Obama does something right.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

moral limits

Should it be a case of where we feel at ease with our own conscience or is this the sole domain of religion, or are you looking towards religion as a guide and a pointer to how conscientious you should become?

[Oakman]

Tim Craig wrote:

You don't actually have to "believe" anything about it but go through the motions to please the power base.

That's the problem with those dam' liberals. They think they can just ignore the rules and claim the prize without running the race. Stan probably thinks that being a Christian doesn't require any limitations on one's behavior at all.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Tim Craig]

Oakman wrote:

That's the problem with those dam' liberals. They think they can just ignore the rules and claim the prize without running the race. Stan probably thinks that being a Christian doesn't require any limitations on one's behavior at all.

Like most of the christians in the US and at least one I know of in Australia, it's whatever they define it to be. Or rather, what the snake oil salesman turned preacher tells them it is because branding it all important. Although for many, there's no thought involved, no dragging their asses out on Sunday morning and going to church, or other effort reqired. You just knee jerk tell the pollster that you're a christian when they ask. It's the 'merican thing to do. :laugh:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Stan, Christianity is a religion with very specific entrance requirements.

SO, thats like what... the use of christianity to rationalize evil? I'm not at all sure I understand your point. This really isn't even about religion. You could be the most rock ribbed atheist on the planet and still possess some vague glimmering clue about why it is wrong to process human beings into medicinal materials, food supplies or brick mortar.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Tim Craig wrote:

It's the 'merican thing to d

Is there any thing at all you like about the traditions of your country? How the hell did the Craig family sink so low?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

73Zeppelin wrote:

Neither is boinking your wife on a Saturday night after a few beers. WTF is your point?

There are people who belive that it is immoral to produce human embryos to experiment upon. That should be something a civilizaed person would, at the very least, acknowledge as being a heart felt humane concern given the history of such activities over the last century or so. It is a perfecly legitimate thing to believe. The question is why is there so much effort to demonize it...

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Should it be a case of where we feel at ease with our own conscience or is this the sole domain of religion, or are you looking towards religion as a guide and a pointer to how conscientious you should become?

What difference could it possible make? Religion is at least as valid a means of formulating ones moral perspective as is any other.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm not at all sure I understand your point.

I'll type slow ;) My point is that one shouldn't wrap the mantle of Christianity around oneself if one is not a Christian. It's kind of like claiming to be a progammer because you write macros in Access.

Stan Shannon wrote:

You could be the most rock ribbed atheist on the planet and still possess some vague glimmering clue about why it is wrong to process human beings into medicinal materials, food supplies or brick mortar.

Do you really not get it, or are you adopting that line of lack of reasoning to hide the fact that you do?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

burn them all!

All what? government schools?

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Fine, clumps of bags of salty water.

The are human embryos. They are a point on a continuum of human life that we all emerged from. That deserves some amount of respect. The fact that you can be so easily convinced otherwise indicates how easy the process of dehuminization is. It is little wonder that their is such a close association politically between tis and the extermination of people by Nazis. It is a very similar process.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

How the hell did the Craig family sink so low?

Tim makes a valid point about the number of people in the US who claim to be Christian while demonstrating that they have no idea of what the sobriquet stands for, and you can only attack him as unpatriotic? For shame, Stan, for shame.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

My point is that one shouldn't wrap the mantle of Christianity around oneself if one is not a Christian. It's kind of like claiming to be a progammer because you write macros in Access.

ANd, you , of course, are the arbiter of who is and who isn't, I suppose. I am a christian, Jon. I don't need your approval one way or another. And my ancestors who owned slaves and killed Indians were christian also. Deal with it.

Oakman wrote:

Do you really not get it, or are you adopting that line of lack of reasoning to hide the fact that you do?

My argument is perfectly reasonable. We are discussing the processing of human beings into medical supplies. That is precisely the point. If you cannot comprehend the connection, it is your own ability to reason that is in question.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Tim makes a valid point about the number of people in the US who claim to be Christian while demonstrating that they have no idea of what the sobriquet stands for, and you can only attack him as unpatriotic? For shame, Stan, for shame.

No, he is projecting his own prejudices upon the very traditional foundations of American culture and society. I'm not the one who needs to feel shame.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Tim Craig]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Is there any thing at all you like about the traditions of your country? How the hell did the Craig family sink so low?

Yes, I do, Stan. Apparently, the ones I like don't happen to be those you've ever even been exposed to. How did the Shannon family produce such a major dumbass?

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

No, he is projecting his own prejudices upon the very traditional foundations of American culture and society.

There are those who have said that of you. As an argument I find it weak since it requires a level of mindreading in order to be valid that the Great Kreskin never claimed to have.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm not the one who needs to feel shame.

No-one needs to feel shame, but some should when they turn a debate into a personal attack. Certainly I have been guilty of ad hominem posts and I have learned from realisation that I was better than what I was was posting.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

The problem, Tim, is that nothing you said about the US christian community is true. You just promote that kind of hatred because it is you who are a hate mongering bigot. That was the ad hominem attack in this exchange. The christian of today are what they have always been, they live their faith as it was intended to be lived. They are generous, warm hearted, loving people. They deserved better than that kind of attack. If you don't believe that, than find a church and attend it for a while. WHy in the name of God does the fact that there would be people who have some moral objection to the use of human embryos be so objectionable? Why do you have to demonize them so? It is a good thing that people object. It is a perfectly valid political point of view. And to treat it otherwise is vile and evil of you. And I would really like to know how a Craig developed such a vitriolic animosity towards their own culture and people? Why do you hate it so much? Where the hell does it come from?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

ANd, you , of course, are the arbiter of who is and who isn't, I suppose. I

Whatever gave you that idea? I was simply passing on to you what I know to be fact.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I am a christian

No, Stan, you are not. Until and unless you can profess the Apostle's Creed without reservation, you are, perhaps, a wannabee, but you are not a believer.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I don't need your approval one way or another.

Of course not. But counterfeiting a belief structure you cannot embrace does not seem to be something you would approve of, either.

Stan Shannon wrote:

My argument is perfectly reasonable

Only if you postulate that every quickened egg is a human being. Since I made it clear in my OP that I did not thinks that such was the case, you should have challenged me on those grounds. If you thought that somehow I would accept your redefinition of my terms without demur, you were mistaken. :) I take it that you believe that a full and complete human soul enters the egg as soon as it is fertilised, and the destruction of that egg even before it undergoes mitosis, by any means and for any reason, is the equivalent of homicide?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

That was the ad hominem attack in this exchange.

Stan, an ad hominem attack is made against someone in particular, often because of the group(s) he belongs to. Y'know: "You can't trust Oak because he knows how to quote scripture to serve his own purpose." When an attack is made against a group: "You can't trust those who profess Christianity without understanding what it means to do so," it could be considered prejudice, but not an ad hominem attack. Capiche? ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Tim Craig]

Stan Shannon wrote:

The christian of today are what they have always been, they live their faith as it was intended to be lived.

Yeah, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are just two perfect examples of all the christian love and tolerance.

Stan Shannon wrote:

If you don't believe that, than find a church and attend it for a while.

I've lived in this country longer than you and from all appearances my education is considerably better than yours, so why do you suppose that I'm ignorant of the churches in this country and how they operate?

Stan Shannon wrote:

And to treat it otherwise is vile and evil of you.

And for them to treat other human beings the way they do is vile and evil, too. Funny how that works. I really have a problem with people who want to force their backward moral views down my throat and then have the gall to call me vile and evil. More of that christian brotherhood of yours? :laugh:

Stan Shannon wrote:

And I would really like to know how a Craig developed such a vitriolic animosity towards their own culture and people?

Maybe the Craigs have a more enlightened view of the universe than the Shannons? I've heard nothing from you but wanting to bring back the dark ages and let the witch burnings begin.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[Tim Craig]

Oakman wrote:

Capiche?

Can I have some crackers with my bowl of capiche? :laugh:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

When an attack is made against a group: "You can't trust those who profess Christianity without understanding what it means to do so," it could be considered prejudice, but not an ad hominem attack.

No, I looked it up. His statement was purely ad hominem. Statement: "It is immoral to use embryos for scientific reseach" Response: "American Christians are blah blah blah..."

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.