Peasant Guild (Page 7 of 9)

lol i did know i just wanted to see if the person who said energy is nothing would know.

The problem with that argument, Oman,  is that the bible (particularly the king james version....but dont' get me started on that.) is a biased account of history at best. 

For example, yes, it is a fact that Jesus did exist...there were tax records, ect. of this...as for turning water into wine, there are no records of this exept for second hand accounts, largely passed down verbally in a language that is no longer in use......many of these stories, in my opinion, are about as reliable as the accounts I've heard in ever town I've ever been to about the girl, the dog and the jar of peanut butter

I can't really knock anyone beliefs because it would be pretentious of me to do so, being as how I'm just as confused about things like that as the next man...BUT I will say, Christianity, much like most organized religions, is riddled with mistruths, hypocracy and bloodshed.

Okay, I've said all I'm going to say on this topic, so you guys calling eachother fags and stuff can now commence again

Myself and all of the Christians I know consider Christianity a relationship
with Christ and not and organized religion.

In fact I have been ordained non denominationialy to
reach out into every community of faith.

I preach and teach a relationship with Christ is
first and formost. Fellowship is important but it can be
done anywhere. Even the term "the Church" referes
to the people who make up the body of believers
and not to a building.

Anything can be considered organized religion
of you believe in something and have a friend who believes the
same thing. It can be organized.

I have a friend who joined the National Association
of Athiests. He said he was against "Organized Religion".
I pointed out that he joined an "Organized Religion".
Silly wabbit.  <><

Try reading and understanding the rest of the post so you can place "the bit" in context before attempting a reply to it... *mutters derogatory term under breath*

(Trust me, I dont need lessons from you, not in physics, not in philosophy, not in logic.)

I learned alot from lolabob. By alot I meant nothing. By nothing, I mean energy.

E=MC²

Thats the formula used to make Froth on Beer.

Gotta Love Aussie Movies.....We can make a whole movie about how much we love Beer....

Revenge of the nerds had an electric violin in it.
Very cool.

boo down with worshiploud.

yeah, biased definately. It'd actually better be stated as mythology, because myths are based on truths that have been exagerated. But there is a TON of truth to it. (don't have sex with animals because it is bad)

Like The Evolution Myth.

Still didn't get one single example of Macro Evolution.
You know the kind that one animal becomes another.

The oddest part about the whole evolution argument
is the fact that so many people who believe the
an amoeba is life does not consider an unborn child
as life.

A pro choice chick said that it isn't a life till it is born.
But she then said that an amoeba was life.

Not too sharp there grasshopper.

Once again a nice example of trying to connect things, putting them in 1 context and drawing a conclusion.

No word has a totally unambigious definition. I for one, can see how one would use the term 'life' differently in the context of abortion than in the context of single-celled sea organisms.

Your criticism seems to conveniently ignore the point she was trying to get across in each situation which is not at all as conflicting as the focus on the word 'life' in the statements might suggest. I.e. it denies the homonymous nature of many words, including life.

lol, I have no problems with inserting baby for your wildcard.

Anyhow, those are in fact good questions. That is the way the discussion should (in my view) be held. Not in terms of, 'do' or 'don't' (black and white) but in terms of 'when'.

So basically what I would ask myself is, when is it still acceptable to perform abortion? There is of course no easy simple answer that everyone will agree on. The 2 'black and white' answers would be 'never' and 'always'. But personally, I don't think that using a 'morning after' pill is immoral (basically comes down to the same thing as a very early abortion), but I don't think that killing a baby right after birth (like occurs in China sometimes when the baby turns out to be a girl) is acceptable either (basically the same thing as very late abortion).

Given these 2 things, I fel myself led to the problem you sketched. What about the grey area somewhere inbetween? Where do I place a limitation? I don't think there is any one simple, easy answer to this. The best way to reach a decision would probably be to study to a reasonable degree the different stages of pregnancy, and prenatal development of human beings. One can then form one's opinion on this matter, and motivate it with arguments based on general knowledge of the living being you are actually discussing.

My idea would then be to have each society/community/nation (w/e) reach some general consensus on where to place the boundaries. I suspect it would also be good to not define a black-white boundary value, but to have at least 2 boundaries, with in between a grey area where the assesment of the situation by 2 indepedent physicians is the determining factor in whether or not to allow the procedure. (Of course this upper boundary must still have support among a large portion of the populace, as must the lower boundary.)

Well, that's the best answer I can come up with to your question anyway.

At any rate, as I mentioned in  previous posts, I believe the issue is not one that can be decided upon by sheer arguments. I feel this is an issue with a solution highly dependent on and reflective of the society in which it is evaluated:
Is it alright to kill insects because they infest/plague a house? What about mice? What about using those mice in a laboratory? Breeding chickens in close quarters for meat and eggs? Shooting a fox for stealing chickens from a farm? A pet that is no longer desired? (Goldfish? Dog?)
What I'm trying to say is, the answers to these questions is very much dependent not on rational arguments but on how much compassion/empathy we feel for the animal. The same could be said of humans. In war empathy with the enemy soldiers tends to be very low, and taking their lives becomes a valid option. (Not just for the sake of your own life.)

Then why shouldn't the same thing be true of an unborn baby? Is it wrong to kill a very simple small organism? One that causes great inconvenience to humans, and is not even capable of surviving without the humans who wish to be rid of it? If it were a virus, leech or w/e I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Of course, at some point it starts resembling humans more and more, and I no longer feel unambigious about the issue.

But there is no convenient 'clear-cut' boundary somewhere during pregnancy we can hijack as a means of determining our 'boundary' so it remains a tough question, which needs to find some sort of social equillibrium as its answer, satisfying most people, though unavoidably not all.

I myself currently think that the abortion option should remain open for at 'least' the first 18 weeks of pregnancy. (Though I havent terribly deeply studied anything, so I could very well be persuaded still to adjust this if presented with arguments/motivations to do so.)

Anyhow, I hope to have sufficiently briefed you on 'my' answer to the questions you put forward. ^_^