Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

[Clete]

Kmoney is correct on that. We were simply noting our disagreement and moving on as it fell outside the scope of the question being discussed. Sorry if the way it was formatted made that unclear. :-(

So you do think that a vote for a third party effects one or the other of the two main campaigns?

 

[WandererInFog]

So you do think that a vote for a third party effects one or the other of the two main campaigns?

It certainly can. In this particular election for example, Obama's hopes of winning in Georgia were largely dependent on Bob Barr's candidacy taking votes away from John McCain. You can actually see in the polls there that as Barr's numbers have faded, McCain's have increased to the point where now Obama has no real hope of winning the state. So we can see, with as close to empirical evidence as you're going to get about this sort of thing, that votes for Barr were largely votes being taken away from McCain.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Am I missing something?

You've got a Battle Royale going on and you don;t bother to stick it in the current staff picks, or make it a sticky, or even post a link to it in the "Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII" thread?

Who's in charge of this monkey house? :sozo2:

Did ya happen to see the giant banner on the TOL home page?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

...abortion being compared to him killing Jews in the VERY FIRST POST seems a bit over the top.

Why?

If a fetus is a human (and it is) then the things they do to these helpless, voiceless humans are just as hideous (if not more so) than anything done in Germany.

- Burning with chemicals
- Dismemberment
- Scissors to the back of the head
- Brains sucked out
- Etc.

These are the things these innocent little babies suffer when the abortion "doctor" enters the room.

 

[nicholsmom]

That quote was actually made by GFW. WIF repeated in a section of points that he didn't agree but go into further detail. It was a little unclear, however, because of the formatting.

The rebuttal portion was primarily mine, so the formatting confusion is mine. I'm sorry about that. I did try to list the agreements & disagreements in a clear way & had no notion that listing something under the title "things upon which we disagree" would in any way be construed as agreement or, least of all, our position

Sorry for the confusion. I will endeavor to use colored lettering or something in future to make our positions more clear.

 

[nicholsmom]

Why?

If a fetus is a human (and it is) then the things they do to these helpless, voiceless humans are just as hideous (if not more so) than anything done in Germany.

- Burning with chemicals
- Dismemberment
- Scissors to the back of the head
- Brains sucked out
- Etc.

These are the things these innocent little babies suffer when the abortion "doctor" enters the room.

Absolutely. They are horrid, disgusting murders - even if abortion could be done "painlessly," it would still be murder.

However, we are not debating whether or not abortion is immoral; so the point is ... well, pointless.

GFW chose the topic. It is plain & excessively difficult to prove. I honestly do not know how they will manage it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Absolutely. They are horrid, disgusting murders - even if abortion could be done "painlessly," it would still be murder.

However, we are not debating whether or not abortion is immoral; so the point is ... well, pointless.

GFW chose the topic. It is plain & excessively difficult to prove. I honestly do not know how they will manage it.

Relax... didn't you notice I was responding to Alate_One?

 

[nicholsmom]

Relax... didn't you notice I was responding to Alate_One?

Sorry. Didn't mean to aim a punch at the official

 

[novice]

GFW chose the topic. It is plain & excessively difficult to prove. I honestly do not know how they will manage it.

You guys lost the debate when you typed....

Question no further: abortion is murder every time. We completely agree on the question of abortion being immoral. This, however, is not the question to be answered in this battle.

If you really believe that abortion is murder in all cases then it is immoral to support a man who has admitted he will murder some children (as McCain has made it clear he supports abortion/murder in many instances).

Supporting murder is immoral. (Romans 1:32 )

End of debate.

:sozo: Next!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

IMPORTANT NOTE!!!

I think koban made a good point (yes even a blind squirrel eats ), normally these discussion threads are in the Battle Royale Grandstands but for now I think I will move it to "Staff Picks" so that it gets more attention while the battle is in progress.

 

[nicholsmom]

Did ya happen to see the giant banner on the TOL home page?

I did. It is wonderful. I am honored by its presence. :up: Nicely done, Knight.

 

[Just Tom]

WN first post was well done.. Many points that were well thought out. Though I don't believe that they are insurmountable at all.

I will enjoy reading this as the first two post were very succinct which is nice for people like me with short attention spans...

As of right now this could go either way because of how the topic is framed.

Nice job people keep up the good work....:second:

 

[Alate_One]

Why?

If a fetus is a human (and it is) then the things they do to these helpless, voiceless humans are just as hideous (if not more so) than anything done in Germany.

- Burning with chemicals
- Dismemberment
- Scissors to the back of the head
- Brains sucked out
- Etc.

These are the things these innocent little babies suffer when the abortion "doctor" enters the room.

It wasn't the reference to abortion ITSELF I was objecting to, it was the comparison with respect to McCain's supposed "support" for it. Abortion may be legitimately compared to genocide in some cases but McCain's role in the matter is hardly that of Hitler's, which was the implication of the examples posted.

 

[The Graphite]

It wasn't the reference to abortion ITSELF I was objecting to, it was the comparison with respect to McCain's supposed "support" for it. Abortion may be legitimately compared to genocide in some cases but McCain's role in the matter is hardly that of Hitler's, which was the implication of the examples posted.

You read too much into it, and you assume too much. We made no comparison of McCain to Hitler.

That much should be increasingly clear in coming rounds.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you really believe that abortion is murder in all cases then it is immoral to support a man who has admitted he will murder some children (as McCain has made it clear he supports abortion/murder in many instances).

Supporting murder is immoral. (Romans 1:32 )

End of debate.

:sozo: Next!

I would have liked to see GG state this in the first round post.

 

[Alate_One]

You read too much into it, and you assume too much. We made no comparison of McCain to Hitler.

That much should be increasingly clear in coming rounds.

If you say so . . . You also compare stem cell research to Dr. Mengele's activities, this is simply and utterly WRONG. Stem cells are derived from a blastula containing approximately 100 undifferentiated cells. They have no nerves, no brain, no heart, a literal "ball of cells". It's impossible for such an embryo to even feel pain and you want to equate it with the literal psychological, and physical SUFFERING that Mengele caused? Whether you believe such an embryo should be equated to human life or not, it's a ridiculous comparison that does a disservice to the real children who endured the experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell

Abortion is evil because you'll essentially NEVER catch an embryo before the stage at which it it has nerves or a heartbeat and at that point and much less deniable as a true individual and can probably feel pain.

 

[Lion]

NW said;

We are warned quite explicitly by Paul not to make our own opinions into rules with which to judge our fellow believers. (Romans 14:1-3 and Romans 14:4) So, as we venture into this subject we must be careful that we limit ourselves to only those things which are found in Scripture through careful exegesis, and not force our own opinions, however well intentioned, onto the Scriptures.

Your mistake here is that you don’t understand these two scriptures, both are strictly in reference to the differences between the Circumcision Believers and the Members of The Body of Christ during the transition period. Neither have any place in this political debate and have no place in a discussion over issues of right and wrong.

NW said;

After careful thought and consideration we have come to the opinion that the only instance in which voting could be definitively considered an immoral act is if a vote is cast for someone who God himself would not command us to obey as a legitimate authority. God himself is fairly broad in this regard. He commands us to view as legitimate, and often chooses to work through and commands us to obey, magistrates who are imperfect individuals, and who do not follow his commands at every point. Where he give us not only the right, but the imperative to rebel against a magistrate is where that magistrate would force us to engage in actions in violation of God's commands. Notice it is not enough that a magistrate merely allows things to go on which are contrary to God's will, he must actively be forcing others to commit such actions before rebellion is sanctioned or required. Therefore, to knowingly vote for someone who would attempt to force citizens to engage in immoral acts, would be immoral.

This isn’t true at all. John the Baptist rebelled against King Herod because of his personal immorality. Herod wasn’t ordering John to be sexually immoral.

NW said

After careful consideration, we can see no evidence based on character, stated beliefs, or past actions to believe than either John McCain or Sarah Palin would enact any law or take any governmental action which would force Christians to commit acts contrary to God's law. This then places the action of voting for McCain and Palin into the category discussed by Paul previously in which each Christian is accountable to his own conscience for his actions. With this in view, there exists no scriptural warrant for judging another believer's voting to be an immoral act.

Once again you are taking an unbiblical stance. God doesn’t say that we should only stand against a person if he or she personally was going to force someone else to commit an immoral act, but rather also those who even just approve of such things.

Romans 1:32
who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

I think you have already lost the argument here. You admit abortion is murder every time (except when trying to save both mother and child but technology prevents saving the child at that time).

And you admit that John McCain allows for abortion in the case of incest and rape. So how can you say it would be moral to vote for a man that would place his stamp of approval on the murder of innocent children?

I would conclude that if you do you fall under the condemnation of Romans 1:32 :drum:

 

[Lion]

Alate one said;

If you say so . . . You also compare stem cell research to Dr. Mengele's activities, this is simply and utterly WRONG. Stem cells are derived from a blastula containing approximately 100 undifferentiated cells. They have no nerves, no brain, no heart, a literal "ball of cells". It's impossible for such an embryo to even feel pain and you want to equate it with the literal psychological, and physical SUFFERING that Mengele caused? Whether you believe such an embryo should be equated to human life or not, it's a ridiculous comparison that does a disservice to the real children who endured the experiments.

Hmm. Of course no one knows what our soul/spirit feels or thinks during this time. :think:

 

[nicholsmom]

You admit abortion is murder every time (except when trying to save both mother and child but technology prevents saving the child at that time).

We made no such exception. We stated only that abortion is murder. Why do you attribute this exception to us?

And you admit that John McCain allows for abortion in the case of incest and rape.

Where, oh where did you read this??? This "admission" is not anywhere in our post, nor in our profiles. Please refrain from putting words into our mouths.

I would conclude that if you do you fall under the condemnation of Romans 1:32 :drum:

This is no surprise considering how you have "read between the lines" of our post to twist it to your purpose. Is this also how you read your Bible? With subjectivism upon its throne in your heart? :nono:

 

[Alate_One]

Alate one said;

Hmm. Of course no one knows what our soul/spirit feels or thinks during this time. :think:

Except as an adult, have you ever felt pain from someone damaging part of you that had no pain receptors? (cutting hair etc.) Brain's can be cut with the patient still alive and awake and they feel no pain, yet the brain is probably the "seat" of the soul. But of course the brain has no pain receptors so no pain is felt.

Soul and body are integrated so tightly as to be almost inseparable, the brain serving as the centerpiece of the interaction. No brain = no "attachment point" for the soul.

You're arguing against a technology that has the potential to heal millions of people, on the supposition that maybe a soul is attached to a ball of 50-100 cells and it can feel pain when damaged, despite the lack of nerve endings. I'm not suggesting we throw around human embryo's willy nilly as if they were meaningless but if the well regulated research is allowed to go forward, *eventually* we will CEASE TO REQUIRE embryos at all.

This is hardly the random and useless nature of the Mengele experiments (aside from the obvious cruelty involved). The comparison is ridiculous, PERIOD.