Abortions

[MyndFyre]

- It was written 600 years after the death of Jesus Christ, so how can any of it be 'the words of Jesus Christ', nobody he knew was alive for 600 years, sorry to burst your bubbles.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you think that, then you're wrong.  Historically speaking, many of the new testament books / letters were written around 50 years after the death of Jesus.  Many people who saw the events took place would have still been around for that.  The first 4 books of the Bible were written by Moses, obviously during his lifetime (because otherwise they wouldn't be written by him); while many of the events recorded in the book of Genesis would have not been experienced firsthand by him, those following would have been.  The Bible as a whole was written over a great deal of time.

- It has 2 different stories for the creation of man, 1) Adam & Eve ; 2) God created man in a day ( or w/e it is )

Um.... k.  They're the same story.  God created Adam in a day.  There is an undefined length of time between that event and the creation of woman.

Overall, IMO the Bible has very little to do with a secularist's point of view on abortion anyway.  But if you're going to have an opinion about the Bible, it should be grounded at least in fact.

- It was written 600 years after the death of Jesus Christ, so how can any of it be 'the words of Jesus Christ', nobody he knew was alive for 600 years, sorry to burst your bubbles.

If God created the universe, he wouldn't create it with C14 enough to predict the age of some object.  Carbon dating is a completely useless practice if you're religious and you believe God created the universe.

I hesitate to stick with you on this point.  It's apparent that God created the universe "old" (as He did with Adam).  Although I still think carbon dating is relatively unreliable.

[drka]

2) God created man in a day ( or w/e it is )

*6 days

[rabbit]

2) God created man in a day ( or w/e it is )

*6 days

On the 6th day*

[Sidoh]

*6 days

... I'm not even going to touch that one.  Besides, rabbit already put it in terms nicer than I would be able to.

[Joe]

It has 2 different stories for the creation of man, 1) Adam & Eve ; 2) God created man in a day ( or w/e it is )

"Adam" and "Eve" are literally the hebrew words for "Man" and "Woman". Its the same thing.

[deadly7]

Although you'll piss people off by leaving a dog in a car, it's still not considered murder. Animals are killed all the time.

Humans are animals, too.

[iago]

Although you'll piss people off by leaving a dog in a car, it's still not considered murder. Animals are killed all the time.

Humans are animals, too.

That's a whole other can of worms. 

[Armin]

So does anyone care to debate when a human is a human and has a human reality-concept mind?

We are not scientists, so there is absolutely nothing we can do to debate it except assume on a subject that we have no clue about.

I think everyone here agreed that abortion is wrong if the fetis has concept of reality, correct? So basically, there is nothing else to debate about because it's impossible for us (the people at these forums) to decide when a fetis gets this concept of reality, which means our conclusion is that abortion is wrong unless the fetis has a concept of reality.

[Sidoh]

You think that Scientists can determine that?  I think you're wrong.

[iago]

The necessary characteristics to debate this topic well:
a) Willing to give up their most basic beliefs
b) Not religious, but willing to consider religion
c) Willing to accept that what they see might not be all that exists
d) Attempting to discover the Truth, not looking to prove their own beliefs

(note: c and b are basically subset of a)

That is exactly what Philosophers strive for.  It's also known as "Free Thinking".  I know very few people like that, and I don't think any of you (or myself) fits into that.  You're all out to prove yourselves right, not to understand the issue.  That's the first mistake. 

[Armin]

You think that Scientists can determine that?  I think you're wrong.

I never said they could, I was just trying to prove that we don't even have a chance.

The necessary characteristics to debate this topic well:
a) Willing to give up their most basic beliefs
b) Not religious, but willing to consider religion
c) Willing to accept that what they see might not be all that exists
d) Attempting to discover the Truth, not looking to prove their own beliefs

(note: c and b are basically subset of a)

That is exactly what Philosophers strive for.  It's also known as "Free Thinking".  I know very few people like that, and I don't think any of you (or myself) fits into that.  You're all out to prove yourselves right, not to understand the issue.  That's the first mistake.

Is that directed towards me or other people? I just quickly skimmed the topic and read what most people believe, then came up with a conclusion. Anyways, I totally agree with you here, it's really hard to do and I've been trying to do it for a while.

[Sidoh]

I never said they could, I was just trying to prove that we don't even have a chance.

Hehe, I really don't think anyone stands a chance without some omniscient advice.

[Furious]

The Bible is a collection of stories, there is no singular author, and if you are going to say Moses wrote the bible, show some scientific evidence, and show me that there was a man named Noah who herded 2 of every animal in the world on a big arc and lived for 600 years, and how X(I forget her name) conceived if I remember correctly, mutliple hundreds of children.  Nothing in the bible makes any sense, it was written by some drunk who heard stories. This topic was meant for abortions, split it and keep on topic please 

Stay on topic, this has nothing to do with the bible.

http://everystudent.com/features/bible.html

[Sidoh]

No, this discussion is closely related enough to not split it.

Secondly, Religion is FAITH you're not supposed to be able to explain everything about it.

[iago]

You think that Scientists can determine that?  I think you're wrong.

I never said they could, I was just trying to prove that we don't even have a chance.

The necessary characteristics to debate this topic well:
a) Willing to give up their most basic beliefs
b) Not religious, but willing to consider religion
c) Willing to accept that what they see might not be all that exists
d) Attempting to discover the Truth, not looking to prove their own beliefs

(note: c and b are basically subset of a)

That is exactly what Philosophers strive for.  It's also known as "Free Thinking".  I know very few people like that, and I don't think any of you (or myself) fits into that.  You're all out to prove yourselves right, not to understand the issue.  That's the first mistake.

Is that directed towards me or other people? I just quickly skimmed the topic and read what most people believe, then came up with a conclusion. Anyways, I totally agree with you here, it's really hard to do and I've been trying to do it for a while.

It wasn't directed at anybody, it was directed at everybody in this thread, including myself.  Nobody here is qualified to discuss this and come to a useful conclusion. 

FAITH is dumb.  I'd prefer to see proof.  Read St. Augustine and Decartes. 

And yes, this issue has plenty to do with the Bible.