Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 26 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 25 26
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Quote
However, in the context of "true believers" and those motivated FOR abortion for "financial gain," I believe it is correct. They "will not" be "swayed" by any argurments that are "pro-life," as evidenced by Barak Obama and his support for infanticide as a personal and politically expedient thing to do.

So..."palling around with terrorists" didn't work and now it's on to the next smear.

The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

The justification for Hudson's misleading "infanticide" charge stems from a proposed state version of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act, debated in Illinois when Obama was a state senator in 2001. The most well-publicized portion of that bill would have required that any "viable" fetus surviving a late-term abortion receive sustaining medical care (something which opponents of that bill said was already required by a 1975 bill in the state). But because Obama voted "no" in committee and "present" on the Senate floor, Hudson reasons, Obama must have been in favor of killing viable, born babies -- especially since the U.S. Congress also passed a "born alive" measure in 2002 in near unanimous fashion.

"Unlike Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to support the [2002 federal] bill," Hudson wrote earlier this year. "In fact, the bill passed the Senate 98 to 0 with pro-abortion senators like Boxer (D-CA) and Reid (D-NV) supporting it. In 2003, the bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature for the third time and directed to a committee chaired by Obama, Health and Human Services. They refused to bring the bill to a vote. Only when Obama left for Washington in 2005 did the Born Alive Infant Protection Act pass the Illinois legislature. It's for good reason Barack Obama has been called 'the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.'"

One significant problem with Hudson's logic is that it requires comparing apples to oranges. The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact. Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Illinois State Representative Rosemary Mulligan sighed when the Huffington Post told her about the "infanticide" claim currently being leveled at Obama. As a pro-choice Republican who is supporting John McCain for president but also worked with Obama back in 2001, she described the first Illinois version of the Born Alive legislation as "a very onerous bill," adding that "I think that the hardcore, hard right conservative Catholics overreach on this one."


Want2Stay









BS-me 36
FWW-34
DS-7 & DS-3
PA - 7/06-8/06
EA - 6/06-1/07
D-Day: wife confessed 2-17-07, suspected 8-02-06
Broke NC: 2-19-07, 3-24-07, 5/07
My Story
My Wife's Story
---------------------
Healing one day at a time.....
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Quote
That is the equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard for me! (Bush drives me absolutely bugnuts with that!)

LOL

I think GWB's mispronouncement of that word has a mischievous intent...I think he deliberately gives his own spin to the word just to provoke pompous pundits/liberals. grin

He's not that intelligent.

-ol' 2long

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Originally Posted by 2long
I should add that myths 2 the Old Testament folks are like parables 2 the New Testament folks. They serve the same purpose and work the same way.

Spoken like a true unbeliever, 2long. From your perspective, what other possible explanation could be true?

I guess that makes sense since Fairy Tales are like facts to the Evolutionist folks, don't you think? "Make believe" masquerading as "learned scientific facts." Out of the imagination of man.... (Punctuated Equilibrium [just another attempt at the "Hopeful Monster" myth of yesteryear, but with a little lipstick on it to make it look better] masquerading as Science, for example, coming from the imaginings of a man, to "explain" why there ARE NO "missing links" and how "nature" somehow "got around" the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Information Theory problems)

Uniformitarianism....now there's a great geological/scientific myth that has been the underlying principle of evolution. Do you accept uniformitarianism or catastrophism, as a geologist, 2long? Where in the world can I go and see the entire "Geologic Column," by the way? Another fairytale I'd love to actually go and see. Also, IF the Geologic Column is true, why are some "ages" inverted in many deposits?

Referring back to the quotation, it would appear that these "myths" of uniformitarianism and the geologic column "serve the same purpose and work the same way for "true believers" in naturalism and evolution.

2funny, FH. You apparently started this post on the defensive for some reason I can't fathom. Then you dredged up an old attack of yours on evolution 2 put me on the defensive.

Nice try.

Persevere!

-ol' 2long

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by rprynne
I'm not sure additional elaboration is neccessary. I asked a question, you feel you answered it, I am saying ok.

What else can I say, what I hear is that because you believe you are right, all your arguements are fair and reasonable. When I say I don't think all your arguements are fair and reasonable, you tell me that they are, because you are right.

You are perplexed why I have an issue with that, and then you tell me that the problem with evolutionary scientists is that they do the same thing.

I don't think any further discussion is going to change that.

Rprynne - it is certainly your right to discuss or not discuss anything you wish.

And you are correct, I am not going to change my position about creation. I was an evolutionist at one point in my life and I CHOSE creation despite all of the evolutionary "training" I had received and despite all of the evolutinary "theories" that were presented as facts, by examining those theories and what was presented as "facts" that "prove" evolution.

However, as a proponent of evolution, or as one who might be "undecided" about how things actually DID get here (since we DO exist, as do all the various forms of life), it does not seem "unfair" nor "unreasonable" to ask about and examine some of the claims of evolution. That IS how learning proceeds it would seem.



"When I say I don't think all your arguements are fair and reasonable, you tell me that they are, because you are right."

A couple of points about this statement, rprynne. First, I think my arguments for creation and against evolution are fair and reasonable because I am not afraid to examine them and consider all the arguments. Second, if you don't think my arguments are "fair and reasonable," then it would seem to make sense to talk about WHY you think they are unfair or unreasonable, with whatever scientific data you wish to use as the "point" or "points" of examination by which interpretations of said data can be made. That DOES seem like a "fair and reasonable" approach, don't you think?


Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by 2long
2funny, FH. You apparently started this post on the defensive for some reason I can't fathom. Then you dredged up an old attack of yours on evolution 2 put me on the defensive.

Nice try.

Persevere!

-ol' 2long


2long, one good "myth" idea deserves another.

I see you've answered my questions in typical evolutionist fashion, ignore the "problem areas" of evolutionary theory.

If you'll allow me to "borrow" one of your latest responsive quotes....

rotflmao

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
This particular creation vs. evolution debate centers around how life began, correct?

Because evolution after life began is scientific fact.

That's not to say "we came from monkeys", but life does evolve.

Nobody "knows" how life began. Not yet, at least. To claim to know is to claim to have access to knowledge that is, as of right now, unattainable.


Divorced
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Krazy, yes, I believe that Satan is an actual being, very powerful but not Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, etc.

This doesn't make sense. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, where is there room for Satan?

Quote
Man, evolutionarily speaking, can't have a "dark side," as it's "survival of the fittest" by any means possible that the individual can use. "Good and evil" are moral concepts that are rooted in a STANDARD of what Good is, and that Standard IS God, with Satan being the Standard of what is evil.

Sounds metaphorical, and so far as this goes, I can accept it. I just don't think the metaphors are necessary, and when you set them aside or look in2 their meanings (like looking in2 the meanings behind the literal wordings of myths and parables), it is just as valid 2 describe this "evil" as "man's dark side" as it is 2 name it Satan.

Quote
Atheists remove both God and Satan "from the equation," and try to establish "Relative morality" in its place. The problem with that is WHO gets to determine the STANDARD by which judgments are made concerning thoughts and behaviors so as to IMPOSE on anyone other than self a determination of "Good or Bad, Sinful or not Sinful?"

Don't hurt yourself worrying about this, FH. I don't, and I doubt Krazy does either. But I'll let him speak for himself. Morality IS relative, but it's developed over hundreds of thousands of years (at least) as humanity evolved as a species and formed communities.

Quote
In a strictly "natural world" with NO design or purpose, there can be NO absolute set of standards, not even "culturally established standards" are applicable to the whole of humanity.

Not sure I follow you on this one. There certainly are absolutes in the na2ral world.

Quote
Since the FALL, or since the first lifeform miraculously crawled out of the ooze, take your pick, the world and the people in it have not been "perfect" and DO "fall short" of perfection.

So in that sense, the "Deed has been done and cannot be 'undone'" and I would agree with you that if Satan were blotted out from existence NOW, evil would still exist as the "basic nature of mankind."

Then what purpose is served by naming it Satan?

Quote
Regardless, the issue really isn't the existence or non-existence of SATAN, but the existence of GOD.

Really?

-ol' 2long

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by Krazy71
Atheism is not a religion. Such statements are only attempts by the religious to point a finger at them and say, "See! You have faith, too!"

Or 2 quote a statement that WAT found a few years ago:

"Arguing that atheism is a religion is like arguing that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Quote
I would be in favor of an elective "Creationism" class in public schools, as long as every major religion's story of creation is given equal time....no special emphasis on Christianity.

I would 2, but I would insist that the "Origin of Species" be put in the Bible, right after the first chapter of Genesis.

-ol' 2long

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 80
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
"Good and evil" are moral concepts that are rooted in a STANDARD of what Good is, and that Standard IS God, with Satan being the Standard of what is evil.

Atheists remove both God and Satan "from the equation," and try to establish "Relative morality" in its place. The problem with that is WHO gets to determine the STANDARD by which judgments are made concerning thoughts and behaviors so as to IMPOSE on anyone other than self a determination of "Good or Bad, Sinful or not Sinful?"
A holy book inspired by a deity that reveals the truth and commands proper behavior does not exist within a vacuum. In fact, there are many conflicting claims of revelation and an appeal to divine law often has contradictory results. History is replete w/ examples of intolerance and persecution by one faith against another all supported by an appeal to divine law.

In addition, if one particular G-d (the right G-d) is the true dispenser of morality but there are still millions of people behaving morally under the influence or commands of the wrong G-d--than perhaps belief in the "right G-d is not so critical when it comes to moral conduct. Finally, non-theists have shown themselves to be just as capable of moral behavior as theists (the Buddhists are an example).

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Atheists are often fond of asking believers in God PROVE that there is a God. But ask an Atheist to PROVE that there is no God and all you will get is "that is just what I choose to believe, but I won't know for certain until after I die if there is a God." That is FAITH in, at best, some "cosmic force of nature" with no direction or purpose that we all just "accidentally" answer to according to the "rules" that nature somehow chose to make, but couldn't make "on purpose."

I follow you on most of the first 2 sentences above, but you lost me after that. Carl Sagan (and many other non-theistic people) said once that he can't prove that there is no god, and so he must not be a true atheist. But that didn't mean that he believed there is a god. When he knew he was dying, during an interview he also said, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Like most other people, I would like 2 believe that consciousness continues after we die, but as a scientist I can see no evidence that this is anything more than wishful thinking." 2 me, and maybe I'm unjustly putting words in2 Sagan's mouth, this is a profoundly spiri2al statement, as well as an objectively scientific one.

-ol' 2long

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Want2Stay - "palling around with terrorists" doesn't come close to the monumental lack of judgment that Barak Obama has SHOWN throughout his life as being HIS biggest problem. Ignore it as you like, but it WILL become very evident even if he should become the President and can no longer "hide" from making the "tough decisions."


But since you are "carrying Obama's water" on his PRO-abortion at any cost position, here's a little something concerning the REAL issue....the difference in the Federal legislation and the Illiniois legislation was not the wording...it was Barak Obama and his REFUSAL to add the federal words to the Illinois bill.



http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm#

Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act

by Jill Stanek, guest reporter

He often stood alone as an Illinois lawmaker in opposition to protections for babies who survived abortion.

Note: This report first appeared in the April issue of Citizen magazine.

On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”
There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.
With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.


First encounter

An Illinois lawmaker offered the first draft of the state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion — viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived — in a utility room to die.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Patrick O’Malley of Oak Lawn defined “born alive” using language identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who in turn drafted wording developed by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955:
The term “born alive,” with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Obama questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.
Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted “present” — neither “yes” nor “no,” but merely “present” — on the state Senate floor, one of many “present” votes that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama.


Constitutional blindness

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both schools are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country.

But Obama revealed his constitutional blind spot in his book The Audacity of Hope:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

… (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration — that we are born [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will — is one that every American understands.

Note Obama’s choice of the word “born” over the word “created.” Perhaps that helps explain his support for unrestricted abortion. Also note that our "bundle of rights” can be “taken away” with “just cause.”

Obama clearly considers abortion a “just cause.” Here is how he argued against Born Alive during Illinois Senate debate in 2001:
… I just want to suggest … that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — child, a 9-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The legislation passed the Senate but did not survive in the House.

When Rep. O’Malley reintroduced Born Alive and its companion bills in 2002, they headed again to the same committee, where Obama rewrote history:

"Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year, and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Of course, Obama had not agreed with me the year before, and I was the one who had told him about the Comfort Room, which the hospital created in response to my testimony: "We now have this prettily wallpapered room. … There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death."
The hospital made live birth abortions look nicer, but the end result was still dead babies.

“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that,” Obama concluded, and voted “no” in committee again.

The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the sole speaker against it, claiming that it would impose a “burden” on physicians:

[T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus.


Troubled conscience?

Democrats won control of the state Senate in November 2002, and when Born Alive was reintroduced for the third time in 2003, it was directed to the Obama-chaired, infamously liberal Health and Human Services Committee, where he simply refused to call it for a vote.

By this time Obama was running for U.S. Senate. He won his primary in March 2004, and Republicans recruited former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who lived in Maryland, to oppose him. It was Obama’s position against Born Alive that persuaded Keyes to run, as he stated in his announcement speech:

"When I was first approached about this possibility… I have to say that my reaction was negative…. What finally caught my eye, however… what finally arrested my attention and forced me to consider whether I not only had the opportunity to oppose him, but the obligation… was when I learned that (Obama) had actually, in April 2002, apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live birth abortions in the state of Illinois … .

"We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive — is out of the womb, breathing and living on its own — and he cast a vote against the idea that we should not stand by and let that child die!"

This was why Keyes alleged during their campaign that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, as he explained in an interview with an NBC affiliate:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. … Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama later admitted Keyes’ comment “nagged” him and has written or spoke about it several times, although he always misrepresents Keyes’ rationale as being about abortion support when it was specifically about infanticide support. In a July 2006 opinion piece in USA Today, restated later in The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote:

If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Obama’s faith has come into question on the campaign trail. Accused of being a Muslim, he’s insisted that he’s “rooted in the Christian tradition” and has a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” In fact, Obama has attended the largest church in one of America’s most stridently pro-abortion denominations — the United Church of Christ — for 20 years. His church, Trinity, is located just five miles from Christ Hospital. Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, served on the board of Christ Hospital’s health care system.

It’s ironic in the extreme that the most determined opponents of preborn life — and even those who are born — embrace the name of the One who caused John the Baptist to leap in his mother’s womb.
Jill Stanek writes a weekly column for WorldNetDaily.com and is a pro-life speaker and blogger.

(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)


Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by Krazy71
Because evolution after life began is scientific fact.

Is it? By what proof do you think it's a FACT rather than an opinion?


Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by 2long
This doesn't make sense. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, where is there room for Satan?

Right along side of us and the rest of the angels, 2long, I thought you of all people would know that.


Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Originally Posted by Krazy71
Because evolution after life began is scientific fact.

Is it? By what proof do you think it's a FACT rather than an opinion?

We've been here before 2, FH.

I'm not Krazy, but the correct answer - a very small but significant part of it - is:

The stratigraphic record.

-ol' 2long

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Originally Posted by 2long
This doesn't make sense. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, where is there room for Satan?

Right along side of us and the rest of the angels, 2long, I thought you of all people would know that.

I've heard that before, and it still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If God and his creation is all that there is, then there is either no Satan, or God is evil as well as good.

-ol' 2long

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by 2long
Not sure I follow you on this one. There certainly are absolutes in the na2ral world.

You mean those natural world absolutes such as the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics and that Life CANNOT arise from non-life?

I guess I would agree with you there.

But if you mean something in the natural world such as a lion killing and eating a zebra as being "evil" or "immoral," I disagree. Those sorts of value judgments are strictly HUMAN in nature. The question is "what values" and "why should any of them apply to everyone else rather than just to myself by my own choosing?"


Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by 2long
Quote:Regardless, the issue really isn't the existence or non-existence of SATAN, but the existence of GOD.

Really?

Yes, as Satan is himself a created being and not God.


Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by 2long
I follow you on most of the first 2 sentences above, but you lost me after that. Carl Sagan (and many other non-theistic people) said once that he can't prove that there is no god, and so he must not be a true atheist. But that didn't mean that he believed there is a god. When he knew he was dying, during an interview he also said, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Like most other people, I would like 2 believe that consciousness continues after we die, but as a scientist I can see no evidence that this is anything more than wishful thinking." 2 me, and maybe I'm unjustly putting words in2 Sagan's mouth, this is a profoundly spiri2al statement, as well as an objectively scientific one.

Suffice it to say that brother Carl now knows THE truth, both spiritually and objectively.

May he toast evenly, eternally.


Allow me to try to clear up some of your confusion after the first 2 sentences....try belief in natural forces and laws. That there is no rhyme or reason why we exist, we only exist as some great accident of nature and have no inherent purpose for our existence.



Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
2
Member
Offline
Member
2
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Okay.

I don't think it's possible 2 find common ground here. Please don't take that as an insult, it isn't meant that way. Just an observation.

Got work 2 do.

-ol' 2long

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by 2long
I've heard that before, and it still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If God and his creation is all that there is, then there is either no Satan, or God is evil as well as good.

2long, you are an intelligent man and I don't believe for one minute that you don't understand.

And you also know that the creation of the angels predates the creation of mankind.


Page 11 of 26 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 25 26

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 83 guests, and 69 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Confused1980, Bibbyryan860, Ian T, SadNewYorker, Jay Handlooms
71,840 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5