Continue the debate in here

Page 4 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:42 pm

Answer the first question!

And you did not answer my challenge!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:04 pm

Answer the first question!

I did answer the first question. I said the course of action was not to allow abortion. And the age of the embryo doesn't matter because we know that from the moment it is conceived it is a human life.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:05 pm

I did answer the first question. I said the course of action was not to
allow abortion. And the age of the embryo doesn't matter because we
know that from the moment it is conceived it is a human life.

The question was what do you do if the brith would result in the death of the mother?

And what about the challenge?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by lou{sosiennaboho} on Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:21 pm

If you say non-believers have no sin, then why do you feel guilty over
wrong doing? Can somebody feel guilt over their actions if they can't
be 100% certain their actions where right or wrong? I feel guilty when
I know something I've done is actually wrong.

If I feel guilty because I've done something "wrong", it doesn't mean I have sinned, I have simply gone against MY standards of what is right and wrong. Also if I upset Liam because I do something I think is fine, but he thinks its wrong, does that mean I have sinned? ofcourse not. Sin only exists if you believe it does, and thats as far its authenticity goes!



First and foremost I would encourage people to only have sex
within marriage. This dramatically reduces the likelihood of having to
consider the abortion issue, if at all. And if abortion needs to be
considered, I would not allow abortion as the unborn human didn't
choose his parents and should rightly be allowed a chance at life. Only
the parents made the wrong decision, not the unborn baby. Therefore the
parents need to deal with it. If you allow abortion, then where will it
end? Are you going to allow the death of anybody who it would be more
of an inconvenience to keep alive? What then happens to human dignity?

Abortions happen within marriage too, I don't think this is a matter of pre-marital sex rather than BIRTH CONTROL. I personaly don't agree with abortion for the sole reason of inconvenience, but I do agree with choice. Unfortunatley the unborn child does not have a voice so its up to the parents, and who are we to judge whether they've made the wrong decision or not? I don't think its a question of human dignity. While the baby is in the mother's womb, its a part of her body and thus the choice lies with her.

lou{sosiennaboho}

Posts : 4
Join date : 2007-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:57 pm

The question was what do you do if the brith would result in the death of the mother?

If a women knows she isn't well enough to have babies and is married, she shouldn't try to have babies and increase her risk of dieing. If a women does get pregnant and theres a risk to her life, then she should get a cesarean section before going into labour, therefore reducing her risks of dieing. An unborn baby deserves to live, regardless of the health of the mother. There where cases in the Bible of women dieing when giving birth, but the death of the women wasn't morally wrong. There will always be some level of risk involved with giving birth. If you choose to end of the life of a person (including an unborn baby), that is worse than if somebody dies in the process of doing something. I would agree that both ending a life and dieing in the process of doing something are terrible situations. If the embryo at any age is classed as a human, which it is, then abortion is the same as murder. You wouldn't kill a baby when it leaves the womb, so why is it ever OK to kill a baby when it is still inside a women?

And what about the challenge?
What about Peter and John healing the lame man?

ACTS 3
1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour .
2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God:
10 And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.
Could a non-believer do that?

William here are some questions for you:

How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?
How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?
How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Wouldn’t it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn’t?
In what sense was Jesus a ‘Good Man’ if He was lying in His claim to be God?
Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the ‘Good Book’?
From whence comes humanity’s universal moral sense?
If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
If Jesus’ resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus’ disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?
Why have so many of history’s greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?
Isn’t it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?
How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?
How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world’s ‘holy’ books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?
On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians 1:8 )?
Is it absolutely true that “truth is not absolute” or only relatively true that “all things are relative?”
Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?
Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?
What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
Why isn’t it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent ‘God’ when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?
If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?
If the authorities stole Jesus’ body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
If all of Jesus’ claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn’t He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life?
If God is unchanging, wouldn’t it be true that one who changes by suddenly “realizing” that he/she is “God” therefore isn’t God?
Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical ’science’ amount to anything more than just another faith system?
What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe?
What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:49 pm

If a women knows she isn't well enough to have babies and is married,
she shouldn't try to have babies and increase her risk of dieing.

The situation is if a healthy woman, comes across difficulties during the pregenancy, not that she is unwell before the conception.

An unborn baby deserves to live, regardless of the health of the mother.

So your saying that the mothers life is worthless?


There where cases in the Bible of women dieing when giving birth, but the death of the women wasn't morally wrong.

If a termanitation could have been carried out, therefore saving the womans life, then it would be wrong to let her die!

There will always be some level of risk involved with giving birth.

True! But somethimes those dangers can be avoided by termination.

If the embryo at any age is classed as a human, which it is, then abortion is the same as murder.

Actually, embryos are not classed as human. Forcing a woman to give birth to a baby that will kill her, is even more immoral, as she IS a human, and it is her body!

You wouldn't kill a baby when it leaves the womb, so why is it ever OK to kill a baby when it is still inside a women?

First of all, according to the bible, God is quite good at killing young babies.

Approx 50% of all conceptions end in a spontanous miscarriage. This would make God the biggest abortionist of all!

And what about the challenge?

Could a non-believer do that?

Doctors withour borders, do that everyday! http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/

So as you see, you failed my chalenge again! Care to try again?

I'll answer you questions, in full. When you either complete my challenge, or admit that you cannot do it!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:53 pm

Dave, having read through your questions, I will in fact NOT answer them. As they are not yours! You copied and pasted them, and I have given them more than enough credence, by simplt reading them. Until you pose questions written by yourself, I will consider this debate over (with you anyway) and you to have been defeated in every aspect and subject!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:03 pm

Dave, having read through your questions, I will in fact NOT answer them. As they are not yours! You copied and pasted them, and I have given them more than enough credence, by simplt reading them. Until you pose questions written by yourself, I will consider this debate over (with you anyway) and you to have been defeated in every aspect and subject!

William should I take the same approach to your challenge, seeing as you got it from Christopher Hitchens and didn't come up with it yourself?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1882305.ece

I quote:
Alongside the 'problem of evil' is the problem of good - what about all the people whose faith has inspired them to change society for the better? David Keen, Yeovil.
I have a challenge that I have issued in America which I’ll put to you. You have to come up with a moral statement made, or a moral action performed by a believer or a person of faith, that could not have been uttered by an unbeliever. I haven’t so far had anyone come up with an answer to this and I’m genuinely interested to see if they can.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:08 pm

William should I take the same approach to your challenge, seeing as
you got it from Christopher Hitchens and didn't come up with it
yourself?

True, but I referenced Hitchens. And I also knew what I was reffering to. You on the other hand blindly copied and pasted. What do you know of Thermodynamics? We have been in this situation before!

If you want to ask me questions, then ask questions to which you would be in the position to offer a rebuttal, but all of the questions you have asked me, you have NEVER offered a rebuttal. In fact I am still waiting on the list of non-biblical accounts of Jesus! Until you rectefy your 'false witnessing' I will regard the debate (with you) over, and I am the winner.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:23 pm

William, please answer this:

Do you think it is fair that I spend the time setting this forum up for you, posting on it myself and inviting one my Christian friends to post as well, when all the thanks I get is name calling. I quote what you said:

Are you suggesting that I think the Holocaust was ok? If so, you are mentally retarded, to the highest degree.

And this:

Pathetic!!!

I have met some really bad Christians, but you are the worst. You are not even intelligent enough to come up with your own arguments. If you are going to copy and past, at least copy and paste something you actually know about!

I feel sorry for you!

You, and I am being honest, will never have my respect from me, and I presume, by other people you will meet in your life (at least from Non-Believers)!

So pathetic!

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:34 pm

Do you think it is fair that I spend the time setting this forum up for
you, posting on it myself and inviting one my Christian friends to post
as well, when all the thanks I get is name calling.

Your point is?

You set this forum up to 'Debate', yet all you do is preach, and more often than not, copy and paste!

Do you think its fair, that I take time out of my work day to answer questions you pose, and those questions you do not even know the meaning to? Is it worth my while replying, to those questions? No. Yet again, after the 'god knows how many' times I have asked for the 'several' non-biblical accounts that you claim to exist, yet I have neither recieved them, nor have you admitted that the do not exist!

Can you see what I'm up against!

Are you suggesting that I think the Holocaust was ok? If so, you are mentally retarded, to the highest degree.

I stand by this statement, as you claimed that I and other non-believers are in favour, or at least see nothing wrong, with the Holocoust!

When in actual fact, you are the one who is living in the dark ages. The people Moses killed, weather or not the 'sinned' against god, did not deserve to die, nor was it moral to do so. You also seem to think that freeing slaves after 7 years is a good idea!

If you think I'm lying I can quote you on these matters. Can you quote me suggesting that the Holocoust was acceptable?

As for the PM, I stand by that too. But please, by all means, PROVE ME WRONG!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:38 pm

Do you think its fair, that I take time out of my work day to answer questions you pose, and those questions you do not even know the meaning to? Is it worth my while replying, to those questions? No. Yet again, after the 'god knows how many' times I have asked for the 'several' non-biblical accounts that you claim to exist, yet I have neither recieved them, nor have you admitted that the do not exist!

I shall quote what you posted on my bebo:

Dave, I'm bored wanna have another debate? (Everyone else gave up!)

You asked for the debate to be restarted.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:41 pm

You asked for the debate to be restarted.

Yes...I asked for a DEBATE!

Debating consists of points and rebuttals, no copying and pasting!

You have made points!
You have yet to make a rebuttal!
And you certainaly copy and paste!

Do you think that YOU are debating?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:45 pm

Debating consists of points and rebuttals, no copying and pasting!

You copy and pasted what Christopher Hitchens had to say. I would like to know what you think about morality, not what Christopher Hitchens thinks.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:49 pm

I would like to know what you think about morality, not what Christopher Hitchens thinks.

I quoted a QUESTION, all of my points, rebuttals, views and questions (except the Hitchens one) are my own. Can you say honestly the same?

I know I broke the rules, but wasn't one of them to show references. Why did you not reference, your copied questions, or the list of Creation 'scientists'?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:44 am

I know I broke the rules, but wasn't one of them to show references. Why did you not reference, your copied questions, or the list of Creation 'scientists'?

Yeh fair point. I provided the source for the scientists when asked. So heres the source for those questions as well:

http://davidchristsuperstar.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/forty-four-questions-for-a-non-believer/

Right, enough of the arguing. Back to the debate:

The situation is if a healthy woman, comes across difficulties during the pregenancy, not that she is unwell before the conception.

Regardless of the women's health, the baby deserves a chance at life. What if in the future I became too ill to look after my parents, who where then elderly? Should my elderly parents be kept alive even though it might damage my health? Does the golden rule not put others before yourself? - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If a termanitation could have been carried out, therefore saving the womans life, then it would be wrong to let her die!

But the baby deserves a chance at life. The women has already had a chance at life. Therefore the baby deserves to live. Answer this; how common is abortion when the parents are married and fully consider their circumstances and choices before trying to have children?

True! But somethimes those dangers can be avoided by termination.
Thats not a good enough excuse for ending the life of an unborn child. The unborn baby wouldn't be getting a say in whether they live or die. This is one area where we shouldn't play God.

Actually, embryos are not classed as human. Forcing a woman to give birth to a baby that will kill her, is even more immoral, as she IS a human, and it is her body!

Answer this; does a potential life deserve to live or die?

Approx 50% of all conceptions end in a spontanous miscarriage. This would make God the biggest abortionist of all!

You said yourself that disease was the result of bacteria:

Quote:No it doesn't. People contract diseases because they live in a fallen world.
Nope, it's because of bacteria, viruses, and germs.

So how then can you turn round and say that God is responsible for spontaneous miscarriage? Are bacteria, viruses, and germs not some of the marks of the fall? I believe they are.

So as you see, you failed my chalenge again! Care to try again?

We already know its not your challenge, but I'll have another go anyhow.

What about evangelism? A believer knows a non-believer is going to hell. The moral thing would be to tell the non-believer that they are going to hell.

If you want non Bible sources about Jesus you can try these:

http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/mmlj000.html

Flavius Josephus, Antiquties of the Jews
Epitome from Church History of Agapius
Babylonian Talmud
Gaius Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars
Cornelius Tacitus, Annals
Mara bar Serapion, Letter to Son Serapion
Pliny the Younger, Letters to Trajan
ibid., Trajan's Reply

Another article about sources dealing with Jesus:

http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:38 am

Regardless of the women's health, the baby deserves a chance at life.

Then you are essentially sentencing a woman to death. Is that moral? Why is one ‘life’ more precious than another? (I do not see an embryo as a life, that is not to be confused with a more developed fetus)

What if in the future I became too ill to look after my parents, who where then elderly? Should my elderly parents be kept alive even though it might damage my health?

I find it sick that in this scenario you see their death as a better solution than a care home.

Does the golden rule not put others before yourself?

Read it again! It say treat other as you would like to be treated. It mentions nothing about putting others above yourself.

But the baby deserves a chance at life. The women has already had a chance at life.

Is there something wrong with you? The fetus is not a baby! Up until a certain point the fetus does not have a nervous system. No suffering would occur.

Answer this; how common is abortion when the parents are married and fully consider their circumstances and choices before trying to have children?

I don’t know. I have not seen any statistics. Have you?

Thats not a good enough excuse for ending the life of an unborn child. The unborn baby wouldn't be getting a say in whether they live or die. This is one area where we shouldn't play God.

Two things wrong with this statement. First, to claim that it is not a good excuse for ending the life of an unborn child, is idiotic. Especially as you suggest that:

But the baby deserves a chance at life. The women has already had a chance at life.

Is that a good excuse for ending the life of a young woman?

Second, you say that we shouldn’t play God, but isn’t that what you are doing when sacrificing the life of the mother?

Answer this; does a potential life deserve to live or die?

Let me put it into this context. Every cell in you body has the potential to become a life. Every time you scratch your nose you are committing a Holocaust of potential lives. Should we prevent people from scratching their noses?

You said yourself that disease was the result of bacteria:

Perhaps I should have provided these links:

http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/article.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/page2.htm#tocc

Spontaneous miscarriages are not caused by disease (sometimes diabetes). The reasons are not fully known.

So how then can you turn round and say that God is responsible for spontaneous miscarriage?

I did not say God was responsible. I don’t believe in God so that would be a stupid thing to say. However, if you claim that God thinks abortion is wrong, then how come ‘babies’ die before they are born? You claim we are born with sin, but what happens if we die before we are born?

re bacteria, viruses, and germs not some of the marks of the fall? I believe they are.

Yes you do. But considering I have proven the bible to be both inaccurate and flawed (and you have not challenged my ‘proofs’) then blaming the ‘fall’ is moronic and dishonest. But by all means, prove the infallibility of the bible.

What about evangelism? A believer knows a non-believer is going to hell. The moral thing would be to tell the non-believer that they are going to hell.

A more moral action would be for the evangelist to challenge God and say ‘If you love us, you will not send us to hell’. That would be more moral. But, again you failed. Am I immoral if I don’t evangelize? Or is a Christian immoral if they don’t either?

Flavius Josephus, Antiquties of the Jews

First of all I doubt you intelligence, as I already covered this earlier in the ‘debate’.

Epitome from Church History of Agapius

Eusebius of Caesarea, was born some 220 years after the death of Jesus. Do you really think this is a reliable ‘eyewitness’ account?

Babylonian Talmud

Have you read this? (Re-read the link you gave, and tell me what is wrong with its contents).

Gaius Suetonius

Again, no mention is made of Jesus. So it is not an account of anything supernatural.

Cornelius Tacitus

Written in the 2nd century C.E. Although it mentions Christians, it makes no mention of Jesus. And I doubt Jesus was the only Jew sentenced to death by Pilate. Again, no eyewitness account.

Would you like me to continue? Or shall I leave it to you for research practice?

One suggestion. Whenever you supply a list of non-biblical sources, or indeed a list of anything that I request, would you be so kind as to offer your interpretation along with it? Agree?

So for example, you would say: Josephus, he wrote blah blah blah …..

And again, the bold questions are the ones I want an answer to. Feel free to do the same.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:54 am

http://www.humanlife.org/abortion_tiredofrhetoric.php#q2

I quote:
What are the major developmental milestones for the unborn child?

Day 1 Fertilization: A completely unique human being is created with a complex set of DNA that determines the baby's gender, hair and eye color, height, skin tone, etc. From that moment on nothing new is added but oxygen, nutrition, and time.

http://www.prolifeaction.org/faq/unborn.htm
I quote as well:
When does life begin?
Biology is crystal clear that at the moment of conception (also known as fertilization), a unique, organism comes into existence. Since this new life possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life.

So at the moment of conception it is a human life and therefore does not deserve to die.

Then you are essentially sentencing a woman to death. Is that moral? Why is one ‘life’ more precious than another?
All life is precious.

Another point to note is the mental suffering that a women would go through if she choose to have an abortion. Therefore, its actually impossible to save the potential life of the unborn child or the life of the mother and not prevent some kind of suffering. Its a very difficult situation indeed.

I find it sick that in this scenario you see their death as a better solution than a care home.
Thats not my point. My point was about whether its right to murder somebody to preserve the life of another person.

Read it again! It say treat other as you would like to be treated. It mentions nothing about putting others above yourself.

If you assert that it says treat others as you would like to be treated, then obviously the women wouldn't want to die. Therefore she wouldn't want that on her unborn baby either. So how do you then apply the golden rule in that situation?

Is there something wrong with you? The fetus is not a baby! Up until a certain point the fetus does not have a nervous system. No suffering would occur.

Its a potential life. Abortion is in effect the destroying of a potential life. That is something I can not agree with.

I don’t know. I have not seen any statistics. Have you?
Nope. But you are less likely to have an abortion within marriage.

Is that a good excuse for ending the life of a young woman?

Second, you say that we shouldn’t play God, but isn’t that what you are doing when sacrificing the life of the mother?

Its not my fault if the women dies. But you can not end what could become a potential life.

Spontaneous miscarriages are not caused by disease (sometimes diabetes). The reasons are not fully known.
Then you can't blame God.

However, if you claim that God thinks abortion is wrong, then how come ‘babies’ die before they are born? You claim we are born with sin, but what happens if we die before we are born?

Its because of the fall that babies die before they are born. It is a terrible thing.

Let me put it into this context. Every cell in you body has the potential to become a life. Every time you scratch your nose you are committing a Holocaust of potential lives. Should we prevent people from scratching their noses?

It doesn't matter whether we scratch our noses. Preserving a potential life becomes an issue when the baby is conceived.

Am I immoral if I don’t evangelize? Or is a Christian immoral if they don’t either?
A non-believer couldn't evangelize in the way that a believer could.

Do you really think this is a reliable ‘eyewitness’ account?

Could still be accurate.

Have you read this? (Re-read the link you gave, and tell me what is wrong with its contents).
Oh yeh. Wrong person mentioned.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:22 am

So at the moment of conception it is a human life and
therefore does not deserve to die.

Sorry Dave, but these definitions and opinions are not scientific. They come from ‘pro-life’ organizations. This does not make them scientific. For example, a 3 day old embryo consists of approx 150 cells. No nervous system, no brain, no respiratory system, just a lump of cells. It sounds very cold, but it IS a fact. Like I mentioned before, any cell in the human body is a potential human life.

All life is precious.

If all life is precious, then why do you view the mother’s life a worth less than the unborn child? You obviously believe the Ishmaelites lives were not worth much, as you agreed with Moses slaughtering them.

Another point to note is the mental suffering that a
women would go through if she choose to have an abortion.

Very true. And I do not dispute that. But this only applies to forced abortions. If a woman chose herself to have an abortion, then the mental suffering would be less. Of course we can only speculate. I would never try and influence a woman either way. It is no ones decision but the mothers. Me, You and everyone else should stay out of it. Do you agree?

My point was about whether its right to murder
somebody to preserve the life of another person.

Why do you assume that your parents should be murdered? If you can’t care for them, then there are compassionate people in the world who would, both religious and non-religious.

If you assert that it says treat others as you would
like to be treated, then obviously the women wouldn't want to die. Therefore
she wouldn't want that on her unborn baby either. So how do you then apply the
golden rule in that situation?

But during the pregnancy, the embryo is part of her, not another individual. Again it sounds cold, but it’s a fact.

Its a potential life. Abortion is in effect the
destroying of a potential life. That is something I can not agree with.

Then you should really stop shedding skin, hair excrement and any other action that causes you to lose cells. As they are all potential life.

Nope. But you are less likely to have an abortion
within marriage.

You admit that you have seen no statistics, yet you then go on to make a baseless assumption. Do you agree that you are wrong to do so?

Its not my fault if the women dies. But you can not
end what could become a potential life.

But if you force her to give birth to that potential life, then you ARE responsible for her death. Why is a potential life worth more than an existing one?

Then you can't blame God.

I don’t believe in God, so I’m not. But if you are claiming than God does not like abortion, yet he allows it to happen daily, then you should blame him.

Its because of the fall that babies die before they
are born. It is a terrible thing.

And do those babies go to hell, because they don’t believe in Jesus? And how much is God a sick fuck for allowing that?

It doesn't matter whether we scratch our noses.
Preserving a potential life becomes an issue when the baby is conceived.

It does matter, as I mentioned above.

A non-believer couldn't evangelize in the way that a
believer could.

You didn’t answer my question:

Am I immoral if I don’t evangelize? Or is a Christian immoral if they don’t either?

Could still be accurate.

Indeed, I do not ‘not’ believe in Christians, I do not need further evidence that they exist. But all of the sources you provide do not mention an eyewitness account of Jesus.

Oh yeh. Wrong person mentioned.

Well done! So why supply it as a source?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:32 am

I saw this quote which I thought was interesting:

Dennis Prager says, 'Whenever I meet someone who claims to find faith in God impossible, but who persists in believing in the essential goodness of humanity, I know that I have met a person for whom evidence is irrelevant.' ( Ultimate Issues , July- September, 1989)

The quote is from this article:

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=23

Sorry Dave, but these definitions and opinions are not scientific. They come from ‘pro-life’ organizations. This does not make them scientific. For example, a 3 day old embryo consists of approx 150 cells. No nervous system, no brain, no respiratory system, just a lump of cells. It sounds very cold, but it IS a fact. Like I mentioned before, any cell in the human body is a potential human life.

What if a baby was born and once it was outside of the women it was discovered that there was something wrong with the baby .ie some kind of disease? Would you agree with murdering it? No you probably wouldn't. So why would you ever agree with murdering it when its still inside the women? The baby still deserves to live.

If all life is precious, then why do you view the mother’s life a worth less than the unborn child? You obviously believe the Ishmaelites lives were not worth much, as you agreed with Moses slaughtering them.

I view the life of the mother and the unborn baby equally. They are both precious. But you shouldn't have an abortion and end a potential life. And if the women dies, I agree its terrible. If God deemed to punish the Ishmaelites because they where sinful, then thats God's choice. After all sin is disobedience against God. Go on, prove to me that you can sin and not be going against God.

Very true. And I do not dispute that. But this only applies to forced abortions. If a woman chose herself to have an abortion, then the mental suffering would be less. Of course we can only speculate. I would never try and influence a woman either way. It is no ones decision but the mothers. Me, You and everyone else should stay out of it. Do you agree?

What about the husband/boyfriend? Does he not get a say in whether there is an abortion?

Stay out of it? I believe abortion is wrong. This highlights a more general issue with morality. If morality isn't set by a higher authority, then it becomes very difficult to tell anybody they are right or wrong. In the abortion situation you are saying its the mother's choice. You therefore can't tell her its right or wrong. So then this leads to the question of whether there is any action you can tell somebody its right or wrong. What if a murderer told you to stay out of if it when you tried to confront him about the morality of his actions?

Why do you assume that your parents should be murdered? If you can’t care for them, then there are compassionate people in the world who would, both religious and non-religious.
I'm not assuming parents should be murdered. I was just making a general point. Parents deserve life as much as an unborn baby because all life is precious.

You admit that you have seen no statistics, yet you then go on to make a baseless assumption. Do you agree that you are wrong to do so?

I'm making the assumption that abortion is less likely in marriage because when you think about it, it probably is. Now if something I assumed wasn't as clear as that, then I would need to show statistics. What do you reckon; is abortion more or less likely within marriage?

But if you force her to give birth to that potential life, then you ARE responsible for her death. Why is a potential life worth more than an existing one?

But if you force an abortion your responsible for the death of a potential life. There will always be a loser in the abortion issue. Thats what makes it so tough.

I don’t believe in God, so I’m not. But if you are claiming than God does not like abortion, yet he allows it to happen daily, then you should blame him.

No I shouldn't. God creates life, therefore He has the right to do whatever He likes with it. If you create something, you have the right to do whatever you like with it. Only God knows for sure why babies die before they are born.

And do those babies go to hell, because they don’t believe in Jesus?

You may or may not be aware of the Christian idea that babies go to Heaven if they die before the age of understanding. This idea comes from the following verses that deal with the death of the baby King David had with Bathsheba:

2SAMUEL 12
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

This then leads onto another issue about how you determine what the age of understanding is and whether mentally handicapped people who can't think for themselves should be sent to Heaven if they haven't reached the age of understanding. Its another difficult issue.

Well done! So why supply it as a source?

Obviously I will be more careful next time before using a source.

Indeed, I do not ‘not’ believe in Christians, I do not need further evidence that they exist. But all of the sources you provide do not mention an eyewitness account of Jesus.

Answer this; if you think the Gospels aren't accurate, then why has a tomb with a body still in it never been shown to the world? The Romans did know where Jesus was buried. Would there have been an easier way to quash the rise of Christianity than to just show the world the tomb with the body in it? But the Romans didn't show the tomb.

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Morality

Post by bennett_david on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:22 am

What if the victims of a murder where told by the police that the person who murdered couldn't be persecuted because the police couldn't interfere with the person and had to stay out of the murderer's decision making process when he choose to kill? Would that be fair? No it wouldn't. If we assert that abortion is the same as murder, which I do, then why should we stay out of the women's decision and yet make sure a murderer doesn't kill?

Every human action has to be either right or wrong. Its how we come to the decision as to whether a particular action is right or wrong that is very important. I might tell a women that abortion is wrong and she might respond that she thinks it is ok and that its her choice. Without humanity adhering to a higher authority setting standards of morality, how can two or more people agree that a certain action is actually right or wrong? This becomes even more difficult in today's society which brands about the need to not be intolerant; ie. Somebody telling you that they will get along with you so long as you never tell them anything they do is right or wrong.

William, if you base your morality on merely your feelings and not on a higher authority of any kind, then tell me how you can be sure that your feelings are reliable? You say murder is wrong, but how do you know it is? How do you think a German Nazi soldier would respond if you had told him your felt murder was wrong? On merely the use of your feelings as a yard stick how would you convince somebody that what you thought was right was right if they had a different view on the morality of that particular action?

“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.” (Time Magazine, December 23, 1940, p.38.)

* Albert Einstein

If I felt that murder was wrong, I could go to the Bible and see the Bible says that murder is wrong. So I would know that when I felt murder was wrong my feelings where correct. But if I disregarded the Bible and didn't believe in God, where could I turn to confirm if my feelings are right or wrong about a certain action? What about society? Well living in Northern Ireland murdering is wrong. But if I lived in Nazi second world war Germany turning to society to confirm whether my feelings about murder are right or wrong I might be confronted with a society where murder is Ok. So my feelings on murder and morality in general become relative to my circumstances and the society in which I find myself. If I had lived in second world war Germany, one of the ways I could have known murder was wrong would have been through the reading of the Bible and believing in God.

Quite a number of the laws passed over the years in Britain have had a Christian and Biblical basis. This is becoming less so nowadays though with the passing of laws dealing with abortion and gay rights etc.

So what about the issues the Bible doesn't give as clear cut an answer to like it does with murder? Well a Christian can pray to God and because the Christian has the Holy Spirit dwelling inside him he can be convicted by God that a particular action is either right or wrong. A non Christian won't have the Holy Spirit inside of him and if that person has feelings that some action is wrong, they could never be 100% sure whether its right or wrong if they met somebody else who felt differently about the morality of that action.

The moral law is written on the tablets of eternity. For every false word or unrighteous deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust or vanity, the price has to be paid at last.

Froude

Morality without religion, is only a kind of dead reckoning,—an endeavor to find our place on a cloudy sea by measuring the distance we have to run, but without any observation of the heavenly bodies.

Longfellow

* All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.
o Voltaire

I would have to agree with Voltaire. No matter what my circumstances are, I know that murder is wrong.

http://www.theopedia.com/Abortion

I quote:
Issues to consider
Human life is unique and made in God's own image (Genesis 1:26)
Shedding innocent blood is always condemned (cited above, plus 1 Samuel 19:5; 2Kings 21:16; 24:4; Psalm 106:38; Proverbs 6:17; Isaiah 59:7; Jeremiah 7:6; 22:3,17; 26:15; Joel 3:19; Jonah 1:14; Matthew 23:35; 27:4)
Jesus warned against viewing children as an inconvenience (Luke 18:15-17)
God has a purpose for everything, including our own suffering (Romans 8:28 )
Sometimes we suffer for our own sin (Hebrews 12:3-11)
Sometimes we suffer for someone else's sin (Genesis 50:20)
Sometimes we suffer to display God's grace and power (2 Corinthians 12:7-10)

Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

* American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4, 1969, ratified by 25 member-states of the Organization of American States

You might find this article interesting:

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6587

The article deals with women who have an abortion and don't experience miscarriages and end up with more mental problems long term than women who just experience a miscarriage.

I quote:
Recent research from Norway and New Zealand has reported an association between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. Although the two reports are not the first to suggest such a relationship, they are well designed studies suggesting that abortion may be linked to negative mental health reactions for some women.

The Norwegian study, published online by the journal BMC Medicine, compared the experiences of women who had miscarriages with those who had abortions. Six months after pregnancy termination, women who had a miscarriage were more distressed than women who had abortions. However, after five years, women who had abortions were more likely to suffer anxiety and intrusive thoughts of the event than women who miscarried.

The cruel irony is that abortion has been presented as something that would set a woman free. This brings to mind the gypsy in Verdi's opera Il Trovatore. Outraged by the count's cruel injustice, she stole his infant son and, in a crazed act of vengeance, flung him into the fire. Or so she thought. For, in turning around, she discovered the count's son lay safe on the ground behind her; it was her own son she had thrown into the flames. Abortion can present itself as glittering liberty, a defiant way to cast off the shackles of injustice. That illusion lasts only until you realize who it was that you threw into the flames. So the second point to make when trying to persuade is that abortion hurts women; it does not deliver on its promise to liberate them.

* Frederica Matthewes-Green, "Wanted: A New Pro-life Strategy", Christianity Today (January 12, 1998 ).

WHAT God did makes sense. It makes sense that Jesus would be our sacrifice because a sacrifice was needed to justify man's presence before God. ... However, WHY God did it is absolutely absurd. When one leaves the method and examines the motive, the carefully stacked blocks of logic begin to tumble. That type of love isn't logical; it can't be neatly outlined in a sermon or explained in a term paper. ... It IS inexplicable. It doesn't have a drop of logic nor a thread of rationality. And yet, it is that very irrationality that gives the gospel its greatest defense. For only God could love like that.

-- Max Lucado
Here is another interesting article:
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6892
This article details how there are more manuscripts for the New Testament than for any other document at that time. I quote:
In fact, if we compare the historical evidence for Jesus to the evidence for other figures who lived in ancient times, there’s just no comparison. Consider this: Although we don’t have the original documents of the New Testament, we do have several thousand copies—some of them written within a hundred years after Jesus lived.
Compare that to the evidence of several other writers. The Roman writer Tacitus is considered a first-rate historical source. Yet we have only twenty copies of his work, and the earliest manuscript is dated a thousand years after he lived. No one doubts the authenticity of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Yet the earliest copy of his work is dated fourteen hundred years after he lived. We all know about Julius Caesar. Yet the earliest copy of his Gallic Wars is dated a thousand years after the original.
The question this article raises is this; if people accept the authenticity of Aristotle then why not the New Testament? I would say one of the reasons why people don't accept the authenticity of the New Testament is because of the impact that authenticity would have on their own personal lives. If the New Testament and Jesus' teachings are true, which I believe they are, then surely it has to have an impact on humanity. People can't just ignore Jesus, unless they blindly ignore their own sin and decide its not a problem. Sin is a problem.

I believe the world is young (only thousands of years old rather than millions). Here is an interesting article:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/yng-old.pdf
I quote:
(a)The late Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, did extensive research into the decay of the Earth’s magnetic field. His findings indicated that the magnetic field had been created only a few thousand years ago and is decaying toward extinction (Barnes, 1973).
(b)Deep under the crust of the Earth lie huge reservoirs of oil and water. Many of these are characterized by extremely high fluid pressures. It is this high pressure that produces the “gushers” with which well drillers are so familiar. Now scientists are aware of the fact that these underground pressures are diminishing (much like air seeping from the tire of an automobile). What intrigues them is this: if this seepage has been going on for millions of years (evolutionists assume the reservoirs are millions of years old), why hasn’t the pressure been completely diminished? It is an acknowledged fact that the rock above these pressure pools, even under the strictest conditions, is porous enough to allow the pressure to escape in a matter of only a few thousand years (see Cook, 1960, pp. 254-262).
(c) Supposedly, meteorites have been falling from outer space to Earth for billions of years. If the various strata of the Earth required billions of years to establish, meteorites should be found all the way down in each individual stratum. But the fact is, meteorites have not been found in the so-called “older” strata. It thus would appear that the sedimentary strata were laid down in a relatively short period of time, thus explaining why the meteorites are found near the top. This fits well with the biblical narrative about the Genesis Flood (cf. Kofahl, 1980, p. 123).
(d) According to recognized population growth statistics, if man had been multiplying on Earth for one million years, there would be more people than could be jammed into the entire known Universe! And remember, evolutionists claim that man has been here two to three million years!

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Gospels and the Tomb

Post by bennett_david on Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:23 am

One more issue. If the Gospels had been made up and Jesus was still dead and buried in a tomb, would Christianity have spread in the way it did? In Acts it says:
Acts 5
33 When they heard that , they were cut to the heart , and took counsel to slay them.
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
In this account in Acts the High Priest is questioning the Apostles, and during the discussion it is mentioned that if this thing be of God it cannot be defeated.

So we can make 3 conclusions: Either the Romans and the High Priest didn't know where Jesus was buried (highly unlikely), the Romans and High Priest knew where the tomb was but there was no body in it or the Romans and High Priest knew where the tomb was but never bothered to mention it to try and quash the rise of Christianity.

This passage tells how the Roman Soldiers where paid to lie about the body of Jesus having been stolen by the disciples:
MATTHEW 28
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
Now if Jesus was still dead, the chrief priests would not have had to make the soldiers lie because the body would still have been in the tomb and the Romans would have known where the tomb was and could have shown the world that tomb to quash the rise of Christianity. The disciples would have never stolen the body because if Jesus was still dead a dead body would have been useless to them in terms of starting up the world's biggest religion; Christianity. Christianity would never have spread because it would have been merely of men and would have come to nothing.

So this all points to a resurrection that took place, a Savior Jesus (who can deal with our sins when we repent and put our trust in Him) who rose and is alive today and which led to the spread of Christianity.

Jesus
In Christianity, the son of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity.

Christian doctrine holds that by his crucifixion and resurrection he paid for the sins of all mankind. His life and ministry are recounted in the four Gospels of the New Testament. He was born a Jew in Bethlehem before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, and he died while Pontius Pilate was Roman governor of Judaea (AD 28–30). His mother, Mary, was married to Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth (see St. Joseph). Of his childhood after the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, nothing is known, except for one visit to Jerusalem with his parents. He began his ministry about age 30, becoming a preacher, teacher, and healer. He gathered disciples in the region of Galilee, including the 12 Apostles, and preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. His moral teachings, outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, and his reported miracles won him a growing number of followers, who believed that he was the promised messiah. On Passover he entered Jerusalem on a donkey, where he shared the Last Supper with his disciples and was betrayed to the Roman authorities by Judas Iscariot. Arrested and tried, he was condemned to death as a political agitator and was crucified and buried. Three days later visitors to his tomb found it empty. According to the Gospels, he appeared several times to his disciples before ascending into heaven.
- "Jesus." from Encyclopædia Britannica. (2007).

11 of Jesus' disciples where martyred:

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/disciples.html

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.
Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until he was dead.
Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.
John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.
Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died.
James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.
James the Greater, a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.
Bartholomew, also know as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed to our Lord in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was flayed to death by a whip.
Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.
The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the subcontinent.
Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.
Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.
Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.
The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67.
Would they have died if they knew Jesus was still dead? I think not.

A Heavenly Master governs all the world as Sovereign of the universe. We are astonished at Him by reason of His perfection, we honor Him and fall down before Him because of His unlimited power. From blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety adhering to time and place could evolve, and all variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God.

Isaac Newton

I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the sort of thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

* C.S. Lewis (from: Mere Christianity)

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:18 am

Reply to Dave post 1 of 3:

What if a baby was born and once it was outside of
the women it was discovered that there was something wrong with the baby .ie
some kind of disease? Would you agree with murdering it? No you probably
wouldn't. So why would you ever agree with murdering it when its still inside
the women? The baby still deserves to live.

Your quite right, I wouldn’t agree with murdering it. Nor do I think abortions should be carried out after approx 20 weeks, as current evidence suggests that at this stage the unborn foetus has some form of nervous system. However, before that, the ‘Unborn Baby’ is not a baby. I am not saying abortion is right, but I am certainly saying that it is not totally wrong either. There are circumstances when it is beneficial that an abortion should be carried out, but do I agree that it is ok for a woman to have an abortion, simply because it is an inconvenience? No, but it is not my body, and I have no say in the matter.

I view the life of the mother and the unborn baby
equally. They are both precious.

Apologies Dave, but you don’t. You have already stated that in a scenario of ‘mother’ or ‘foetus’ you would pick foetus, despite the FACT that the foetus has no nervous system, or sense of pain, yet the mother should die, because it has potential?

But you shouldn't have an abortion and end a
potential life. And if the women dies, I agree its terrible. If God deemed to
punish the Ishmaelites because they where sinful, then thats God's choice.

But what happened to free will?

After all sin is disobedience against God. Go on,
prove to me that you can sin and not be going against God.

Prove to me God exists!

What about the husband/boyfriend? Does he not get a
say in whether there is an abortion?

Tough one! I don’t think so, because at the end of the day, it is the woman’s body.

Stay out of it? I believe abortion is wrong. This
highlights a more general issue with morality. If morality isn't set by a
higher authority, then it becomes very difficult to tell anybody they are right
or wrong.

Dave, you admit that that higher authority picks and chooses what is moral. Your higher authority, deems slavery as moral, or at least, ok. Your higher authority deems the genocide of the Ishmaelite’s as ok, Moses murdering an Egyptian as ok. The least your higher authority could do is be consistent.

In the abortion situation you are saying its the
mother's choice. You therefore can't tell her its right or wrong. So then this
leads to the question of whether there is any action you can tell somebody its
right or wrong. What if a murderer told you to stay out of if it when you tried
to confront him about the morality of his actions?

You are comparing two very different scenarios. The murderer is causing suffering and pain to another human, the mother is not! If you have a tumour on your leg and it needs to be amputated, who do you think should have the final decision on the course of action to take? You or the doctor?

I'm not assuming parents should be murdered. I was
just making a general point. Parents deserve life as much as an unborn baby
because all life is precious.

Are you sure? I mean, if the stem cells form a 3 day old embryo can be used to cure Parkinson’s, is there anything wrong with using them to do so? Which do you think suffers more, the embryo, or the Parkinson’s sufferer?

I’m going to make a bold statement here, and don’t take it out of context, it’s in relation to your ‘all life is precious’ comment...

Some people deserve to be killed!

I'm making the assumption that abortion is less
likely in marriage because when you think about it, it probably is.

It probably is, but don’t state it as fact, without evidence to back it up.

Now if something I assumed wasn't as clear as that,
then I would need to show statistics. What do you reckon; is abortion more or
less likely within marriage?

I don’t know!

But if you force an abortion your responsible for
the death of a potential life. There will always be a loser in the abortion
issue. Thats what makes it so tough.

I would never force any woman to have an abortion!

No I shouldn't. God creates life, therefore He has
the right to do whatever He likes with it.

Again, if this is true, then we don’t have ‘Free Will!’ Do you agree?

If you create something, you have the right to do
whatever you like with it.

Then abortion is ok! The parents made the baby!

You may or may not be aware of the Christian idea
that babies go to Heaven if they die before the age of understanding. This idea
comes from the following verses that deal with the death of the baby King David
had with Bathsheba:

Christians also have a habit of picking and choosing parts of the Old Testament, what makes you think this is not discarded with the law of not eating shell fish? This also raises the question of Original Sin. If unborn babies go to heaven, then it is safe to say that we are not born with original sin. It also asks the question, and I want an answer, at what age does this free pass to heaven expire?

if you think the Gospels aren't accurate, then why
has a tomb with a body still in it never been shown to the world?

Because at that time, there was a new messiah born every day, and killed every day. What did the Romans have to gain from showing a tomb with a body in it? It wasn’t as if Millions of Christians existed back then. At most maybe a few hundred!

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:18 am

Reply to Dave post 2 of 3:

What if the victims of a murder where told by the
police that the person who murdered couldn't be persecuted because the police
couldn't interfere with the person and had to stay out of the murderer's
decision making process when he choose to kill? Would that be fair? No it
wouldn't. If we assert that abortion is the same as murder, which I do, then
why should we stay out of the women's decision and yet make sure a murderer
doesn't kill?

I covered this in my previous post.

Every human action has to be either right or wrong.

Really? Was Moses action to murder the Egyptian right or wrong? Or the genocide of the Ishmaelites etc?

Answer this truthfully:
Imagine you are in the company of a terrorist. He tells you there is a bomb in a city. He knows where it is, and when it is going to go off. Now this city is too large to be evacuated in time, so you must find out where that bomb is. How would you do it? Needless to say, the terrorist is not going to just tell you. But you know this bomb will kill thousands. What action are you willing to take in order to ascertain the location of the bomb? Would you torture the terrorist? Put him through excruciating pain to get him to talk, and save thousands of innocent people? What would be the moral action? To ascertain the location by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, or let thousands of people die because of you religious belief? What would you do?

William, if you base your morality on merely your
feelings and not on a higher authority of any kind, then tell me how you can be
sure that your feelings are reliable?

They are not always, neither are yours.

You say murder is wrong, but how do you know it is?
How do you think a German Nazi soldier would respond if you had told him your
felt murder was wrong?

Chances are that Nazi soldier would say he is doing God’s work.

On merely the use of your feelings as a yard stick
how would you convince somebody that what you thought was right was right if
they had a different view on the morality of that particular action?

I could tell a would-be murderer that murder is wrong until I was blue in the face that may not make a difference to him/her. But it is my duty to my society to intervene if I thought this person would carry out a murder. I do not wish suffering on any innocent person, a murder is inflicted on a second party. If the same person wanted to cut his foreskin off, then it’s none of my business, weather I think it’s right or wrong.

“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s
campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the
Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the
Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual
truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised
I now praise unreservedly.” (Time Magazine, December 23, 1940, p.38.)

* Albert Einstein

If you read this Time magazine it provides no verifiable attribution. For example, Einstein makes no mention of the persecution of the Jews. A man of Einstein’s intellect would never be so foolish as to claim he once ‘despised’ something in which he also ‘never had any special interest.’ One big problem is that this statement never appears in any anthology of Einstein’s written or spoken works. According to William Waterhouse (Author, Misquoting Einstein), he found an unpublished letter in the Eintein archives in Jerusalem, dated 1947, complaining of having made a remark praising some German clergymen – not churches – which had been exaggerated. What Einstein did have to say was:

I hope that healthy conditions will soon supervene in Germany and that in future her great men like Kant and Goethe will not merely be commemorated from time to time but that the principles which they taught will also prevail in public life and in the general consciousness.

If I felt that murder was wrong, I could go to the
Bible and see the Bible says that murder is wrong.

According to the bible, murder is not always wrong!

So I would know that when I felt murder was wrong my
feelings where correct. But if I disregarded the Bible and didn't believe in
God, where could I turn to confirm if my feelings are right or wrong about a
certain action?

I have already explained this countless times, on this forum alone.

Well living in Northern Ireland murdering is wrong.
But if I lived in Nazi second world war Germany turning to society to confirm
whether my feelings about murder are right or wrong I might be confronted with
a society where murder is Ok.

No they didn’t!

So my feelings on murder and morality in general
become relative to my circumstances and the society in which I find myself. If
I had lived in second world war Germany, one of the ways I could have known
murder was wrong would have been through the reading of the Bible and believing
in God.

Chances are that if you were in Germany in the 2nd World War, you would have been a Catholic. And if you somehow knew what was actually going on, then you probably would have agreed with the church and thought it was right. Do you think Einstein thought murder was ok?

Quite a number of the laws passed over the years in
Britain have had a Christian and Biblical basis. This is becoming less so
nowadays though with the passing of laws dealing with abortion and gay rights
etc.

The abolition of slavery was not based on the bible. Nor were the laws regarding Homosexuality. The ‘morals’ in the bible are the same morals that are laws in every other society in the world. Name me a society where there is NO religion, and murder, rape and prudery are allowed?

So what about the issues the Bible doesn't give as
clear cut an answer to like it does with murder? Well a Christian can pray to
God and because the Christian has the Holy Spirit dwelling inside him he can be
convicted by God that a particular action is either right or wrong. A non
Christian won't have the Holy Spirit inside of him and if that person has
feelings that some action is wrong, they could never be 100% sure whether its
right or wrong if they met somebody else who felt differently about the
morality of that action.

What if your pastor, who I assume you believe has the Holy Spirit, say he thinks murder is ok? Is he right or wrong? You will say wrong, simply because you disagree with it. I guarantee you, that you would not for one second think that maybe he is right, after all he does have the Holy Spirit!

What about the 99.8% of American prisoners who believe in God? If they had the Holy Spirit, then why are they in Jail? Only 0.2% of American prisoners are atheists. If you were right and Believers are more moral than non-believers, then why aren’t there more atheists in jail?

I would have to agree with Voltaire. No matter what
my circumstances are, I know that murder is wrong.

So do the Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Vikings, Christians, Jews, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Myans, Buddhists and yes, even atheists.

The question this article raises is this; if people
accept the authenticity of Aristotle then why not the New Testament?

Because Aristotle is not making any extraordinary claims. There is a debate as to whether or not Shakespeare wrote his plays. If he didn’t would that make much of a difference on the world? If Jesus was born of a Virgin and cheated death, then that affects the workings of the whole universe. That is why they are unbelievable.

I would say one of the reasons why people don't
accept the authenticity of the New Testament is because of the impact that
authenticity would have on their own personal lives.

Then you would be wrong!

If the New Testament and Jesus' teachings are true,
which I believe they are, then surely it has to have an impact on humanity.

I’m sure they have. Just look at the Crusades, witch hunts and Conquistadores and all of the other atrocities committed in the name of Jesus and his/himself God.

I believe the world is young (only thousands of
years old rather than millions). Here is an interesting article:

Dave, I know for a fact you do not understand this article so I am not going to waste my time explaining how Thomas Barnes got it wrong regarding Magnetic decay etc. Refrain from copying and pasting things you do not understand.

Why not instead, go to your Christian sites, and gather all these ‘facts’ then go to a genuine scientific site and see if the scientific community agree with them. You will find that they do not.

I think your ‘faith’ acts as a comforter to you. You are like a child with a dummy and you do not want to part with is because it makes you feel insecure and weak. It is your fear that stops you from carrying out REAL research.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:35 am

Reply to Dave post 3 of 3:

One more issue. If the Gospels had been made up and
Jesus was still dead and buried in a tomb, would Christianity have spread in
the way it did? In Acts it says:

I have covered this in my previous post.

So we can make 3 conclusions: Either the Romans and
the High Priest didn't know where Jesus was buried (highly unlikely), the
Romans and High Priest knew where the tomb was but there was no body in it or
the Romans and High Priest knew where the tomb was but never bothered to
mention it to try and quash the rise of Christianity.

There was no ‘rise of Christianity’. There was a cult. It eventually grew. If Muhammad did not rise to heaven on a winged horse, then why can’t Christians show his burial site? Does this mean he actually did rise to heaven?

This passage tells how the Roman Soldiers where paid
to lie about the body of Jesus having been stolen by the disciples:

Very good storytelling. Now, if one of those Roman soldiers decided to write about being bribed then it would be more believable. And besides, how did Matthew know what went on behind closed doors?

Now if Jesus was still dead, the chrief priests
would not have had to make the soldiers lie because the body would still have
been in the tomb and the Romans would have known where the tomb was and could
have shown the world that tomb to quash the rise of Christianity.

Let us assume that there was no body in the tomb, that does not mean that Jesus was the son of God. There are cases of people surviving crucifixion. Josephus Flavius writes about one such case. Would it not be more feasible that Jesus survived and went into hiding?

The disciples would have never stolen the body
because if Jesus was still dead a dead body would have been useless to them in
terms of starting up the world's biggest religion; Christianity.

Surely their motive should have been praising God, not starting a religion! I guess you admit that they were trying to start a religion, what better way than to lie in a book.

So this all points to a resurrection that took
place, a Savior Jesus (who can deal with our sins when we repent and put our
trust in Him) who rose and is alive today and which led to the spread of
Christianity.

As I have shown, it doesn’t!

11 of Jesus' disciples where martyred:

September 11th 2001 19 Muslim’s were martyred! So what?

Would they have died if they knew Jesus was still
dead? I think not.

Would they have died if Allah was not real, or Muhammad a liar?

Dave, random quotes (all of which I have heard before) do not help your case, merely hinder them. What were Isaac Newton, C.S. Lewis and the 11 disciples? All men! And what did you say about the reliability of men:

...it would have been merely of men and would have come to nothing.

If you claim that men are flawed, then don’t use them as evidence to back up your points.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 15 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 ... 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum