whether conception is the start of life or not.

In other words, is this you Juan?

Uhhh, hey smartass, sperm and egg cells are alive whether or not they ever meet.
In practical terms you're arguing that "logically" masturbation is mass murder of some kind.

I'll just wait here for my apology.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'll just wait here for my apology.

For what? I'm still not sure what your point of weighing in here was. Comicboy stated that life didn't begin at conception. You posted a picture of some items and clarified that a worm isn't a dress and an egg is not a chicken (pretty logical), though this had nothing to do with whether life began at conception or not. Now you are saying that you believe sperm and eggs are alive which means you would also believe that life exists at the point of conception. Do you believe life exists at conception?

Do you believe that life deserving swims around inside of your balls?

You're just playing dumb now.
The position or statement that "life begins at conception" is so self-evidently meaning "human life" or "the life of a person" begins at fertilization that it doesn't warren an explanation. We're adults in here talking like adults who used common and well-understood terminology. It's well understood because ALL CELLS ARE LIVING. Sperm needs nourishment. It lives, grows, and it dies. By all accounts, it is life. Yet it's life is irrelevant and is already understood to be irrelevant when someone says "life begins at conception." People pay no more mind to the life of a sperm cell than they do to the life of a fly.
You're just playing stupid instead of confessing that you said something incredibly dumb and you said it smugly. Man up, and own up.

john9blue wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:It is not a forgone logical conclusion.

that egg isn't even fertilized yet.

high school biology ftw?

How can you tell?

Impartial science ftw!!!

JB is saying life begins when it begins. For example, the sperm is alive before it meets the egg.

Patrickaa and/or comicboy are arguing that the life (of a human being) begins at the stage of conception.

Note that "of a human being" is implied, so either JB missed the implied meaning, or he's just trolling with pics again.


____________________________________________________________

seems OT, so

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179873&start=0

patrickaa317 wrote:

comic boy wrote:Life beginning with conception is purely a religious notion , nothing more, It is not a fundamental truth in any shape or form.

And that is 100% opinion.

Yes its my opinion , I find that expressing my own opinion is rather more healthy than parroting that of somebody else. For the record I am quite happy to form an opinion based on scientific evidence rather than pure emotion , you are entitled to take an opposite stance if you wish but dont delude yourself that your reasoning is based on anything more than wishful thinking.