Religion of peace via their man made "submission" strikes again

[Joy4Uall]

f

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

Scientific Humanism basically believes, arguably, that abortion rights (or restrictions) basically should be decided by the democracy that one lives in. The only thing that SH adds to that debate is that the "soul" is not proven, so arguably an 8-cell zygote is not, repeat not, equal to a 8.5 month-old fetus - but those that believe in a "soul" would say that they are equal, because they both have "souls".

 

[ding]

Glad I'm not a Democrat or a Republican.

Many Democrats and Whigs (the latter were pre-cursors of Republicans) did that. Almost all conservatives approved of that.

I see that you are a fan of historical revisionism, Jake. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery.

If Jesus was a Scientific Humanist then that wouldn't have been needed, as Jesus would have found the moral courage to simply say "end slavery w/in the next 30 years". I love people so much that I myself would have said that - would you have said that ding? I believe you are a good enough person, a caring enough person, to have taken 15 seconds out of your entire life (if you were in Jesus' shoes), to say that. I believe in you. Would you have said that? If so, you are on your way to being a Scientific Humanist.

Have a great weekend.

It is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

Like me, if you were hypothetically in Jesus shoes, would you have taken 15 seconds out of your entire life to help the world by saying "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years", ding? If not, then Scientific Humanism is something that might put more love in your heart - I know it did for me.

If you can exhibit this higher level of love, then if the after-life judge (if any) is a loving, caring, entity, then your chance of a favorable after-life would be greater as a Scientific Humanist (versus if you can't say that you'd say "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".) A loving god would want you to care for humanity enough to answer "yes" to my question above, of course.

Thanks.

Let me ask you this question, do you believe that as a rule men know right from wrong and when they violate it instead of abandoning the concept they rationalize they didn't?

 

[Joy4Uall]

f

You are incorrect as usual. My comments above on NYC stand firmly in the center of CW history, so your first comment is nonsense. Your second comment is more appropriately cast as the Republican Party is the party of white laboring man, which means of course that the GOP opposed to slavery in order to serve its primary interest.

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

I argue that it is always wrong because at conception a new, genetically distinct human being is created. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. That is what science

I can't say "you're wrong!!!" I can't.

 

[ding]

f

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

Scientific Humanism basically believes, arguably, that abortion rights (or restrictions) basically should be decided by the democracy that one lives in. The only thing that SH adds to that debate is that the "soul" is not proven, so arguably an 8-cell zygote is not, repeat not, equal to a 8.5 month-old fetus - but those that believe in a "soul" would say that they are equal, because they both have "souls".

So if that society decided to kill all scientific humanists, that would be ok? But putting that aside, didn't you just admit that scientific humanists ignore science when it comes to when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence?

 

[Joy4Uall]

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

The GOP does not believe in absolutely no abortion.

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)

Did God say it was moral? .......

God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)

 

[Joy4Uall]

f

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

Scientific Humanism basically believes, arguably, that abortion rights (or restrictions) basically should be decided by the democracy that one lives in. The only thing that SH adds to that debate is that the "soul" is not proven, so arguably an 8-cell zygote is not, repeat not, equal to a 8.5 month-old fetus - but those that believe in a "soul" would say that they are equal, because they both have "souls".

So if that society decided to kill all scientific humanists, that would be ok? ......

That would be too much like the Christian god approving of killing all the Midianites in the Bible, so no, because we are far more ethical than god of the Bible.

 

[ding]

f

Given that you still believe that some human life is property to be disposed of at the will of its owner, your argument rings hollow. Your party has always seen some human life as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner while the Republican Party has always viewed that all men are endowed with inalienable rights. One of which is the right to live.

Do you really need for me to post the historical evidence?

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

I argue that it is always wrong because at conception a new, genetically distinct human being is created. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. That is what science

I can't say "you're wrong!!!" I can't.

Great because we have commandments which were written down and men still commit murder, right? We have laws which are written down and people still commit murder, right?

Jesus said many things and that has not stopped people from not doing it, right? Do you know why? Let me give you a hint... it has to do with man rationalizing that he didn't do wrong. Only a good man knows just how bad he is a bad man doesn't have a clue.

 

[ding]

The GOP does not believe in absolutely no abortion.

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)

Did God say it was moral? .......

God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)

I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?

 

[Joy4Uall]

f

Never said that I thought abortion was a great thing.

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

Scientific Humanism basically believes, arguably, that abortion rights (or restrictions) basically should be decided by the democracy that one lives in. The only thing that SH adds to that debate is that the "soul" is not proven, so arguably an 8-cell zygote is not, repeat not, equal to a 8.5 month-old fetus - but those that believe in a "soul" would say that they are equal, because they both have "souls".

So if that society decided to kill all scientific humanists, that would be ok? But putting that aside, didn't you just admit that scientific humanists ignore science when it comes to when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence?

Yes, it's a genetically unique entity (an 8-cell zygote), arguably, you are right. Allowing pre-conception birth control, which the church has been against for many years, would be the best way, of course.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)

Did God say it was moral? .......

God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)

I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?

So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?

 

[ding]

f

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

Scientific Humanism basically believes, arguably, that abortion rights (or restrictions) basically should be decided by the democracy that one lives in. The only thing that SH adds to that debate is that the "soul" is not proven, so arguably an 8-cell zygote is not, repeat not, equal to a 8.5 month-old fetus - but those that believe in a "soul" would say that they are equal, because they both have "souls".

So if that society decided to kill all scientific humanists, that would be ok? ......

That would be too much like the Christian god approving of killing all the Midianites in the Bible, so no, because we are far more ethical than god of the Bible.

So you are taking allegorical accounts of actual events and using it to justify killing the most innocent members of our society? And you are claiming to be superior in the process?

Men know right from wrong and when they violate it rather than abandoning the concept they rationalize that they didn't violate it. You have literally just proven this in three posts.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Anti-abortion people can't prove that the "soul" exists - so an 8-cell zygote is not the same as an 8.5 month old fetus that could survive on it's own. The "soul" was just invented so that religions would have something of your to TORTURE after you die, to get you to convert, since obviously your dead body is just going to sit there (going nowhere).....so they had to invent a magic part of you that magically "survives" your death. Scientific Humanists will believe in this magic "soul" when a court-room level of scientific evidence is produced - if their particular unique god cared about humanity then he'd of course snap his all-powerful fingers and produce said evidence.

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)

Did God say it was moral? .......

God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)

I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?

Like me, if you were hypothetically in Jesus shoes, would you have taken 15 seconds out of your entire life to help the world by saying "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years", ding? If not, then Scientific Humanism is something that might put more love in your heart - I know it did for me.

 

[Joy4Uall]

f
I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

Scientific Humanism basically believes, arguably, that abortion rights (or restrictions) basically should be decided by the democracy that one lives in. The only thing that SH adds to that debate is that the "soul" is not proven, so arguably an 8-cell zygote is not, repeat not, equal to a 8.5 month-old fetus - but those that believe in a "soul" would say that they are equal, because they both have "souls".

So if that society decided to kill all scientific humanists, that would be ok? ......

That would be too much like the Christian god approving of killing all the Midianites in the Bible, so no, because we are far more ethical than god of the Bible.

So you are taking allegorical accounts of actual events and using it to justify killing the most innocent members of our society? And you are claiming to be superior in the process?

Men know right from wrong and when they violate it rather than abandoning the concept they rationalize that they didn't violate it. You have literally just proven this in three posts.

Abortion is a tough issue - some are for it and some "agin it".

 

[Joy4Uall]

...... It did happen. ......

Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.

 

[ding]

f

Did you ever say it was wrong?

I think many can agree that if a fetus is viable on its own then an abortion would be a very questionable thing.

Why are you creating an arbitrary definition of human life. Don't you believe in science?

Science tells us it is a human being.

“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.” Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland.

Scientific Humanism basically believes, arguably, that abortion rights (or restrictions) basically should be decided by the democracy that one lives in. The only thing that SH adds to that debate is that the "soul" is not proven, so arguably an 8-cell zygote is not, repeat not, equal to a 8.5 month-old fetus - but those that believe in a "soul" would say that they are equal, because they both have "souls".

So if that society decided to kill all scientific humanists, that would be ok? But putting that aside, didn't you just admit that scientific humanists ignore science when it comes to when a new genetically distinct human being comes into existence?

Yes, it's a genetically unique entity (an 8-cell zygote), arguably, you are right. Allowing pre-conception birth control, which the church has been against for many years, would be the best way, of course.

So what? The Church doesn't approve of many things. Are you arguing that they are responsible for abortions? Do you know what an external locus of control is? Because what you just wrote is a textbook example of it.

How many abortions do you think were performed because the woman didn't take birth control because the church said not too? Seriously, if they followed that directive why wouldn't they follow the bigger and more important directive of not killing your baby? Your logic is seriously flawed.

There is no arguably about it.


“Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide.” Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.” Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.” Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99

 

[ding]

No soul needed to know it is wrong to end a human life.

So then we both agree that "god" killing virtually humans in the "flood" was immoral, correct?
Scientific Humanists believe "love everybody, equally" - so can't bring forward the "flood", and of course can't bring forward "heaven/hell", nor the 1300+ cruel/violent parts of the Bible. We've moved to a higher moral plane than Christians (who are generally quite well-intended, and we love them.)

Did God say it was moral? .......

God (allegedly) did it, and he's the epitome of ethics, Christians believe, so of course they believe it was moral. So Christians believe that genocide was moral - just like Muslims believe that Mohammad's pedophilia was moral. Scientific Humanists have a very very different view of morality that the Abrahamic faiths have. (They have a right to their beliefs, however.)

I thought I explained that to you when I wrote the Bible tells accounts of actual events in an allegorical fashion. Do you understand what allegory means?

So the magic zombie returning to give you "eternal life" is also allegorical, but not literally true?

I did not say that was allegorical. Nothing in the NT is allegorical. It is mostly limited to Genesis.

 

[ding]

...... It did happen. ......

Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.

That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"

 

[Joy4Uall]

...... It did happen. ......

Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.

That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"

Yes, Jesus' claims are not falsifiable, not testable, so of course Scientific Humanists can't put Jesus claims above the claims of, say, Mohammad, or above the claims of followers of Zeus, or above the claims of those that claim Krishna is a god, etc.

I admire your tenacity and energy - I wish I could keep up with you.

 

[Joy4Uall]

...... It did happen. ......

Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.

That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"

I'm not "pro-abortion", as such.

 

[ding]

...... It did happen. ......

Science disagrees on the flood - so we have to make a choice to believe modern science, or to believe men who didn't know where the "sun went at night". Scientific Humanists choose the former.

That's pretty funny how you rely on science to prove a flood did not happen but reject science when it suits your purpose to look the other way when human life is selfishly ended. But putting that aside, are you familiar with the scientific concept of falsifiability? Because I would love to hear how you use science to falsify the account of the flood. Please show me how science falsifyies the "flood?"

I'm not "pro-abortion", as such.

That isn't my question. My question is... is it wrong to end a human life?