Posted on 06/15/2011 6:58:15 AM PDT by Abin Sur
I have it. Mere Christianity as well. Thanks for the encouragement.
But the troll on this thread WAS.
Where? Everything I can find, he’s rather humble and seems to be making every concession he can to people of faith. I must be missing something.
I was just thinking of the Zottees who taunt Jim before they get zotted.
How about “suicide by cop”?
LOL
LOL!
I don't know about the other 400 and some FReepers, but I'm just on your ping lists so I can stalk you and try to get you zotted for promoting everything our founder promotes. It's not working out very well, but I'll keep trying.
Not bad ;-)
His intrinsic belief is that rights come from man, which means they are not inalienable.
“That’s all I need for you guys. No one likes you.”
According to you?
And you’re omnipotent, omniscent, and omnipresent right?
Again, you came in with insults rather than discussion.
If you didn’t feel particularly stung, why insult?
Oh yeah, that’s apparently all you got.
If all you can do is insult as you have dne here, you’ll get yourself in trouble sooner or later.
If you feel you are under possible banishment, how about not doing whatever it is that might result in that?
Like, how about actually discussing things rather than hurl insults?
That might work.
Do those state laws simply enable the person leading up to the act itself, or do they allow active participation by the “assistant” in performing the act? That is what got Kevorkian sent up, IIRC. He was building those machines to allow people to kill themselves, and the law didn't touch him. When he actively participated in killing someone, he was sunk, legally speaking. Evidently in other countries the laws allow active participation in the act of euthanasia. That is certainly crossing the line. Enabling the act is taking a step down the slippery slope.
He stated flat out that rights are a construct of man.
If they are given by men, then they can be taken away by men as thus norights would actually exist at all.
In post 146 Abin said, “Show me falsifiable, scientifically verifiable evidence of this “soul” and we can talk. Otherwise, you might as well argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...it’s just as productive.”
That’s pretty mocking of Christians there actually.
post 140: “ Incorrect. As I’ve stated earlier, rights are a human invention. “
Meaning that rights don’t exist at all.
If you’d like to browse:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:abinsur/index?brevity=full;tab=comments
I don't disagree with him, so should I be banned? The concept of rights being unalienable and coming from God is an abstract concept. The reality is that in the really real world, men alienate other men from their 'rights' with regularity and have done so since the dawn of history. Our Jewish friends for example, have had their rights alienated throughout history. Pharaoh wasn't a big respecter of rights, and the fact that we in America tout the abstract philosophy that rights are unalienable didn't keep the Jews in Warsaw from being alienated from those same rights.
In post 146 Abin said, “Show me falsifiable, scientifically verifiable evidence of this “soul” and we can talk. Otherwise, you might as well argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...it’s just as productive.”
I don't see where that's mocking. He doesn't believe there is a soul, and rightly states that there is no proof that there is a soul. That's where faith comes in. So of course, lacking faith he doesn't see any reason to believe in souls. That's hardly mocking anyone.
He also pushed the idea of euthanasia.
FR is a conservative site and doe not support that agenda.
It is a slippery slope from “right to die” to “Duty to die, you have no choice”.
1940’s Germany did that sort of garbage.
We fought to stop it, back then.
Why emulate it now?
I struggle with that one myself. In all honesty, the fact of the matter is that they aren't inalienable. Atrocity after atrocity in this world proves just how easy it is in practice to deny someone the rights that we call inalienable. An inalienable right is flowery philosophy that to be perfectly blunt is pretty damned useless when someone who doesn't believe you have the rights you think you do is forcing you and yours into a boxcar at the business end of an automatic weapon.
This is where we agree. Euthanasia in any form is going to lead directly to a philosophy where the infirm have the duty to die, not the right to die. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of how quickly it comes about if we set foot upon that particular road.
“That’s hardly mocking anyone.”
I sure have seen worse, even from Freeper Christians towards other Freeper Christians. He didn’t curse either, like some have been known to do. I hope it wasn’t an opputunity wasted to actually represent the Christian viewpoint that might have got him thinking. He even left the thread nicely.
Freegards
I share your sentiments. I’m a bit confused about this one. This is nothing compared to some of the stuff I stumble to upon accident in the religion forum. I don’t think the “No person insults” etc rule applies there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
