SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

Fahrenheit 9/11

it290 - Jun 29, 2004

...

		Lyzel	Jun 30, 2004
		Ugh.. I'm not going to get involved in this thread. Though, I find it dumb that people actually believe everything that is thrown at them. Ah well =)

		mal	Jun 30, 2004
		So when did you see it? [edit] I see that you're not interested in rational discussion... all I wanted to do was find out if you'd seen it yourself or were just repeating someone else's opinons.

Mask of Destiny

Jun 30, 2004

Originally posted by ExCyber+Jun 30, 2004 @ 08:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ExCyber @ Jun 30, 2004 @ 08:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Yeah, people (in general, not just Christians) tend to be fantastic at forgetting principle when it's inconvenient. I wonder how many Christians think the Pledge of Allegiance is great even though Jesus pretty much says oaths are the work of Satan (Matthew 5:33-37)... [/b]

If you look at the examples Jesus gives in the passage, they primarily involve swearing on something greater/of higher authority than the person making the oath. In essence, their dishonesty made it so their 'yes' was not enough to convince others of their truthfulness. The pledge of allegiance isn't much more than a promise of allegiance (and God himself makes many promises).

In contrast, taking an oath as a witness in a court trial would technically fall under this since in essence you are promising to be more honest than you normally would because you said the magic words. However, since this is more a legal formality I don't see any real problem with it.

This is not to say I'm a big fan of the pledge. I think most people just recite it out of habit without really thinking about it. I know I did back when I was in elementary school.

<!--QuoteBegin-M
TXBlau

But I your view is founded ultimately on the religious, that life begins at conception. I don't, because among other things, life would connote ability to live, which a 2nd trimester fetus can't (as much as you'd wish it would).[/quote]

I think it's a bit fuzzier than you make it out to be. A newborn child can't live (at least not for very long) independent of another person. Granted it doesn't have to be physically connected to someone anymore, but it's not a huge distinction.

Also, self-sustaining life isn't inherently protectable in our society. A common housefly can sustain life, but few people think twice about swatting them. The question of when a fetus becomes a legitimate person does not have a clear-cut answer (outside of religion anyway). The sustainability of the child outside of the womb was chosen as a criteria because it was the closest aproximation that did have a relatively clear-cut answer.

For the record, I do plan on adopting a child (maybe even 2) once I'm married and am actually in a position to support one. I may even become a foster parent. There are 2 couples in my church who take in foster children and it's amazing the difference I've seen in some of them after they've been there for a while. It's a shame there are so many people in the foster care system for the wrong reasons.

		Lyzel	Jun 30, 2004
		I didn't see your comment? And no, I have not seen this movie.. Going from what my friends have told me, it's propaganda trash. Misleading. Basically, it twists the truth to the way Michael Moore sees it.

mal

Jun 30, 2004

Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 1, 2004 @ 02:06 PM

I didn't see your comment?

Fair enough.

I was just hoping that my question didn't come across as too aggressive and made you change your mind about posting.

ExCyber

Jun 30, 2004

Fair enough. I may have been taking it too literally.

In contrast, taking an oath as a witness in a court trial would technically fall under this since in essence you are promising to be more honest than you normally would because you said the magic words. However, since this is more a legal formality I don't see any real problem with it.

As I recall, most courts will accept an "affirmation" rather than an oath, because there are some smaller sects that are particularly adamant about it. Apparently they don't mind being required to make a statement of truthfulness, as long as they are not ascribing it to an authority, which fits with what you said.

This is not to say I'm a big fan of the pledge. I think most people just recite it out of habit without really thinking about it. I know I did back when I was in elementary school.

Yeah, knowing what I know now, the sound of a class full of kids reciting the pledge in that apathetic near-monotone is nothing less than creepy.

		racketboy	Jul 1, 2004
		how come they have to say it in elementary school, but not later in school?

		Caelestis	Jul 1, 2004
		Two years ago, which would have been my senior year in high school, we were 'forced' to say it on a daily basis...

		Pearl Jammzz	Jul 1, 2004
		The pledge of aligance? We had it at my school after we got attacked...but not before. They told everyone to do it, but I dun think anyone was "forced"

		racketboy	Jul 1, 2004
		I didn't even have to say it in junior high

mtxblau

Jul 1, 2004

Originally posted by Mask of Destiny@Jun 30, 2004 @ 08:00 AM

I think it's a bit fuzzier than you make it out to be. A newborn child can't live (at least not for very long) independent of another person. Granted it doesn't have to be physically connected to someone anymore, but it's not a huge distinction.

Economically and socially, animals that aren't humans aren't really given any value that equals human life. Sad fact, but true. Cattle and chickens are a resource, not mammals and birds respectively in our construct.

I think you're drawing a parallel between dependence and living. Obviously there's dependence between the birth giver and the given; very few animals have a system where the progeny is left on its own to fend for itself.

Life, as I mean it, is essentially the organs and the faculties to be self sufficient enough to sustain living outside the womb, that is, developed lungs, heart, etc.

The trimester system has been modified, of course. Since it's by state decision, and the SC didn't make any specific guidlines, the so it's whatever is viable outside the womb with the help of science. There it's muddled, though.

---

As ExCyber said, the person didn't have standing. Actually, one faction of the court said he didn't have standing (O'Connor, et al) and one faction said he did have standing (Rehnquist). Very convoluted decision. The issue is that even if there's an opportunity to abstain from saying the pledge, it's not enough; there's precedent where even if there's an alternate option, making oneself a minority is enough to be 'damaged' (for lack of a better word).

		racketboy	Jul 1, 2004
		I don't care if the baby can live on it's own or not, it's still a life IMO. Just curious, do any of you believe in having a soul?

it290

Jul 1, 2004

The person who brought the case, Michael Newdow, is, for lack of a better term, an eccentric. He started his own religion based on a mix of atheism, universalism, and science. He is a non-practicing lawyer. At the time, he did not have custody of his daughter. Regardless of how genuine his motivations were, he was far too easy a target for ridicule for the public to see the case entirely on its merits]

Actually, I thought he was extremely eloquent. He may be a bit eccentric, but you almost have to be to bring this type of case to the Supreme Court. I felt he actually out-argued the Court on many points; it's too bad his case was dismissed on a technicality (although valid).

The issue is that even if there's an opportunity to abstain from saying the pledge, it's not enough; there's precedent where even if there's an alternate option, making oneself a minority is enough to be 'damaged' (for lack of a better word).

Not to mention the fact that a small child can hardly be expected to abstain from the pledge of her own volition. I certainly did after I heard about the previous decision, but I was in third grade by that point.

I don't care if the baby can live on it's own or not, it's still a life IMO.

Just curious, do any of you believe in having a soul?

I believe in a higher notion of life. That is, I believe that a living being is somehow more than the sum of its parts, at least insofar as we've been able to tell. However, I do not believe that this somehow applies exclusively to human beings, nor do I believe in the concept of an eternal soul (at least where we're concerned).

There's a thing call the Bible, but whether you count that as evidence is another matter.

Whether you regard that as 'evidence' is irrelevant; the fact is it's not science and has no place in a science classroom.

And evolution might as well be considered gospel when it's the only thing mentioned in the book. Maybe things have changed a bit in the last few year, but when I was in high school science class, that's all we were taught.

No, there's a difference between teaching something as theory and preaching it as fact. It's all you were taught? That's because it's the only viable scientific theory. IMHO, even if you are a creationist, it's somewhat silly to not concede at least some notion of evolution. If you're not willing to do that, you might as well swear off the use of vaccines, stop eating all GM crops, and so on, because those things are all byproducts of the theory of evolution.

		racketboy	Jul 1, 2004
		All I can say is I have no idea how a universe so complex and it's living beings could be created by chance. Makes no sense to me.

		VertigoXX	Jul 1, 2004
		I got into this discussion, evolution vs. creationism, with a kid I work with. This kid, while he doesn't believe in organized religion either, is a complete bible beater. He'll even just stop in the middle of work and pull his bible out of his back pocket to read for a bit, letting parts pile up and forcing me to do two people's work until he's out of that mood. Anyway, he refuses to believe that evolution is possible, and has a response for any argument I try to give him. I ask him, "So how long is a day for god? He created everything in six days, who is to say that six days god-time isn't sixty billion years our time?" "No, the bible says that a day to god is as a thousand years. The earth was only six thousand years old when man was put on it." "How did those writing the bible know a thousand years, when the calendar system wasn't developed untill a few centuries after Jesus's time?" "They knew, it's what god told them to write." I pressed him on the issue there, and he eventualy decided that it must have orignaly said a thousand of whatever seasons they were counting back then (you know how they'd say the number of summers or winters that had passed by), then it was translated to years, because that's what we counted during the time King James had it translated to english. There was no budging him. I didn't want him to deny creationism, only acknowledge that both creationism and evolution could exist together. I tried to get him to read Inherit the Wind, but other than the bible and crazy bible-themed stuff off the internet, he refuses to read any books.

		racketboy	Jul 1, 2004
		the "day to God is as a thousand years" verse in context is saying that time is basically not an issue to God. According to the Bible, God has no beginning and no end -- He is eternal. Time is only a concept that is used by us on earth. That's what that verse is saying. Even in Christian circles the 6-days thing is sometimes up for debate, but I personally believe the earth was created in 6 actual days as we know them. There isn't a real reason that I see as to why it would mean something other than literal days. The whole earth-aging thing (the Earth is a billion years old) doesn't necessarily contradict the Bible. God could have made the earth pre-aged as He did (by my beliefs) with Adam and Eve. He didn't make them as newborns -- he created them as full-grown adults. I image He did the same thing with the animals and plantlife. And BTW, VertigoXX, just because someone reads the Bible doesn't mean they ae knowledgable on the subject.

it290

Jul 1, 2004

All I can say is I have no idea how a universe so complex and it's living beings could be created by chance. Makes no sense to me.

By the same token, how could a being complex enough to create said universe arise out of nothingness, or be around eternally if you prefer to put it that way? If you're going to stick with the human conception of time, you have to start somewhere. Even if you're not, neither theory begins to explain the complexity of the universe. Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Personally, as I see it, the complexity of the universe is an argument FOR evolution. With so much matter in so many different configurations, it was only a matter of time before life emerged. I don't argue that it was 'by chance' per se, but that explanation makes as much sense to me as the idea of some all-powerful, invisible Creator. Besides, even if you do believe in a Creator, that could mean anything. You take the Bible as the word of god, but there could have been multiple Creators, or the Creator could be dead by now, etc... anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent; these arguments tend to end up pointless anyway.

racketboy

Jul 1, 2004

Originally posted by it290@Jul 1, 2004 @ 04:54 PM

By the same token, how could a being complex enough to create said universe arise out of nothingness, or be around eternally if you prefer to put it that way? If you're going to stick with the human conception of time, you have to start somewhere. Even if you're not, neither theory begins to explain the complexity of the universe. Do you believe in the Big Bang?

Personally, as I see it, the complexity of the universe is an argument FOR evolution. With so much matter in so many different configurations, it was only a matter of time before life emerged. I don't argue that it was 'by chance' per se, but that explanation makes as much sense to me as the idea of some all-powerful, invisible Creator. Besides, even if you do believe in a Creator, that could mean anything. You take the Bible as the word of god, but there could have been multiple Creators, or the Creator could be dead by now, etc... anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent; these arguments tend to end up pointless anyway.

Because he's God and is beyond our feeble minds.

Believing that we as humans understand everyhing is fairly arogant.

And BTW, I mentioned the concept of time before -- for God, there is eternity -- no beginning or end. It's beyond our comprehension as I'm sure there are many other concept beyond our comprehension that we aren't even aware of.

:bow GOD

ExCyber

Jul 1, 2004

Not to mention the fact that a small child can hardly be expected to abstain from the pledge of her own volition.

Especially if they're never told that they have that option. Children are conditioned to consider teachers to be authority figures, and even if they are just expected to do something and not actively forced it is still effectively coercion, because they know that the teacher has the power to punish them for failing to meet expectations.

Actually, I agree completely. I was talking about the public reaction to the case, which is rather heavily flavored by Newdow's eccentricities.

All I can say is I have no idea how a universe so complex and it's living beings could be created by chance.

Chance is only one factor in evolution. Evolutionists generally believe in natural laws too - that it is something more concrete than chance that leads to carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen atoms sticking together in certain ways, or to the fact that passing an electrical current through some of these compounds can convert them into organic compounds. Some people believe that these laws embody the hand of God...

Because he's God and is beyond our feeble minds.

Believing that we as humans understand everyhing is fairly arogant.

This is precisely why I put little stock in earthly religious doctrines regarding the nature and desires of God.

racketboy

Jul 1, 2004

Originally posted by ExCyber@Jul 1, 2004 @ 05:16 PM

This is precisely why I put little stock in earthly religious doctrines regarding the nature and desires of God.

why? not following you

...