Hillary compares Repbulicans to Terrorists

[Spirit]

[red321]

[Spirit]

[Glen]

Nazis were progressive for their time, so modern progressives are like Nazis because they want rid society of out-dated views.

 

 

Hitler was a democrat!

[Glen]

 

 

I like this, but I'm sure Adam doesn't.

[Angelsjunky]

IMO taking someone off life support is not the same thing as abortion. If someone is on life support, the body isn't capable of sustaining life without mechanical intervention. One could reasonably argue that it is merely supporting bodily functions. What people on life support have is not what most of us would call life. You are sustaining breathing. If there is no hope of recovery, what is really being accomplished, besides delaying the inevitable end?

 

Before 20-25 weeks a fetus can't survive outside of the womb, so by that criteria fetus before around five or six months isn't "life."

 

As an aside, and not necessarily addressed to you, Vegas Halo Fan, I am often surprised at how attached religious-minded folk are to the notion of "life begins at conception." It is, fundamentally, a rather materialistic outlook. The wisdom traditions of the world that believe in a soul or spirit generally see incarnation as a process, that what is happening in the womb is the preparation of a vehicle for the soul - the body as the vehicle. The soul doesn't fully inhabit the body until birth. If the body is aborted, the soul withdraws and finds another vehicle.

 

Pro-lifers take a more materialistic approach, which in a way is counter to the spiritual traditions of the world.

 

(This might be related to the fact that early Christians actually believed in reincarnation, but this was "written out" at one of those early conferences when the Roman church decided what the canon would be - the cut out a lot of stuff that didn't fit their political intentions)

[Spirit]

Before 20-25 weeks a fetus can't survive outside of the womb, so by that criteria fetus before around five or six months isn't "life."

 

 

So when science gets to the point where they can sustain life earlier and earlier than that, you'll be ok with making adjustments.

[TobiasFunke]

Juan ruins another thread... everyone go home, nothing to see here

[Rico]

Juan ruins another thread... everyone go home, nothing to see here

Mt declared this discussion over on page 4.

[Rico]

Legalize abortion until the 17th year. Then kids will finally pick up their damn toys.

The "I brought you into this world, I can take you out" defense.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Before 20-25 weeks a fetus can't survive outside of the womb, so by that criteria fetus before around five or six months isn't "life."

 

Not the same thing. Life isn't being supported by mechanical means, rather by a biological process.

[Angelsjunky]

So when science gets to the point where they can sustain life earlier and earlier than that, you'll be ok with making adjustments.

 

Geoff, I don't have a strong opinion about this, except that I don't think a bunch of dudes on a message board should be deciding whether or not abortion should be legal. What I find troubling are people having black and white views and rock-solid opinions. This is a very complex matter.

 

Not the same thing. Life isn't being supported by mechanical means, rather by a biological process.

 

I get that. But a fetus, like a person on life support, cannot sustain its own life. Meaning, it isn't yet "imbued with the life spirit." I think a basic criteria of life is that it can sustain itself. From that perspective, a fetus isn't as much a life-form as it is a life-forming. It is a growing vehicle for the life-force.

[cysomeawfulpitcher]

She's a Monsanto ass kissing DINO so as a (converted) member of the green party, it's nice to see her hating herself.

[TobiasFunke]

How have I never heard of the term "DINO" before?

[Spirit]

I get that. But a fetus, like a person on life support, cannot sustain its own life. Meaning, it isn't yet "imbued with the life spirit." I think a basic criteria of life is that it can sustain itself. From that perspective, a fetus isn't as much a life-form as it is a life-forming. It is a growing vehicle for the life-force.

 

So a person on life support and a human fetus aren't life forms because neither can sustain themselves?  Interesting.  

[juansavage1]

I think citizens decide the laws of the country. I can't agree with your assertion unless you have evidence. 

Geoff, I don't have a strong opinion about this, except that I don't think a bunch of dudes on a message board should be deciding whether or not abortion should be legal. What I find troubling are people having black and white views and rock-solid opinions. This is a very complex matter.

 

 

I get that. But a fetus, like a person on life support, cannot sustain its own life. Meaning, it isn't yet "imbued with the life spirit." I think a basic criteria of life is that it can sustain itself. From that perspective, a fetus isn't as much a life-form as it is a life-forming. It is a growing vehicle for the life-force.

[Angelsjunky]

So a person on life support and a human fetus aren't life forms because neither can sustain themselves?  Interesting.  

 

That's not exactly what I mean, and I think you know it. What is interesting is how you like to assign a viewpoint to me and then have an issue with it.

 

I think citizens decide the laws of the country. I can't agree with your assertion unless you have evidence. 

 

Is there evidence that a human being is imbued with life spirit before birth? Evidence is used to support a variety of often opposing views. In other words, most people use evidence to support what they want to believe. What evidence do you use to support your own viewpoint?

[Spirit]

I didn't realize I had an issue with it.  I thought it was interesting. 

[Angelsjunky]

[mtangelsfan]

Before 20-25 weeks a fetus can't survive outside of the womb, so by that criteria fetus before around five or six months isn't "life."

 

As an aside, and not necessarily addressed to you, Vegas Halo Fan, I am often surprised at how attached religious-minded folk are to the notion of "life begins at conception." It is, fundamentally, a rather materialistic outlook. The wisdom traditions of the world that believe in a soul or spirit generally see incarnation as a process, that what is happening in the womb is the preparation of a vehicle for the soul - the body as the vehicle. The soul doesn't fully inhabit the body until birth. If the body is aborted, the soul withdraws and finds another vehicle.

 

Pro-lifers take a more materialistic approach, which in a way is counter to the spiritual traditions of the world.

 

(This might be related to the fact that early Christians actually believed in reincarnation, but this was "written out" at one of those early conferences when the Roman church decided what the canon would be - the cut out a lot of stuff that didn't fit their political intentions)

 

 

Ha, man you talk out your ass so much when it comes to Christianity.  It really is amazing that you can think you know so much about something you clearly know so little.

[Angelsjunky]

Ha, man you talk out your ass so much when it comes to Christianity.  It really is amazing that you can think you know so much about something you clearly know so little.

 

Gotta love your way of engagement mt. All you do is say "you're wrong" and then insult, rather than actually engage in discussion. Might as well stick your fingers in your ears and wiggle your hands while you're at it. "Nah nah, I'm not listening."

 

But is what I said actually wrong? There is plenty of support out there for the idea that early Christians believed in reincarnation. And it is well-known that the Catholic Church was established at the Councils of Nicea, and other early conferences.

 

So what am I say that is exactly wrong?

 

The irony is that fundamentalist Christians--by focusing on Biblical literalism--limit their understanding of the truer, deeper meanings that Jesus was teaching. As Hamlet said, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

A little openness of mind never hurt anyone.

[mtangelsfan]

Speaking of that, do you crebible links/facts to the claims you make about how "everyone knows".  I propose most people know almost nothing about the Nicean Creed, Apostles Creed or Council of Trent.

 

You make statements like "Christians believed in reincarnation", which really isn't even close to how it was.  Your statement sounds completely inclusive when it isn't.  I get the feeling you are repeating things you heard in a religion class in college.

 

Fact, the very early Christian church were mostly jews who were converted.  The jewish faith had many components:  Pharisees who were more mystical and spiritual, Saducees who didn't really believe in miracles and more.  One of the debates in the early church was between the camps of pharisees and saduccees.  This is a debate that still goes on today.  They debated on whether Jesus was ressurected and whether Christians would be ressurected after death.  This is where, from the outside, a debate about "reincarnation" would have happened.  Paul, the great apostle, argued this in 1 Corinthians 15:

 

Now I would remind you, brothers,^[a] of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, ² and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰ But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. ¹¹ Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead

¹² Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³ But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ¹⁵ We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹ If in Christ we have hope^[b] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

 

 

So it wasn't reincarnation, it was the ressurection. 

 

So I wont ask for your pardon because you love to throw out passive aggressive insults toward certain people or groups. you love to sound smart like you are an expert on anything you choose to speak about.

 

I know the Bible, and I am fairl learned on church history.  You may be more knowledgable about other things, I will even agree you are pretty sharp when it comes to baseball, but not this one man.  This is a subject I have been studying for over thirty years.

[Blarg]

Hillary is still an idiot for making that statement.

[Angelsjunky]

mtangelsfan, I have no doubt that you know more about Biblical history, Christianity, Jesus, etc. But here's the thing: all of history is just that, a story. It is not necessarily "fact" but bits and pieces that arranged together to form a coherent narrative. It is assembled, written, and told. Or as the famous quote goes, "history is written by the victors."

 

The point being that there are different perspectives on history. I'll share a personal anecdote that illustrates this. I lived in England for a couple years at the age of 11-13 and had the interesting experience of learning about the American Revolution from both a British and American perspective. Americans know the narrative: the American army was rag-tag, starving, poorly equipped, and facing the might forces of the vast British Empire. That's what you were likely taught if you grew up on this continent. The version I was told in England was a bit different, if only in emphasis: they said that the British soldiers were separate from their home, that the Americans had the resources of the land and people. And so on.

 

Which point of view is correct? What really happened? Well, we can't know with absolute certainty, but my guess is that both perspectives hold truth, even if to varying degrees. I mean, another variant on this is that we still don't generally acknowledge in this country the genocide of the native peoples that was at the founding of it - that European settlers pushed back and killed the native inhabitants of this land. It was violent colonization, even genocide. But we don't acknowledge that, not really. It is only a gradual process that sees history texts incorporate this kind of thing. Or we can work at Howard Zinn and his "People's History of the United States," or Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" video series (which I highly recommend) - both of which show levels of history that isn't actually part of the canonical record.

 

So when you tell me what really happened, I don't doubt that you know your history. But I do question that history as telling the whole story. It tells it from a particular angle - just as Zinn tells US history from an angle, or Fox News speaks from a particular perspective.As an aside, what you are talking about with regards to resurrection vs reincarnation is not what I am talking about. If you're interested, do some research - there's a lot of stuff out there.

 

Sometimes you need to look outside of the bounds of an organization to get a better perspective on that organization, otherwise we end up in cultism. Look at the work of someone like Elaine Pagels, for instance, who has very interesting things to say about early Christian history. Real critical thinking includes the capacity to be self-critical, to question one's own group, ideology, associations, etc.

 

As an aside, have you read any of the gnostic gospels or Nag Hammadi library, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary Magdalen? The Thomas gospel, in particular, is one of my favorite sacred texts.

[juansavage1]

That's not exactly what I mean, and I think you know it. What is interesting is how you like to assign a viewpoint to me and then have an issue with it.

 

 

Is there evidence that a human being is imbued with life spirit before birth? Evidence is used to support a variety of often opposing views. In other words, most people use evidence to support what they want to believe. What evidence do you use to support your own viewpoint?

That's why we should stay on the safe side.