Abortion

[Dante the Marxist]

I suppose this thread is gone now...See yall later.

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you know Lakeman? I have one bias and you have the mirror image bias. Everything in the Bible is good to you, but I am selective in my acceptance of genocide, rape, murder, incest, etc. Much of Jesus' teachings are good, but that cannot be said of a lot of the rest of Bible.

You call me nuts, but have yet to show anywhere that I am misquoting the Bible and even YOUR citations often lend support to my positions.

I know Lakeman very well. Not just online but in real life. You seem to think that we handle things differently. You think he is more educated and smoother. How different do you think we are?

You are not nuts as far as I know. But you post some very nutty things. Your posts have been clearly and blatantly shown to be misrepresentations of the bible yet you don't acknowledge that.

 

[Dr.Who]

Here's a good example of someone of your faith, Who, with an interpretation far more Christ-like than your own. You gonna call Archbishop Tutu nuts too?

"Live from South Africa, it's Archbishop Desmond Tutu! The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate was honored by the 2009 Vancouver Peace Summit over the weekend (he appeared via satellite from South Africa), and took the chance to call out religion and religious leaders who use their faith as a means of bashing marginalized groups.

Tutu said that religion has often been used almost diabolically to encourage such things as xenophobia and homophobia, according to the Canadian Press. In the wake of such twisted faith, Tutu said that he can understand why many groups view religion with a fair share of skepticism.

"I sometimes wonder how people could ever think that God is a Christian," Tutu said. "The spirit of God is wider than any one particular faith."

Tutu has long been a champion for equal rights. He's gone so far as to say that homophobia equals apartheid (no light-weight comparison, given Tutu's familiarity with the subject), and has been a proponent of the freedom to marry, openly calling out governments who waste their time worrying about what private citizens are doing in the bedroom instead of focusing on issues like poverty, health care, and war."
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/vi...lical_use_of_religion_to_encourage_homophobia

I agree with 99% of that, maybe 100%.

 

[dahermit]

In light of the fact that fundamentalists, Conservatives, et. al., believe that abortion is the killing of a human being and Liberals disagree, wishing to continue the practice for the benefit of society by not raising unwanted children, I propose a third option.

If a surgical technique could be perfected that would remove an embryo without killing it, and then frozen (and stored indefinitely), as are many embryos are done currently that are fertilized in vitro, the embryo is thus not "murdered" as described by the right, but is never raised in a negative environment as should satisfy the left.

What say you on the Right? Would that satisfy legal and moral (religious) reservations?

Since there has not been any significant objection to this alternative to abortion, let us take it a few steps further. Use a endoscopic camera to find the fetus on the uterus wall, use suction to remove it. At this point, I suggested that the fetus was not harmed and would be frozen. However, it is not essential that the fetus not be harmed (no longer viable) because it (in theory) is never going to be implanted anyway. The right wingers are not likely to check because they always insist that they want, "smaller government", so if the fetus was no longer viable, they will not be aware of that fact. Also, wanting, "smaller government", the right wing will logically not wish to set-up oversight to assure that the fetus is actually being frozen and not flushed. "Of course we are freezing all those fetuses.", wink, wink.

Therefore, it would appear that the technology exists for the proposed procedure, and could be performed under the noses of those who wish to stop abortion. Let's do it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I know Lakeman very well. Not just online but in real life. You seem to think that we handle things differently. You think he is more educated and smoother. How different do you think we are?

You are not nuts as far as I know. But you post some very nutty things. Your posts have been clearly and blatantly shown to be misrepresentations of the bible yet you don't acknowledge that.

Addressing the bolded part of your post: Bullsh1t! You have not, and neither has Lakeman, shown that I have misrepresented what is WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH in the Bible.

On a side note, Lakeman has lied deliberately and with malice aforethought to me and I no longer address him because of that. I have to assume from what you wrote that you are Lakeman posting under a different name, but some of what you write is quite different from some of the stuff he's written. The only explanation I have for this is that you have changed your opinions or your approach since I last posted to Lakeman some months ago.

 

[Dr.Who]

Since there has not been any significant objection to this alternative to abortion, let us take it a few steps further. Use a endoscopic camera to find the fetus on the uterus wall, use suction to remove it. At this point, I suggested that the fetus was not harmed and would be frozen. However, it is not essential that the fetus not be harmed (no longer viable) because it (in theory) is never going to be implanted anyway. The right wingers are not likely to check because they always insist that they want, "smaller government", so if the fetus was no longer viable, they will not be aware of that fact. Also, wanting, "smaller government", the right wing will logically not wish to set-up oversight to assure that the fetus is actually being frozen and not flushed. "Of course we are freezing all those fetuses.", wink, wink.

Therefore, it would appear that the technology exists for the proposed procedure, and could be performed under the noses of those who wish to stop abortion. Let's do it.

the details are not even important.

What is important is that the intent to kill is not there and the best effort to maintain life is. Intentionally leaving a fetus frozen to eventually die would not be consistent with that intent.

 

[Dr.Who]

Addressing the bolded part of your post: Bullsh1t! You have not, and neither has Lakeman, shown that I have misrepresented what is WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH in the Bible.

On a side note, Lakeman has lied deliberately and with malice aforethought to me and I no longer address him because of that. I have to assume from what you wrote that you are Lakeman posting under a different name, but some of what you write is quite different from some of the stuff he's written. The only explanation I have for this is that you have changed your opinions or your approach since I last posted to Lakeman some months ago.

The differences between Lakeman and myself are more likely that you don't understand what I am saying. But hey, I am not the one taking two different bible stories and combining them to create one new story with a completely different meaning.

 

[dahermit]

Your posts have been clearly and blatantly shown to be misrepresentations of the bible yet you don't acknowledge that.

How is it that your interpretations are correct and hers are misrepresentations? On who's authority?

 

[dahermit]

the details are not even important.

What is important is that the intent to kill is not there and the best effort to maintain life is. Intentionally leaving a fetus frozen to eventually die would not be consistent with that intent.

You really missed that one.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The differences between Lakeman and myself are more likely that you don't understand what I am saying. But hey, I am not the one taking two different bible stories and combining them to create one new story with a completely different meaning.

Nor am I. And I am not taking the words in the Bible and claiming that murder, kidnapping, and rape are really "adoption" either as Lakey has done.

You keep saying I'm nuts and misquoting and all, but you have not yet proven those accusations. Your "no sir, no sir" arguments ring just as hollow as your dimissal of Jesus' two commandments.

 

[Dr.Who]

How is it that your interpretations are correct and hers are misrepresentations? On who's authority?

Befcause MT chooses to take elements from two different events and combine them together to make a new story line.

Do you agree with MT that this:

" 1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

5 Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully [a] that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul's officers as well.

6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. 7 As they danced, they sang:
"Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his tens of thousands."

and this

" David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most."

can be interpreted with a good interpretation to mean that David and Jonathon were lying around on the ground naked together making love?

If you find at all that you need the whole context chapter 19 and 20 can be found here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Samuel+20&version=NIV

If in some odd twist of fate you agree with MT we can start a new thead with a poll and see if people think that is nuts or reasonable.

 

[Dr.Who]

Nor am I. And I am not taking the words in the Bible and claiming that murder, kidnapping, and rape are really "adoption" either as Lakey has done.

You keep saying I'm nuts and misquoting and all, but you have not yet proven those accusations. Your "no sir, no sir" arguments ring just as hollow as your dimissal of Jesus' two commandments.

I am not saying you are nuts and your continual assertion that I am is unfounded. The things you post are nuts. You are really good at reading things into bible passages that are not there.

 

[dahermit]

If in some odd twist of fate you agree with MT we can start a new thead with a poll and see if people think that is nuts or reasonable.

I never said that I agreed with MT's interpretation. My point is: The bible not being written in moder English, it is open to interpretation (as I believe that you have so stated in a previous post). Given that, one can disagree with someones interpretation and can so state that they disagree. But, there is no divine assurance (unless God has reveled its meaning to you) that your own interpretation is any better than hers. If that were not true, there would be only one Christian church.

 

[Dr.Who]

I never said that I agreed with MT's interpretation. My point is: The bible not being written in moder English, it is open to interpretation (as I believe that you have so stated in a previous post). Given that, one can disagree with someones interpretation and can so state that they disagree. But, there is no divine assurance (unless God has reveled its meaning to you) that your own interpretation is any better than hers. If that were not true, there would be only one Christian church.

Yes it is subject to interpretation.

Yes if a person receives divine revelation they can know that they have a better interpretation.

Which means that you agree some interpretations are better than others.

And when an interpretation is so obviously and blantantly not related to the words on the page we can compare it to an interpretation that is related better and say that the latter is a better interpretation.

You DO agree that claiming David and Jonathan were lying on the ground together having sex based on those passages is nuts? Right?

Whereas saying that Jopnathan gave his military apparel to David so that he would be able to fight makes more sense. Right?

No appeal to divine revelation. Just one interpretation makes more sense than the other.

 

[dahermit]

Yes if a person receives divine revelation they can know that they have a better interpretation.

The only people who hear God speak (divine revelation) are psychotics.

Which means that you agree some interpretations are better than others.

No, The original meaning can only be known to those who wrote it, and subject to a number of factors which could obscure what the author meant. For instance the author's ability, or inability to express himself in written form.

And when an interpretation is so obviously and blantantly not related to the words on the page we can compare it to an interpretation that is related better and say that the latter is a better interpretation.

Some Bible scholars state that much of what the Bible says is not to be taken literally, but is symbolism, etc. Therefore, any interpretation cannot be considered any more valid than another.

You DO agree that claiming David and Jonathan were lying on the ground together having sex based on those passages is nuts? Right?

I was not there. It is likely however, that there were homosexuals in those times as there are now. Who knows exactly what the author was trying to express. Could it be that "Lying with a woman" "Lying on the ground", are meant in the same context? I do not know, I was not there.

Whereas saying that Jopnathan gave his military apparel to David so that he would be able to fight makes more sense. Right?

It could have been a symbolic gesture for whatever reason. I do not know what the social customs of the day were. It could have been for many different reasons.

No appeal to divine revelation. Just one interpretation makes more sense than the other.

One interpretation makes more sense to you than the other.
Instead of stating that an interpretation is nuts, you should perhaps limit your comments to a statement of disagreement and the reasons why: "I do not agree with your interpretation because...."