Creation/Evolution in the News

Various ^ | 8/9/2002 | JennyP

[Can i say that here?]

That's true. As a political prisoner in the Lubyanka, you could have complained about your infringed "inaliable rights" to your heart's content. You'd be shot just the same.

not much of a "right" was it?

[CyberCowboy777]

I keep to the moral standards of God, those do not change. A church may change, God does not.

I am not a Churcher (one who keep the morals of the church). I am a Christian (one who is saved by the sacrifice of Jesus and loves and Trusts Him so much that I keep His Commandments, knowing His authorship of all Creation.)

No sex without marriage, after that, do it all you want.

Birth control you ask, nope not me. I am not that stupid, only ignorant people need Birth Control.

Speaking of stupid people. If it were not for my God and His authorship of all I would advocate the killing of all stupid people, then there would be no issue at all. And of course in your world it would be morally correct as it is my reality.

[andy_card]

not much of a "right" was it?

Exactly. We have no rights, other than those we grant ourselves.

[laredo44]

And Me for Man Governed by God (true Freedom)

Now all we need is confirmation from God.

[CyberCowboy777]

You seem to have a misconception of God. The Taliban is not God, it is a body of men forcing others to do want it deems moral.

You know, like what Andy here advocates. Man Ruling Man

[steve-b]

Unless God tells us what he really meant when he said "Thou Shalt Not Murder", then murder is OK, right?

On the contrary, the fact that morals rest upon human intellectual analysis of the world is why it can be said that murder is not OK, even though millions of people say that God told them that it is OK.

[CyberCowboy777]

So the Nazis were correct in giving themselves rights to kill Jews?

Hmm, what about the Jews rights? Did they not give themselves rights?

So confusing......Unless, no that can't be right, too simple....Yes that must be the answer, in-alienable rights exist no matter the person or oppressor.

[CyberCowboy777]

As a political prisoner in the Lubyanka, you could have complained about your infringed "inaliable rights" to your heart's content. You'd be shot just the same.

And being shot was morally correct? If not why?

Morality you say! Oh, that is why we fight for those pesky in-alienable rights that all men are created with.

[laredo44]

Speaking of stupid people. If it were not for my God and His authorship of all I would advocate the killing of all stupid people, then there would be no issue at all. And of course in your world it would be morally correct as it is my reality.

One of the more bizarre and conflicted statements I've seen. You are probably not welcome in a wide variey of settings.

[steve-b]

No, actually the checkmate is when you realize that atheistic libertarianism ends in either absurdity or arbitrary decision-making.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you would throw away your Clinton Erasable-Ink Dictionary and use the same language as the rest of us, it would be evident that the moral precepts of libertarianism are quite clear and inflexible.

[laredo44]

What of your opinion on in vitro fertilization and frozen embryos? Not in favor?

[steve-b]

It is impossible to found a society based on the idea of "liberty" or "fairness" or "justice" or "God's Will" or "Faith" or "Divine Revelation" or whatever because everyone disagrees about what these ideas entail.

Just correcting a few omissions

[steve-b]

I will not, however, count the Black Plague

Sorry, but you have to count at least a large chunk of it. ("Ever since we burned all those cats, the demons seem to be taking the form of rats....")

[laredo44]

What did I say earlier? Checkmate is when it becomes obvious that libertarianism ends in either absurdity or arbitrary decision-making?

What a triumph you must feel. You define checkmate, you decide when the conditions you defined are satisfied. You've found the formula for winning EVERY argument.

But you knew that all along because you simply stipulated those conditions which you avow: absurdity and arbitrary decision-making. Thanks for including us in a rigged game.

[mjf]

You know what? I'm amazed that this is still going on here in this forum. Of course, it's a great debate. And it has the advantage of attracting a large number of people who want to post replys, but this horse has been beat to death!

Over and Over!

Again and Again!

There's three groups. One is fully for Creationism. One is fully for Evolution. The third believes we really don't know yet.

I rank amongst the third. It took a little while for you folks to appreciate that, the last time I posted on a thread such as this. I'm still of the opinion that we do not know what happened. Punk tu lated evolution, evolution, creation, we just don't know.

We have text, we have fossils, and, we just don't have a resolution.

It's amazing to me the number of posts that these threads create (or evolve into). To tell you the truth, I'm just LOL! at the whole thing.

The Monkey Trials on Free Republic!!!!

Find it here!

[steve-b]

It's not vexing to me. Human life comes from God. I didn't create it, thus I can't destroy it. Nor can anyone else.

It is no more vexing to libertarian ethics (with the obvious correction of "can't destroy it" to "may not destroy it") -- it's not mine; therefore I may not destroy it.

In fact, this is a more compelling answer, since it applies independently of the question of whether a human life is self-owned or divinely owned.

[balrog666]

And Me for Man Governed by God (true Freedom)

Really? I see it as Man governed by a Man invoking God. Which is a lot like Man governed by a Man invoking the Boogie-Man. Or Man ruled by a Man invoking The-Nameless-Thing-Under-The-Bed. Or Man ruled by Man invoking the Evil-That-Lurks-In-The-Dark. Or the lost ancestors. Or the river-god. Or the god-of-fire. Or the trickster-coyote. Or the Giant-Chicken-Named-Harry-From-Pasadena.

All it really sounds like is a mask for ignorance and fear; ruling the sheeple by intimidation.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

There's three groups. One is fully for Creationism. One is fully for Evolution. The third believes we really don't know yet.

I'm a Creationist for evolution.

[balrog666]

There's three groups. One is fully for Creationism. One is fully for Evolution. The third believes we really don't know yet.

I think you left out the largest group: those who don't care, those who don't want to be bothered, and those whose life is unaffected by any abstract or intellectual matter at all.

[laredo44]

Let me cut to the chase here. It is impossible to found a society based on the idea of "liberty" or "fairness" or "justice" or whatever because everyone disagrees about what these ideas entail.

So we should base our society on God because we all agree there?

And because you can't appeal to God for authority, well then you have to appeal to force.

Explain, please how we appeal to God's authority. Who is to be the intermediary? How do we establish they're not just making stuff up?