C’s Comments (group member since Feb 26, 2009)

C’s comments from the Debate group.

Dear Nathan,
As usual, your arguments are well-thought out and interesting to read. My personal opinions and how they differ are simply not relevant when admiring your thought process.
Regarding your message, number 41, I found your master-slave parallel between the baby and mother quite interesting. The thought process that occurred in my mind was as follows, and I write it out not to incite argument but because it raised questions I could not satisfactorily answer myself.
Premise: The mother is a slave to the baby.
Premise: Slavery is bad- the mother should not be forced to sustain the life.
Conclusion: The mother/baby slave relationship needs to be stopped.
Premise: The baby needs to be removed from the mother to stop its tyranny over her.
Premise: In the early stages of pregnancy, the baby cannot survive without its mother.
Conclusion: The baby needs to be removed, and therefore killed, to stop its possession of the mother.
Suppose we took this situation and put it in the context of the monstrous slavery that took place in our nation. Would it be acceptable for a slave to kill a white Southern slaveholder to free himself? Or would it be morally more satisfying for the slave to withstand their possession until they were legally free? Yes, there are dangers in remaining a slave, not unlike the dangers of giving birth- but would it be worth it to save the slaveholder's life?
*This questioning assumes that all lives have equal value, the mother's, the baby's, the master's, and the slave's. It also assumes that the baby is alive and not yet born. If either of these things are changed, it becomes an irrelevant argument.
Thank you for reading this.

Re message 3018, by Lauren: How were Adam and Eve brother and sister effectively?
Re message 3019, by Xox: I do not believe that the Bible is as utterly useless as you think.
I present this information (i.e. Bible references, ect.) because it is the basis for my opinion on the subject and because it was asked for by those who challeged Andrea's position.
God would not ask me to stone my children. (Malachi 4:6)
I am unwilling to further derail this conversation on this page, but if you have questions or further comments on the subject please message me.
Stay out of other people's lives- I am. I am stating my belief. In fact, I think that stating my belief on this forum will hardly have an effect on any gays, or how they live their lives. If I were to approach someone on this topic, I would try to do it in love, kindly, and shut up if they so desired.
On changing the Bible's word- it would be extremely pretentious and arrogant for me to pretend that I know the rules and rights of people better than God does. To say that they need to be changed would be putting my self and my word (which believe me, has been wrong many times) above that of God. I have no right or wisdom to change the Bible. In fact, to do so would be to disobey God directly (Revelation 22:18-19).
Re message 3020, by Nathan: I believe the Bible because it is logically consistent with itself and the world as I have observed it, and it helps me and encourages me. My belief in God and His word is not based upon logic, but upon faith, so any defense (particularly my inane one) will ultimately fail to explain why I believe. But don't we have a different thread for the authenticity of the Bible? :)
Re message 3021, by Dan: I liked reading your message. It was well phrased, articulate, and educated. Thank you for debating so well.
Now I will proceed with an entirely unequal reply. :)
Perhaps religous people feel the need to "butt in" because those who advocate legal gay marriage have begun (and succeeded) in convincing many in the church that gay marriage, now recognized legally, should be celebrated in the church. Some have succeeded, like those in the ELCA (Lutheran church organization) who have not only passed an amendment to celebrate gay marriages, but to ordain and call pastors with this orientation. As a congregation member of an ELCA church, it bothers me that those who advocate it so strongly should succeed in a way that effects not our laws but our church.
But this is not about religious marriage. I am only attempting to explain why those who advocate it try to "butt in" on other people's lives- they feel that not presenting and advocating their opinion would mean eventually allowing the gays to change the religious aspect of marriage, as well.
The second part: In the first part of John chapter 8, Jesus defends a woman who has sinned by adultery and should by the law of Moses be stoned. He says that the man who has not sinned should throw the first stone.
The laws do not have problems. As sinners, we are not righteous enough to judge or punish others for how they behave and obey God, and thus must strive entirely to follow the two new commandments Jesus gave us. We have no hope if we try to be saved by following the laws, because we are incapable of following it well enough to earn salvation.
We should not follow "the old law to the letter... only when it suits" us, we should follow the new law to the letter and the old law to the best of our abilities. We have no right, however, to execute the punishments laid out in the law because we are sinful.
The New Testament, also, gives a pretty clear decree; in Romans 1:26-27 Paul lays it out.
Sorry for the long-windedness of this post.

Re message 3016: I believe that God instituted marriage with the creation of Adam and Eve (first chapters of Genesis, see last post) and so, that first marriage was with and of the first people.
I beg to correct my former post- indeed, marriage was instituted long before the Bible was written, especially if Moses was the one who wrote down the first five chapters of the Bible, because he was pretty obviously after Adam and Eve.
But marriage was instituted by God, with His creation of the first man and woman. As such, it is an institution of His church.

Re message 3011, by Xox: Marriage was instituted from the instructions in the Bible. "Man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife," Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:31. If gay people want to have "unions" that is a different issue, but it is not marriage, because marriage is a covenant in and of the church.
Re message 3014, by Nathan: The Old Testament preaches a very different message than the New Testament. I could explain to you how God changed his methods for saving his people from the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament to the salvation by faith of the New Testament enabled by Christ, but from your demonstration of proper grammar and spelling :) I think you are educated and already know that.
Our commandments are, then, to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourself. I argue that loving God means following His commandments from the Old Testament which agree with the second new commandment: to love others as ourselves. So stoning children would obviously not be an act of love, while disciplining them would. Allowing gay/lesbian people to "marry" would be decieving them on what God wants, which would cause them to sin further. We would not cause ourselves to sin further, so allowing gays/lesbians to marry would be disobeying the second commandment.
Do you follow my reasoning? I appreciate that my communication is often inadequate.

Education is a very personal thing that shapes a person's identity. But no matter how essential, education is still a service provided by a business for a price. As a private business, the private Catholic school has the right to refuse customers, and as consumers, the parents have the right to take their son to another school.
This is not the case in public schools because they are run and funded by the government which has a moral obligation to equally serve all the citizens of the United States. Thus, even if the private Catholic school did something wrong, it was completely within their rights. If it had been a public school, it would be entirely and utterly wrong.
My personal belief is that it was not right to expell the child for his parents' choices, and the school would have presented a far better and more Christian appearance had they accepted and loved and taught the child. But then again, I'm homeschooled, so I've no right to be talking about this at all, have I? :)

Re message 1795- Do disabilities change the baby's right to at least experience life?
If I were raped, I have no idea what would happen. But it would not be the child's fault, and it would not be the child's responsibility to die for it. I hope that I would not abort the baby, but I cannot say for sure.

When I called evolution an "atheist theory" (which was wrong, I didn't realize it could offend) I was referring to the fact that evolution can be used to explain life on earth today, like creation can be used to explain life on earth today. Atheists prefer it, naturally, because it accords with the other things they believe. In this sense, it is the "atheist theory" as creation is the "Christian theory."
Again, I am sorry if I offended, that was not the intention.
I will spend the afternoon gathering my resources for a comparison. My previous comment should have been phrased as follows, Nathan, I apologize for the awkwardness.
Do you mind if I compare evolution to intelligent design by this definition of a scientific theory?
The comment will come this afternoon.

A scientific theory is one that has been formed from known scientific facts, tested, and repeated.

Do you mind if I compare intelligent design and evolution to this definition of a scientific theory?

People who believe Creation is true believe in their method of the beginning of the world as thoroughly as you do. Just because you believe it isn't truth doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught.
Example: A teacher is a Christian. This teacher should not only educate their students in intelligent design because their students would not recieve a full education. There would be a gap in their knowledge of current scientific theories.
Likewise, an atheist teacher should present both evolution and intelligent design, out of fairness to the student and to offer them a more complete education.
We do not teach only Christianity, only Islam, or only the Egyptian religions in a world religions class. Should we then teach an only atheist theory or only Christian theory of how the world was created in a science class?

I'm not trying to enforce it, I'm trying to promote it. I have no control over people's behavior, but I do have ideas on how we should get along.

In name calling, I was not referencing anti-choice. I was referencing Xox's calling anti-choice people "pest" and their words "disgusting bullshit" and "disgusting stuff" and "lies." We do not call names because we behave like adults in this group. Or we should.

Here we go. I think this is what you're all looking for.
A definition: Species- A unit of one or more populations of individuals that can reproduce under normal conditions, produce fertile offspring, and are reproductively isolated from other such units.
So, horses and donkeys, which belong to different species, can breed. The result is a mule. But mules cannot produce fertile offspring, or any offspring. They fulfill the "reproductive" qualification for life only at a cellular level.
Microevolution is the ability of DNA variants to change the characteristics of the offspring. In the beginning, I believe God made the species. Go with me here. I know you're all atheists, just hear me out. God made each "kind" of animal, and he gave them each enough DNA that their offspring would be many different animals, with different characteristics, but the same species. The changing of one animal into many similar but slightly different varieties is the process of microevolution. It is completely possible, even probable, as Darwin himself documented it in the finches on the Galapagos.
Now, macro-evolution. Macroevolution is the process of one animal species completely transforming into another species, which we have not seen any evidence of. It is the changing of DNA by adding new material, which we have not seen happen in the time we've existed. But you evolutionists have an out for this: we haven't been around long enough.
Does this make the distinction clearer?

Xox, I am sorry you hate me. I do not hate you, I disagree with you. I am anti-choice, pro-life.
If your intention is to call other people's beliefs names, then debate is not the right group for you either.
Namecalling is not and has never been debate.
And saying that it is wrong to kill unborn babies- or fetuses, or whatever you want to call them- voicing this opinion is not a lie. It is a statement made by a person about their beliefs, so it would only be a lie if they proclaimed to believe something that they do not, in fact, beleive.
Marcy, you are a strong, courageous person for posting on this group. As an atheist, one would have far less to fear on this group- they have Lauren to back them up, and she's an excellent writer and debater, and as an atheist, they are also in the majority.

If you have valid points, it is possible to phrase them without vulgar language.
The things on this list infuriate many people, on both sides of 'the fence'. Most people don't picket when they get mad, they do things to try to change the actions.
Picketing, though obvious and media-drawing, is not the only, or the best, way to show anger or make change.
And the bias of the media is, like beauty, ironically enough, in the eye of the beholder.

Show me where the Bible tells us how to beat slaves. Tell me how the scientific method "disproves" God. Haven't we been over this, btw? Science cannot prove anything, it can merely show something to be true most of the time or not true most of the time, but one can never test all the possible conditions for any situation, so science cannot "prove" or "disprove" God.

Perhaps most of the earth would be inhabitable to humans if they adapted and used their God-given talents... like to create technology. Is technology secular if it is born in the mind of a beleiver for the preservation of God's children?

Re Msg. 2888: Amazingness is relative. Is it amazing that the world is in an orbit such that life exists? Yes. Is it amazing that I am not floating off my office chair, considering the "law" of gravity? No, not at all. You see, amazingness is relative. Please, I beg of you, pick a non-emotional, unrelative term.
"Actually, if God did it all, science and natural laws cease to become amazing, because they are just made up things."
It is amazing to me that God created so many systems- ecosystems the world around, all the systems of the human body, the systems that rule the chemical composition of matter and the laws that rule over every process- and that all these systems are in sync. This is more information than anyone can fathom- all worked out precisely to sustain life. It is amazing to us because we cannot possibly create something so elaborate, so someone who can is impossibly better, and smarter, than us.

Emma: Can you rephrase? I didn't really catch your meaning. I'm glad to reply, however.

That's a matter of opinion.

"There are no proven examples..." Of course not. Nothing can be definitively proved, because for something to be proved, there has to be a postulate, a base assumption, which we cannot guarantee, and there has to be a complete and total lack of evidence to the contrary, which we cannot verify.
"Satan got into the garden,..." Where does it say that? Everything that God created was in the garden, so naturally, Satan would already be there.
"... got them to eat the apple,..." Yes. That's a victory over humankind.
"... runs rampant in the world causing all sorts of trouble...." Because we are imperfect beings, because Adam and Eve first indulged satan and set him free. God can, and will, triumph over Satan. He chooses not to yet.