What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Well, in Bob's defense, humans are supposed to be the only life-form with freewill and the ability to control ourselves.
The fact that someone even asks the question Lynah just asked says a lot. Or maybe some people think their ability to makes choices doesn't go beyond pizza toppings and such! :eek:
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I would like a clarification on your drunkenness remark.

Are you saying a woman who gets drunk and miscarries a week into a pregnancy, even if she had no clue she was pregnant, should be guilty of a crime because that is not acceptable? Or are you just making a general statement that drunkeness is not a good thing?

The later, drunkenness is general is frowned upon, even if you are living in the Dakotas.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I realize this is personal, anecdotal evidence, but I learned fairly early on that being ugly with bad hygiene is also very effective.

LOL, funniest thing I have read in weeks. I love your self-deprecating humor.

Spoken like someone who didn't have any quality options...

I have lived in WI all my life, it's the land of milk, honey and hot chicks. Hot chicks are turned on a guy who wants to deprive them of what they want.

Speaking of abstinence, I must abstain for 5 more weeks due to wifeypoo's hysterectomy, and it does suck. Once you open the door to sex and walk through (get married), heck yeah you want it. But abstaining pre-marriage isn't as bad because you don't have much of an idea how awesome sex is because you've never experienced it.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The later, drunkenness is general is frowned upon, even if you are living in the Dakotas.
And there we have it, a guy from Wisconsin saying that drunken debauchery is frowned upon - the state that routinely comes in as a top five drinking state.

But abstaining pre-marriage isn't as bad because you don't have much of an idea how awesome sex is because you've never experienced it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm sorry, you're right - nobody's having sex out of wedlock. The very notion of such carnal knowledge is absurd.








BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

And there we have it, a guy from Wisconsin saying that drunken debauchery is frowned upon - the state that routinely comes in as a top five drinking state.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm sorry, you're right - nobody's having sex out of wedlock. The very notion of such carnal knowledge is absurd.

Totally absurd. On both accounts. :) I know I'm some sort of circus freak, I did not have sex before marriage and I've never been remotely close to being drunk. But I am far from perfect.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I know I'm some sort of circus freak, I did not have sex before marriage and I've never been remotely close to being drunk. But I am far from perfect.

Timothy, you need to understand how most of us think. We read what you wrote and think "So" instead of "But." :)
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Jesus ****ing christ. How many times do you have to be told you have the biology all wrong. Seriously, open a high school level textbook.

Cell division occurs well before implantation.

Seriously, in the big picture, rephrase the concept in a supportive way. or are you really that reactive to people you dislike that you totally ignore what they are getting at???

I'm saying there is no real problem if you terminate a pregnancy before the developing organism is recognizably human. is it really so hard for you to understand that part????

If you don't like my details, then re-write it so it is technically correct while it still gets the same message across.

Real early = fine. Real late = off-limits (even under the law, now: if a child from a partial-birth abortion emerges fully from the womb before its brains are vacuumed out of its skull, it is now murder if you kill it then).

Somewhere in the middle = gets tricky.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Seriously, in the big picture, rephrase the concept in a supportive way. or are you really that reactive to people you dislike that you totally ignore what they are getting at???

I'm saying there is no real problem if you terminate a pregnancy before the developing organism is recognizably human. is it really so hard for you to understand that part????

If you don't like my details, then re-write it so it is technically correct while it still gets the same message across.

Real early = fine. Real late = off-limits (even under the law, now: if a child from a partial-birth abortion emerges fully from the womb before its brains are vacuumed out of its skull, it is now murder if you kill it then).

Somewhere in the middle = gets tricky.

You are missing the point. You cannot try to reason using biology when you have not shown the first signs of understanding even the basics of said biology.

I have re-wrote your details. This is the third time I can remember where I have had to tell you that cell division occurs before implantation. It is not my fault you are willingly ignorant about developmental biology. You refuse to educate yourself and continue to use the same incorrect notions.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Ramble alert:

I think it is interesting to see how the progress in our own scientific and cultural development affects two discussions taking place at different tables in this café--SCOTUS and Religion/SSM. Blackmun got the Roe v. Wade decision in part, it is said, as a result of his experience as legal counsel for Mayo clinic. In addition to the express recognition of a woman's right to privacy in her own body, Roe's balancing of governmental interests in protecting the health of the mother and the potentiality of life in the unborn was grounded in medical science known at the time--at least by those who had a role in the decision. Uno might know how much of the medical rationale was actually discussed by the Court or shared by the other 6 justices who were in the majority. Some of us will not change our position on abortion or SSM based on a static religious beliefs, like Kim Davis. But most of us understand now that many things once thought to be slam dunk simple, science-wise, such as gender identity, are not so simple.

Among other things, progress (which some would probably call regress in matters affected by religious faith) makes all our understanding contextual, including the way we interpret and apply the Constitution. Knowledge and understanding are moving targets, but it is so tempting for most of us to just give up the effort, to rationalize that we already know all that is necessary to reach conclusions even about fundamental questions.

OK, no point to be made here folks, just some early sundowning symptoms. Move along.
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

burd

Does that mean that nothing is set in concrete? Could, using that logic, mean that slavery is OK when it's necessary (to take an extreme example)?
 
Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Ramble alert:

I think it is interesting to see how the progress in our own scientific and cultural development affects two discussions taking place at different tables in this café--SCOTUS and Religion/SSM. Blackmun got the Roe v. Wade decision in part, it is said, as a result of his experience as legal counsel for Mayo clinic. In addition to the express recognition of a woman's right to privacy in her own body, Roe's balancing of governmental interests in protecting the health of the mother and the potentiality of life in the unborn was grounded in medical science known at the time--at least by those who had a role in the decision. Uno might know how much of the medical rationale was actually discussed by the Court or shared by the other 6 justices who were in the majority. Some of us will not change our position on abortion or SSM based on a static religious beliefs, like Kim Davis. But most of us understand now that many things once thought to be slam dunk simple, science-wise, such as gender identity, are not so simple.

Among other things, progress (which some would probably call regress in matters affected by religious faith) makes all our understanding contextual, including the way we interpret and apply the Constitution. Knowledge and understanding are moving targets, but it is so tempting for most of us to just give up the effort, to rationalize that we already know all that is necessary to reach conclusions even about fundamental questions.

OK, no point to be made here folks, just some early sundowning symptoms. Move along.

I would posit that Christianity is progress independent. (could say religion, but I won't speak for others in this case)

Many see Christians as being against gay marriage and abortion and holding of many other social tenants that are 'backwards' looking. Many Christians, myself included, welcome change and treat the Word from Jesus as targeting compassion, etc. As a side note, I might argue that abortion is not specifically a progress issue (as I'm pretty sure its had the same level of controversy since the procedure was developed as it does today).

In that sense, Bob and I have many similar views as we're Christians but many opposing views. (Speaking for him a bit)...our divergent social views on change don't have anything to do with the fact we're both Christians but rather because he's conservative and I'm progressive. So Christianity doesn't play into areas based on progress...but rather its political ideology that determines positions on those controversial social issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top