Evidence for God from Science

Either you agree with me(God) or you will end up in hell for eternity...(agree with me or I will shoot you in the head)

Just to put it candidly, you are missing it by a country mile.

??? Earlier you were convinced God was immoral but moral at the same time. A contradiction. If you are familiar with Aristotilean logic, then surely you are familiar with the law of non-contradiction. Now, you say you can't prove it. The position of demonstrating God's morality has everything to do with objective morality. An issue you've really avoided dealing with. So, no, I can't demonstrate it, until you'll answer some of these questions.

You continue to speak of objective morality and you say that God is the source of that. I have acknowledge my mistake. Since we both can't prove that God actually exists, we can't demonstrate if he is moral or immoral. It would be pointless. So God's morality can't be proved until someone actually proves that God exists in the first place. As I said before: we both can't prove some statements because the lack of real facts. Sorry about that.

I didn't say morality was invented. If morality is obejctive, then it isn't "invented." If God is eternal, then he didn't make up morality. He is the source of morality. I said that one can not claim objective morality without smuggling in Christian values.

To prove that God is the source of morality, we both need to prove that God actually exists. That still remains a problem at this point in time.

Then morality is NOT objective. Earlier in the thread you claimed you could know morality, and know it objectively. Later you now say that morality changes based on society. This is fundementally contrary to knowing objective morality.
You now are saying that morality is determined by societal preference. This would mean that it can be moral to torture babies, if the society agrees. Do you not see the flaw here? Do you really believe that? Or do you believe there really is good and bad, right and wrong. Are you saying the Nazis were right and moral? Or, were the allied powers right and good to take on the Nazis.

I don't think we should discuss anymore about objective morality anymore because you claim that God is the source of that, and neither of us can prove that the source actually exists.

You now are saying that morality is determined by societal preference. This would mean that it can be moral to torture babies, if the society agrees. Do you not see the flaw here? Do you really believe that? Or do you believe there really is good and bad, right and wrong. Are you saying the Nazis were right and moral? Or, were the allied powers right and good to take on the Nazis.
You are right when you say that I firstly said that morality had objective roots. You proved me wrong with your arguments. I have learned quite a lot of things since being here on this forum. Thank you for that.
The Nazi and the Allied Forces were in a war for survival... Survival mode doesn't care about right and wrong. And the Nazi view was very extreme. Even people within their own ranks didn't approve with what Hitler was doing, but the fear was high. Contradicting Hitler would mean certain death. I don't think that gay marriage is a problem of life and death.

This would mean that it can be moral to torture babies, if the society agrees
Actually that happens already. It's called abortion and the society agrees with it in terms of civil law.

Is justice good? Is mercy good? Is murder wrong?
I know the standard. It is God. It is revealed in and through his creation, and further through the scriptures. But if you won't address the issue of objective morality, then we aren't going to get very far.

As I have said before: until one of us proves that God exists, we can't talk about objective morality. It would be pointless to argue about this. We have different opinions.

This assumes that one was objectively wrong, and that man moved towards a better standard. But you are contradicting yourself. Better according to what?

I didn't say better. You assumed that another standard should be better. You are assuming that a society can go only up. History contradicts you again... All empires had their glory time and after reaching a certain point they started going down. Some of those empires are still existing today under another form and some of them are even gone for ever. Please accept my apologies if I said better. I think my words were "CHANGE AND/OR PROGRESS". The key word here is change. When I said progress that doesn't mean progress of moral values... It can mean that as well, but it's not mandatory.

P.S.: You have not commented on some aspects that would have been interesting, especially about some dark times when lots of people were killed in the name of God. That does reflect how morality changes depending on times and society.

Just to put it candidly, you are missing it by a country mile.

Please explain.

Jlay I'm not here on this forum to piss anyone. I'm here because I like to debate about such interesting topics and I think that I can really learn something in the process. Maybe others learn something as well.
As one of your members said, STU, we debate a period of time and at the end we shake hands and remain friends.

You continue to speak of objective morality and you say that God is the source of that. I have acknowledge my mistake. Since we both can't prove that God actually exists, we can't demonstrate if he is moral or immoral.

Bryan, I don't know how familiar you are with the argument from morality. It would take quite some time to go into it all. when you say we can't prove, I would beg to differ. It may be that I can prove the case, but not convince. If objective morality exist, then it has a source. So, if you have a natural way to account for abstract moral ethics, then it would certainly be interesting to hear.

To prove that God is the source of morality, we both need to prove that God actually exists. That still remains a problem at this point in time.

If objective morality exist, then it is pretty much a slam dunk for a moral law giver. Since morality and ethics can't be accounted for materially. Much like logic and reason. The reality is that you or can not have a conversation without both relying on (presuming) God. Logic, reason, morality can not be accounted for in a material universe. They are abstract. Yet for you to argue that I can't prove God, you have to rely on those very things.

And the Nazi view was very extreme. Even people within their own ranks didn't approve with what Hitler was doing, but the fear was high. Contradicting Hitler would mean certain death. I don't think that gay marriage is a problem of life and death.

Extreme to say the least. But again, this presumes an objective standard. Extreme compared to.........
I take acception with your survival. i don't know how much study you have done, but the US was standoffish about the war for some time. Never did Germany threaten the 'survival' of the US.

Actually that happens already. It's called abortion and the society agrees with it in terms of civil law.

Great point. But think about this. Do pro-choice people believe they are 'murdering'? No. They think they are doing the "right" thing. No one views abortion as "good", in the sense we are talking. Ask any pro-choice person, "is abortion good?" You will likely get a strange look. They might say a woman's RIGHT to abortion is good. The fact is that they see the 'rights' of the mother in a greater view. If everyone saw the unborn as an unigue person, deserving all the rights of personhood, then abortion would be illegal. The danger you run it to is that what is legal becomes good. Let's say it became legal to execute a new born infant just like an unborn child. Or, imprison all Jews. Would the legality of it, make it morally acceptable? No. It would be wrong. Just like Chattel slavery was wrong. Thank goodness abolitionist didn't bend to society, but recognized the evil of slavery (objectively) and sought to correct course.

I didn't say better.

Progress infers moving in a better direction. I think you will have a hard time demonstrating otherwise.

P.S.: You have not commented on some aspects that would have been interesting, especially about some dark times when lots of people were killed in the name of God. That does reflect how morality changes depending on times and society.

I'd love to. A religion should never be judged by its abuse. If i kill in the name of the republican party, does that mean my actions reflect the tenets of the party? Again, you are smuggling in objective morality. Dark times presume there is a light to move towards. Dark compared to......
Seriously, we can do this all day. But you will only find yourself falling into the same hole. the dark ages were dark, because morality is objective, and those perverters of religion were in violation. Otherwise, as you imply, they were justified, because morals change. Either morality is subjective, and the dark ages were just a different preference. Or the dark ages were objectively wrong. If you are going to judge the horrible moral failings of Christianity, you are going to have to smuggle in objective morality to do so. If you do, then you are unwittingly acknowledging the transcendent moral law giver. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Finally. An issue doesn't have to be life or death to be important.

If objective morality exist, then it has a source

First you have to prove that morality is objective. That is a problem since you can't even prove the existence of its source...

The reality is that you or can not have a conversation without both relying on (presuming) God.

Jlay I already tried that here, but when I said that God is both moral and immoral, some of you said that I have to prove that he is immoral. Since you assume that God is moral and you didn't prove it, I assumed that I can say God is immoral. Well sorry, that ain't fair. How come I have to prove something and you are allowed to assume things without proving them? If we can both agree on some basic assumptions then we can have this discussion. Otherwise it is pointless.

Great point. But think about this. Do pro-choice people believe they are 'murdering'? No. They think they are doing the "right" thing. No one views abortion as "good", in the sense we are talking. Ask any pro-choice person, "is abortion good?" You will likely get a strange look. They might say a woman's RIGHT to abortion is good. The fact is that they see the 'rights' of the mother in a greater view. If everyone saw the unborn as an unigue person, deserving all the rights of personhood, then abortion would be illegal. The danger you run it to is that what is legal becomes good. Let's say it became legal to execute a new born infant just like an unborn child. Or, imprison all Jews. Would the legality of it, make it morally acceptable? No. It would be wrong. Just like Chattel slavery was wrong. Thank goodness abolitionist didn't bend to society, but recognized the evil of slavery (objectively) and sought to correct course.

Again, I'm just one person. Some laws were voted on the request of minorities. As you said: people make choices. If you are a Christian nobody forces you to have an abortion if you don't want that. Christianity has a problem with people who don't make choices according to Christian beliefs. Well sorry about that. Maybe some people don't care that much about Christian beliefs. Is that a problem of Christian people? Should they be forced to uphold a law based on God's law? I don't think so. Today we have much diversity in the world so this is where the need of change comes from. Think about that.

I didn't say better

Progress infers moving in a better direction. I think you will have a hard time demonstrating otherwise.

You took my words out of context... by 100 miles.

My words were:I didn't say better. You assumed that another standard should be better. You are assuming that a society can go only up. History contradicts you again... All empires had their glory time and after reaching a certain point they started going down. Some of those empires are still existing today under another form and some of them are even gone for ever. Please accept my apologies if I said better. I think my words were "CHANGE AND/OR PROGRESS". The key word here is change. When I said progress, that doesn't mean progress of moral values... It can mean that as well, but it's not mandatory.

I think it wasn't nice coming from you to take my words out of context when I clearly explained how I used the word "better". You do understand what "OR" means, right? [Change and Progress] or [Change or Progress]. So you a change in a society doesn't involve progress on a mandatory basis.

I'd love to. A religion should never be judged by its abuse. If i kill in the name of the republican party, does that mean my actions reflect the tenets of the party? Again, you are smuggling in objective morality. Dark times presume there is a light to move towards. Dark compared to......
Seriously, we can do this all day. But you will only find yourself falling into the same hole. the dark ages were dark, because morality is objective, and those perverters of religion were in violation. Otherwise, as you imply, they were justified, because morals change. Either morality is subjective, and the dark ages were just a different preference. Or the dark ages were objectively wrong. If you are going to judge the horrible moral failings of Christianity, you are going to have to smuggle in objective morality to do so. If you do, then you are unwittingly acknowledging the transcendent moral law giver. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm going to say to you the same thing I said to neo-x

Nikolo Machivaelli: "The end justifies the means".

1) Spanish Inquisition: So you are saying that it doesn't matter that Christianity was forced onto people. People were tortured and killed if they didn't agree with it. So when I say that morality can prove to be quite subjective, I might just be right about that.
2) A child is born. As time passes by he becomes Constantine, a Roman emperor. He kills thousand of Christians. One day he has a revelation and he legalized Christianity at the same time with forbidding his people to worship the old Gods anymore. He was sanctified. He is considered to be a Saint even today.
3) The Holy Crusades were supported by the Pope himself.

Now you are saying that I shouldn't judge Christianity by such examples. I'm sorry, but I can't. You see, Christianity although good at its roots was forced onto people. If you do good by force, it can raise some ethical issues, especially when you kill people who disagree with you.
You are saying that that we shouldn't make statements about Christianity based on it's history. That puzzles me. History is the way that people document what happened over time and how things happened.
Let's say a man is honest and good until 25 years old. After that, the man kills 10 persons one by one by torture for example. After that he stops killing people and starts being honest and doing good again. The man was good and honest at his origins, but that doesn't mean that actions which took place didn't change the way he was.

BryanH wrote:

Great point. But think about this. Do pro-choice people believe they are 'murdering'? No. They think they are doing the "right" thing. No one views abortion as "good", in the sense we are talking. Ask any pro-choice person, "is abortion good?" You will likely get a strange look. They might say a woman's RIGHT to abortion is good. The fact is that they see the 'rights' of the mother in a greater view. If everyone saw the unborn as an unigue person, deserving all the rights of personhood, then abortion would be illegal. The danger you run it to is that what is legal becomes good. Let's say it became legal to execute a new born infant just like an unborn child. Or, imprison all Jews. Would the legality of it, make it morally acceptable? No. It would be wrong. Just like Chattel slavery was wrong. Thank goodness abolitionist didn't bend to society, but recognized the evil of slavery (objectively) and sought to correct course.

Again, I'm just one person. Some laws were voted on the request of minorities. As you said: people make choices. If you are a Christian nobody forces you to have an abortion if you don't want that. Christianity has a problem with people who don't make choices according to Christian beliefs. Well sorry about that. Maybe some people don't care that much about Christian beliefs. Is that a problem of Christian people? Should they be forced to uphold a law based on God's law? I don't think so. Today we have much diversity in the world so this is where the need of change comes from. Think about that.

This was directed at Jlay, but I'll feel free to comment.

Why do you equate the pro-life cause with Christian beliefs and God's law? You seem to be attacking a straw man. It is a scientific fact that humans, since their conception, are unique beings with unique DNA. As such, they are not a part of their mother's body and so abortion doesn't count as 'woman doing what she wants with her body'. Furthermore, brain activity is first detected on a fetus about 5-6 weeks after conception. In medicine, brain activity is considered a sign of life. Abortions are nonetheless performed up to 10, 12, 14, even 24 weeks after conception. This is so because fetuses can't speak up for themselves, that's why they need us to protect their rights.

You say that "nobody forces me to have an abortion", well imagine this: Someone walks around a street and shoots people randomly. The police will have every right to stop him. You could say that they are forcing their views upon him, as he may believe that he has every right to use his gun the way he wants. But you won't say it, because you could be among those people shot in the street. This brings us to the familiar proverb - "Everyone who supported slavery was free. Everyone who has supported abortion was born." People are against murder because they fear being murdered, but they don't oppose abortion because they can't be aborted - as they were already born. Therefore, it's hypocritical to defend the "right" to abortion, because if your mother had exercised that "right", you wouldn't now be here to defend that cause.

People make choices, I agree. But they need to learn to make responsible choices, and legal abortion doesn't help them achieve that. It's easier to have reckless, unprotected sex if you know that you'll be allowed to have an abortion with no questions asked. If it was otherwise, people would be encouraged to think carefully about what they do with their sexual organs. Everyone knows that sex leads to pregnancy. Therefore, when a couple agrees to have unprotected sex, they should be ready to deal with the eventual consequences.

BryanH wrote:

Check God's Commandment #10.

I did. It says nothing about you giving away your wealth to poor people. Don't get it.

Exodus 20:17 - “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

It clearly says that you shouldn't long for something that's not yours. Forced redistribution of wealth goes against that rule. In Communist regimes, people who owned big houses (actually, houses that the regime considered "big") were either kicked out of them, or forced to take up roommates, as a sign of "solidarity". Charity should be the means of solidarity, not force.

BryanH wrote:

He wants us to freely choose Him, and so we have a choice whether to accept or reject Him, which seems fair to me.

I sincerely do not agree with this and I will tell you why.

The Christian Dogma is very clear: if you do not follow God's path you end up in Hell.

Do you consider going to Hell being a choice? I don't know anyone who would voluntarily agree to these 2 choices...
Let me make it even more clear for you by rephrasing the statement above.

Either you agree with me(God) or you will end up in hell for eternity...(agree with me or I will shoot you in the head)

I look at it in a different way. I'm sick (with sin), and the diesase is fatal - it will kill me in a maximum of 80-100 years (if I'm lucky). There's no way around it, but there is one cure, and it's God. I may accept to be cured, or reject it and die. So yes, it is a choice. That's the purpose of living here on Earth - to witness good and the lack of it, and make up your mind about your fate. If you choose to reject the source of goodness, you end up in the total absence of it, i.e. Hell. God doesn't send you there - you choose your destination.

People make choices, I agree. But they need to learn to make responsible choices, and legal abortion doesn't help them achieve that. It's easier to have reckless, unprotected sex if you know that you'll be allowed to have an abortion with no questions asked. If it was otherwise, people would be encouraged to think carefully about what they do with their sexual organs. Everyone knows that sex leads to pregnancy. Therefore, when a couple agrees to have unprotected sex, they should be ready to deal with the eventual consequences.

I have to agree that you are right with your arguments, especially the one that all born people are ok with abortion because they were born.
I for one have not made a personal decision on abortion. I'm in between and I will tell you why.

Therefore, when a couple agrees to have unprotected sex, they should be ready to deal with the eventual consequences.
That's a simplistic approach on the situation. Sometimes young people make mistakes at a very early age. If a girl at that age continues her pregnancy, she could die herself.
Should she suicide or deliver the baby(there are chances that the baby will die anyways)? And there are other ethical dilemmas as well, but this is one that makes me stand on the middle line between abortion and non-abortion.

It clearly says that you shouldn't long for something that's not yours. Forced redistribution of wealth goes against that rule. In Communist regimes, people who owned big houses (actually, houses that the regime considered "big") were either kicked out of them, or forced to take up roommates, as a sign of "solidarity". Charity should be the means of solidarity, not force.

I didn't say any of these my friend and I didn't mention anything about charity. Do you think that poor people want your pity money? I clearly said that rich people should give up out of their own will and big heart, their status in order to create equality in terms of financial means for everyone. That's all. As in Christianity, some of the principles in the Communist regime were applied subjectively.

I look at it in a different way. I'm sick (with sin), and the diesase is fatal - it will kill me in a maximum of 80-100 years (if I'm lucky). There's no way around it, but there is one cure, and it's God. I may accept to be cured, or reject it and die. So yes, it is a choice. That's the purpose of living here on Earth - to witness good and the lack of it, and make up your mind about your fate. If you choose to reject the source of goodness, you end up in the total absence of it, i.e. Hell. God doesn't send you there - you choose your destination.

If you consider yourself to be sick that is your own choice. I do not consider myself to be sick with sin. Let me point out that Adam and Eve are sinners and God's law says that I have to redeem the original sin.
I'm sorry my friend, but I accept no blame for others' people actions. Adam and Eve made their choice. I for one would have preferred staying in Heaven.
If you choose to take the blame for someone's else actions, be my guest. But please don't tell me I have to do the same or I end up in Hell.
If that seems like a choice to you, well, sorry, but for me it is not a choice. Being forced to take the blame for somebody's actions is not a choice in my opinion.

BryanH wrote:

People make choices, I agree. But they need to learn to make responsible choices, and legal abortion doesn't help them achieve that. It's easier to have reckless, unprotected sex if you know that you'll be allowed to have an abortion with no questions asked. If it was otherwise, people would be encouraged to think carefully about what they do with their sexual organs. Everyone knows that sex leads to pregnancy. Therefore, when a couple agrees to have unprotected sex, they should be ready to deal with the eventual consequences.

I have to agree that you are right with your arguments, especially the one that all born people are ok with abortion because they were born.
I for one have not made a personal decision on abortion. I'm in between and I will tell you why.

Therefore, when a couple agrees to have unprotected sex, they should be ready to deal with the eventual consequences.
That's a simplistic approach on the situation. Sometimes young people make mistakes at a very early age. If a girl at that age continues her pregnancy, she could die herself.
Should she suicide or deliver the baby(there are chances that the baby will die anyways)? And there are other ethical dilemmas as well, but this is one that makes me stand on the middle line between abortion and non-abortion.

Those cases are very rare, compared to the overall number of "unwanted" pregnancies. In a majority of countries where abortion is illegal, such procedure may still be done in an extreme situation, i.e. when the mother's life is endangered, as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

Personally, I'm undecided on such situations as my knowledge of medicine isn't that extensive. This doesn't mean that I shouldn't be against abortions which are a result of irresponsible behaviour.

BryanH wrote:

It clearly says that you shouldn't long for something that's not yours. Forced redistribution of wealth goes against that rule. In Communist regimes, people who owned big houses (actually, houses that the regime considered "big") were either kicked out of them, or forced to take up roommates, as a sign of "solidarity". Charity should be the means of solidarity, not force.

I didn't say any of these my friend and I didn't mention anything about charity. Do you think that poor people want your pity money? I clearly said that rich people should give up out of their own will and big heart, their status in order to create equality in terms of financial means for everyone. That's all. As in Christianity, some of the principles in the Communist regime were applied subjectively.

Why pity money? There have been plenty of initiatives I know of, that have helped people in need - disabled, children, sick etc. Every effort is precious.

I said that although I support equal opportunities, you can't ultimately force someone to give away what they've earned. If I were rich, I would probably start a business in order to hire as many people I can, and reduce unemployment. I see it as a proactive method of social responsibility, but that's another topic.

BryanH wrote:If you consider yourself to be sick that is your own choice. I do not consider myself to be sick with sin. Let me point out that Adam and Eve are sinners and God's law says that I have to redeem the original sin.

So, you don't consider yourself a sinner? Do you consider yourself content? Do you feel a desire for something that you can't find in this world?

BryanH wrote:I'm sorry my friend, but I accept no blame for others' people actions. Adam and Eve made their choice. I for one would have preferred staying in Heaven.
If you choose to take the blame for someone's else actions, be my guest. But please don't tell me I have to do the same or I end up in Hell.
If that seems like a choice to you, well, sorry, but for me it is not a choice. Being forced to take the blame for somebody's actions is not a choice in my opinion.

You raise an interesting question. Well, my response would be - It's similar to being born with a genetic disease that (one of) your parents passed on to you, you'd have the right to consider it unfair, but that's the way it is. The fact is that we are sinners. Otherwise there wouldn't be evil in this world. Besides, how can you be so sure that you would have preferred staying in Heaven?

That's a simplistic approach on the situation. Sometimes young people make mistakes at a very early age. If a girl at that age continues her pregnancy, she could die herself.
Should she suicide or deliver the baby(there are chances that the baby will die anyways)? And there are other ethical dilemmas as well, but this is one that makes me stand on the middle line between abortion and non-abortion.

Actually this is simplistic. Every pregnancy has risk. Every one. Being a parent, I went through these risk consultations with my wife's pregnancy. The doctor made it clear, there is no risk free pregnancy.
However, stats show that the overwhelming majority of abortions are from convenience. That is the pregnancy is unwanted. so, let's say a young person makes a MISTAKE. How would murdering a defenseless unborn child not be a bigger mistake? This is saying, that two wrongs make a right.

If you consider yourself to be sick that is your own choice. I do not consider myself to be sick with sin. Let me point out that Adam and Eve are sinners and God's law says that I have to redeem the original sin.
I'm sorry my friend, but I accept no blame for others' people actions. Adam and Eve made their choice. I for one would have preferred staying in Heaven.
If you choose to take the blame for someone's else actions, be my guest. But please don't tell me I have to do the same or I end up in Hell.
If that seems like a choice to you, well, sorry, but for me it is not a choice. Being forced to take the blame for somebody's actions is not a choice in my opinion.

Preferred staying in heaven? Interesting. You reject God, yet you would prefer communion with Him? I'm confused.
Adam and Eve preferred their own way. They rejected God's way, and wanted something more, or so they thought. Based on our conversations, you sound like someone who wants his own way, and wants little to nothing to do with God's way.

Sin is most certainly a sickness. My grandfather died of cancer, in part, because he refused to acknowledge the symptoms he had. He allowed the cancer to grow, all the while in denial that something was wrong. By the time it got so bad, he had to go to the hospital, it was too late. The cancer had worked its course. Death was a upon him. As Bryan mentioned, it is a fact, 10 out of 10 people die. No one gets out of here alive. We will all step into eternity.

Do you consider yourself a good person?

Bryan,

What motivated people to torture others in the Spanish Inquisition, force religion by means of Constantine and kill others in the Holy Crusades? Do you really think that religion motivated all of this, even if religion says to do the exact opposite?

You raise an interesting question. Well, my response would be - It's similar to being born with a genetic disease that (one of) your parents passed on to you, you'd have the right to consider it unfair, but that's the way it is. The fact is that we are sinners. Otherwise there wouldn't be evil in this world. Besides, how can you be so sure that you would have preferred staying in Heaven?

My statement was rather simple. I can't be made responsible for what others have done. And you compare being a sinner with cancer. I was talking about something else. If Adam and Eve were murderers that doesn't make a murderer, does it?

The fact is that we are sinners

That is your sole opinion. If you think that we are sinners that doesn't make it necessarily true. If you consider yourself a sinner, please do, but please do not place me on the same boat as you. Hope you understand my point of view.

Bryan,

What motivated people to torture others in the Spanish Inquisition, force religion by means of Constantine and kill others in the Holy Crusades? Do you really think that religion motivated all of this, even if religion says to do the exact opposite?

Unfortunately yes, religion made them do that because they chose to go to an extreme level. Breaking any of the 10 commandments is punished by death... So yes, actually religion made them do what they did and of course the desire for power, money etc etc, you name it. It is clear that such actions had many political implications as well.

Anyways besides that, the most important thing that I want to point out is that such people who have done such awful things were also the ones who had a lot of power at that time and they were the ones coordinating bible printing and editing... So you see, although the Bible might teach one thing, the people were lead towards something else and that happens even today. Of course today we have a lot of speech freedom and many religion branches such as Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and others I probably have no idea about. Today things are different, but today the church has lost its influence... and even where it does have influence some people still do it for the money and power and still mislead people.

Actually this is simplistic. Every pregnancy has risk. Every one. Being a parent, I went through these risk consultations with my wife's pregnancy. The doctor made it clear, there is no risk free pregnancy.
However, stats show that the overwhelming majority of abortions are from convenience. That is the pregnancy is unwanted. so, let's say a young person makes a MISTAKE. How would murdering a defenseless unborn child not be a bigger mistake? This is saying, that two wrongs make a right.

I can offer a counter-argument on this matter but I am warning you that you might find it quite harsh.
In college I have discussed about a child that was lost when he was 1 year old and found 12 years later. In the mean time that child was raised by wolves. Sounds like the Jungle Book right? Well it's for real. That child was an ANIMAL. He was brought back to humanity, but he learned only a few basic words life food, toilet, water etc etc. That child was never a HUMAN again. That child was an ANIMAL. The fact that it looks like a human doesn't make it one.
So abortion is not actually murdering a defenseless child. It's like murdering something that doesn't exist. It's not actually a human being. Sorry for this harsh example.

And there is another issue as well: children don't come out of blue air: you make the choice to have one or you make a mistake. You are saying that I'm not allowed to change my mind. Again it's a matter of personal choice.

Coming back to Genetics and Homosexuality

Are people born gay? Yes, no doubt about that.
Is it a genetic disorder? Could be, but lacks evidence.

But the issue still remains: we have people who are born gay and we have people who are born deaf/blind.
Last time I checked deaf and blind people had the same rights as anyone else, right?
I think you got my point. You can't discriminate against someone because of its medical condition.

So abortion is not actually murdering a defenseless child. It's like murdering something that doesn't exist. It's not actually a human being. Sorry for this harsh example.

So according to your definition of what consists of being human, a child after birth is not quite human for a couple of years so after birth abortions should be ok then, especially if the child is mentally handicapped because it is not really human to begin with.


Dan

BryanH wrote:

So abortion is not actually murdering a defenseless child. It's like murdering something that doesn't exist. It's not actually a human being. Sorry for this harsh example.

There's so much wrong with this, that I don't know where to begin.

mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb:
Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

By definition, it's impossible to murder something that doesn't exist. It's also impossible to murder a "thing". By definition, only people can be murdered.

If an unborn human being is not a human being, then what is it?

BryanH wrote:

But the issue still remains: we have people who are born gay and we have people who are born deaf/blind.
Last time I checked deaf and blind people had the same rights as anyone else, right?
I think you got my point. You can't discriminate against someone because of its medical condition.

Bryan, you are all over the place with your rationale. On one hand, you are against discrimination of people because of their "medical condition". On another hand, you are for discrimination(and murder) of a whole group of people, just because of where they live.(in the womb)

By definition, it's impossible to murder something that doesn't exist. It's also impossible to murder a "thing". By definition, only people can be murdered.

If an unborn human being is not a human being, then what is it?

By definition, it's impossible to murder something that doesn't exist. It's also impossible to murder a "thing". By definition, only people can be murdered.

If an unborn human being is not a human being, then what is it?

I think my example was quite clear. The fact that the after 5-6 weeks there is brain activity that does not mean it is a human being. In the future it will be, but at the moment it is not. Anyways, this is one of the most debated bio-ethic topics in medical school. Nobody has managed to come to an agreement yet.

So according to your definition of what consists of being human, a child after birth is not quite human for a couple of years so after birth abortions should be ok then, especially if the child is mentally handicapped because it is not really human to begin with

I did not say that and I might have been unclear on some aspect. What I was trying to point out is that that simply being born doesn't make you a human being. There are other characteristics that are developed over time, even for handicapped people as well.

Bryan, you are all over the place with your rationale. On one hand, you are against discrimination of people because of their "medical condition". On another hand, you are for discrimination(and murder) of a whole group of people, just because of where they live.(in the womb)

Kids don't come out of the blue: some people make a decision to have children, others make mistakes, some change their mind. You are saying that once the fetus is starting to develop, you can't change your mind because it is a human being. As I said before: just because you see brain activity that doesn't mean it's actually a human being. It will be. I think that the law is quite clear on that: after 3 months you can't have an abortion or you will be prosecuted.

I'm not discriminating against people based on where they live: you can't say about the womb being a place of residence. Let's not forget that the womb is quite an individual part of a woman's body over which she has full control. It is her body and she has full control over it. Maybe she didn't want to get pregnant, but it happened. Why should she be forced to bring a baby into the world that she doesn't want?

I did not say that and I might have been unclear on some aspect. What I was trying to point out is that that simply being born doesn't make you a human being. There are other characteristics that are developed over time, even for handicapped people as well.

This sort of logic is a slippery slope and will lead to further depravity, who gets to make the definition, by what standards do they make this definition?
I shall take my standards from God's objectivity and not your subjective immorality.

Dan