Dark Moth

^^^ See point on previous page, Pop.

That's not the same thing. A terminally ill person is still a person. A zygote is not the same as a piece of skin because a piece of skin is not something that develops into a person if left alone to grow. As for your other point, yes human beings cut down trees and kill animals for food. But we do it for our own survival as a species. We do it because it's necessary. It's not the same thing as killing a baby simply because a person doesn't want to have one. Cloning? " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, not the same thing. It doesn't happen naturally. And even still, it's not the piece of skin itself that grows. It's just DNA taken from those cells and put into a living zygote inside a mother host.

You saying it doesn't matter?

But a piece of skin does not develop into a whole organism if nurtured in the womb.

I'm rooting for the Colts this year, since my Steelers had a miserable season and didn't make the playoffs. Now let's see if they choke in the playoffs again or not. Frankly though, I don't have high hopes for their game against Baltimore.

Ya, really. There are certain parts of the Bible which are clearly meant to be taken literally and others not. The accounts of Joshua are mostly history, not allegory or spiritual lessons. The Israelis did not make violence a part of their religion, they carried it out whenever they were specifically instructed to do so. Also, the tales of Joshua were war, not "wanton murder" or genocide as you put it. The Bible discourages violence, but it also makes it clear that sometimes violence is necessary. God is not an advocate of genocide or wanton murder, as you seem to make it out to be. I guess my main point is that the Bible makes it clear that violence is normally to be avoided, and if it's not necessary or if God doesn't tell you to, don't do it. That's why the verses you used from Joshua are weak examples at best. Actually, it is. If it's not didactic, it's not meant to apply. If it's meant for a specific time and a specific place, it does not apply. Plain and simple. People say the same things about Islam. One man does not represent an entire religion or its followers.

Sorry.

Its "Revelation", not "Revelations".

That's not really a valid counterpoint. The problem with the verses you quoted is that they're just a history, more or less. What you just used was not the Bible actually instructing believers in general (for all regions and time periods) to go out and kill unbelievers as part of religious requirement. In other words, unless you're living in Jericho around Joshua's lifetime, you really have nothing to worry about from that passage. There's a problem with merely quoting verses, as I and Colrom just did. You have to look at them in context. Very often people just pull a random verse out of context and use it to justify whatever point they're trying to make, while not grasping its true meaning. The context is always as important as the verse itself. Yeah, of course there's plenty of violence in the Bible, but what is its nature? Who is the speaker? To whom is he or she speaking? Why is he saying it? Are calls to violence aggressive, or reactionary? It would be a significantly different verse if God instructed that the Israelites go out and slaughter unbelievers in the entire middle east throughout their lives instead of just the people in that particular place at that particular time. Hurlshot did the smart thing and look at the context instead of just the verses themselves. He interpreted it differently than I do, but IMO a whole lot of confusion would be cleared up if people did that. Have I reconciled it enough for you?

Ask, and ye shall receive. Enjoy. Sura II. 190-194 Sura II. 216 Sura IV. 34 (not violence against infidels, this verse just justifies wife beating) Sura V. 35-37 Sura VIII. 12-14 Sura VIII. 38-39 Sura VIII. 59-61 Sura IX. 29 Sura IX. 113 (this verse only claims that believers should not pray for forgiveness for unbelievers) Sura XLVII. 4 And perhaps most frequently quoted, Sura IX. 5 There. Make what you will out of it. Does this mean I win the internet?

Steelers won! (finally) I got to admit, I was a little worried, especially after their last minute touchdown in the first half and Polamalu's injury. Plus, the Bengals lost, too! It was a good day.

Foghat - Slow Ride

For you, you mean. That does not make it so, so don't act like it. Even still, that does not make its life worthless, though you seem to think such. Tell you what, I have an idea. Since that's what you think, let's just go ahead and start killing off all lower forms of animal life, like invertebrates. After all, they don't have a life, do they? While we're at it, let's not worry anymore about cutting down trees. After all, they aren't thinking beings like you and I. Right? That makes it okay. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is why I started with "For me" in my post. Also I don't think its life is worthless but they shouldn't be placed on a pedestal like some religious types do. I just don't see a problem with embryonic stem cell research and I don't see it as "killing" babies. Trees aren't self aware. Don't go to the extremes, Dark Moth, it makes you look silly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay then. For the record, I do not place them on a "pedestal" as you seem to be implying, but I still view them as living beings. As such, I see abortion as nothing less than killing babies. That's why I brought up the example of killing off invertebrates, because they may not have a conscious, either. But people still have gripes about killing them. The only time I actually do support abortion is when the mother's life is in danger, rape victims, or when it's known beyond a doubt that the mother is unable to support the child, and state aid is out of the question.

For you, you mean. That does not make it so, so don't act like it. Even still, that does not make its life worthless, though you seem to think such. Tell you what, I have an idea. Since that's what you think, let's just go ahead and start killing off all lower forms of animal life, like invertebrates. After all, they don't have a life, do they? While we're at it, let's not worry anymore about cutting down trees. After all, they aren't thinking beings like you and I. Right? That makes it okay.

So Christians are a race now, how mighty and proud you folks must feel! Seriously though, I'm only after you because you, like that scum of a man Santorum whom you seem to like (how very unsurprising), thinks that we're "wrong" and equates being gay to child abusers. (or as you once put it, mutants) So really, stop crying. You're the ****ing majority, I'm the minority, you're the ****ing bigot. And if getting warned again or even banned bacause I showed my utter contempt of one such as you, then I'll ****ing welcome it, you sonofabitch. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Showing contempt for a person based on his or her religion can be considered racism or bigotry, yes. :D Also I never equated you with being child abusers or mutants in the sense that you're implying. I never have judged you on the content of your character on the basis of your sexual orientation, Lucius. And no, I'm not crying. More like getting a little bored with your constant attempts at insults and boorishness. Look, if you don't like me, fine, but don't spam up the thread with your childish insults. If you don't want to respond to PM's, fine, but don't fill up the thread with your responses and act like you're making a statement. I'll say it one more time: if you have something useful to contribute to this discussion, by all means, do. If not, then just get out, and maybe stop being such a baby while you're at it. Otherwise I most certainly will report you (even though I probably should have done it after that comment).

I might also make the same argument about an infant. It too is utterly helpless on it's own. When do you think a human life becomes alive? For me, it's the moment brain activity begins which is 4 weeks after conception if I remeber correctly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well can it breathe and eat at four weeks? I'm saying if the sucker can't breath eat and expel waste without help of machines then it's not alive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That, IMO, is stupid. The thing is made up of living cells for crying out loud. While it can't perform all of the functions of a living organism yet, it's still alive. Also if it weren't alive it would be impossible to kill. 1. First you say that you equate pro lifers with religions, which is essentially saying that all pro-lifers are religious. Than you say that not all pro-lifers are religious. Please choose your wording more carefully. 2. That just shows you don't know what a cancer cell is. A cancer cell is a cell that has been warped in its genetic makeup and reproduces at a faster rate, and in some cases without any inhibitors. A cancer cell however never develops into a separate organism. They are not separate entities that develop into a whole, living thing, like a fetus.

Once again, you have proved one of my points about ignorance. Despite you claiming to have gone to a Christian school, you have repeatedly and consistently made errors regarding what the religion teaches and what it doesn't. Christianity in no way mandates things like the banning of contraceptives or the ignoring of AIDs in Africa. Not to mention your absolutely silly point about having evidence of the existence of God somehow nullifying the Christian faith. You did the same thing to in our last argument. You couldn't handle being criticized or proved wrong, and your statements about "discussing" merely turned out to be a platform for you to expression your thinly disguised bigotry toward it. Yes, bigotry. In the argument you made sweeping generalizations, made statements based on ignorance, and ignored facts even when they were shoved in your face. So you in turn went from saying "I can discuss anything about religion!" to saying "I can discuss anything about humanitarianism!" You're also ignoring the many good things religion has contributed to humanity as well as ignoring the fact that things beside religion have been responsible for many terrible events in human history. So before you go on your silly moral superiority platform, kindly at least get your facts straight.

Well, I am trying to be more restrained in my own comments. I really don't want to offend anybody here with my ranting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was referring to Lucius, not you. You thankfully have at least shown more restraint when it comes to these things. BTW Calax, there is no way you can say that anti-abortion is a religious doctrine in anyway. Frankly I think it's silly myself to equate that with Christianity. You don't need to be Christian to be pro-life, many people just associate the two. You don't have to be religious to value life or to be offended by someone killing their baby. The only thing that you could completely tie with religion is ID and to a lesser extent, a ban on gay marriage. Well, color me corrected. " No, I haven't reported you yet, even though the many of your posts in this thread could qualify as racism or bigotry. One more time though, one more insult like "Jesus Freak", and you most certainly will.

Well, just one poster, actually. Most posters here actually tend to be more respectful and restrained than that. Even still, insults like that don't affect me in the least. They actually prompt me only to laugh at the poster who sinks to such childish levels. Looking back, I probably could have reported him, but I decided not too. ^_^

Not always a God, you could believe in a higher form of intelligence (aliens) that created life on this planet, or inter-dimensional beings of greater consciousness than humans but not 'Gods'. I don't know what the hell you're trying to say in point B (are you drunk, by any chance?), but as for point C, it's not scientific to think that something happens 'just because', everything has a reason. But that's more philosophical actually, (something that is taught in schools!) As for religion being taught, you're wrong. Because alternate religious doctrine can be taught for history, as well as for cultural understanding. The same thing happened when I took a World Cultures course in High School. Religious study groups are not connected, but they are still sanctioned, and they of course have the school's approval. You want to remove all religion from school, you got to get rid of those too. You're point about Christmas not actually being Christ's birthday is useless, too, because it's still a celebration of a birthday of a religious icon. Thus, a religious occasion. And even though Halloween's religious roots have been "divorced", the fact remains that it still has religious roots, and some people still do celebrate it religiously. Finally, as for symbols, while I know it's a workplace, there's no good reason why a school should have to ban religious symbols, especially common phrases like "OMG!", which borderlines on silliness. Public schools are supposed to be an incorporation of ideas, not a repression of ideas, dammit! What is this, Fahrenheit 451? Yeah, we are way OT. How the hell did that happen, anyway? Must have been when Sand accused Republicans of being fanatical theocrats (in so many words).

Then you'd have to ban all religious courses from schools. All religious study groups from public schools, etc. All wearing of religious symbols and such. Not to mention any celebration of Christmas, Halloween, etc. And no learning of about other religions as well, as taks pointed out.

Keep dreaming.

But intelligent design is only the only gripe you have that's "religious" in nature. Besides Ha-I mean, Sand, creationism is not something that's exclusive to the Bible. But you already knew that. Right? Could have fooled me. You've never made any distinction between the two until now.

You know what I meant! I meant that it's not a policy in the sense that it's not something that's written down in some kind of contract you have to sign to be Republican.

More like the 'living in the dark ages' part. As for the majority of Americans, being against gay marriage, it's a slim majority.