I hate Bush!! !! !

Post Reply New Topic

Could you give me some examples please?

Today, in my government class, the teacher assigned a project about different political parties. She also assigned which parties we are doing. Well, I got the Republican party. Also she said the paper and presentation is only supposed to be informative with no opinions. We also have to give an explanation of their beliefs and justify them. I know my biased more socialist views will seep into my writing. Bloody great...

Yeah, I would have had the same kind of problem writing about the Democrats. I generally conseder Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus the Great, Cesar Agustus, Attila the Hun, Ghengis Kahn, George Bush, and Darth Vader all to be more liberal than me.


For the sake of argument, I will base all examples of conflicting moral codes to those found among Agnostics with no inclination toward any particular religious creed. For starters, let's use homosexuallity, abortion, and capital punishment as examples (THIS IS A CIVILIZED DEBATE! NO FLAME WARS, PEOPLE!! !). I should use smaller everyday matters but I can't think of where to start.

Some have concluded that homosexuallity is completely natural and should be treated with the same respect as any heterosexual relationship, others see it as unnatural, completely perverse, and has no place in a society that intends to live by any moral code.

Some see a fetus as an extension of a woman's body and is hers to do with as she pleases just like an appendectomy or cosmetic surgery, others see it as an innocent human life who was murdered becuause they were inconvenient to the mother.

In capital punishment as barbaric, hypocritical, and unfit for use in any society that wants to call itself civil. Others see it as a way to try and deter the worst of crimes and rid society of those who are not detered that easily and have committed crimes that are socially cunacceptable even among prision inmates.

In each case, the moral codes are contradictory and cannot be considered equally valid because that would create a irreconcilable paradox. There would have to be some standard of right and wrong. Otherwise, there would be no standard to base anybody's argument upon in order that their argument may be understood by others.


*For those of you that may be offended by any of these views, you are free to join in the discussion. PLEASE RESPECT THE OTHER MEMBERS AND KEEP YOUR POSTS AS POLITE AND CIVILIZED AS ALL PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS THREAD!

I understand your view, but I think that being anti-abortion but supporting the death penalty contradictory.

First of all, I do not like abortion. I am not in favour of abortion. Most pregnant women who get them do not decide on a whim 'Hmm...I think I'll have an abortion today'. It is a difficult decision, and women who get them often have to live with some amount of emotional pain for the rest of their lives. Now to get to my own stance. I think that if a baby is able to live on its own outside of the mother's body (with medical help), it should be illegal to have it aborted (unless it endangers the mother's health). Some people say that life starts at conception. I've read extensively about this, and I'm not so sure. I think that if a baby does not have the ability to live on its own in the outside world, it is a potential life. However, like I said, I am not (like most pro-choicers) in favour of abortion. I just don't think it is my business if someone wants to do it. We should live in a world where abortion is safe, legal, and rare.

I am against the death penalty. For example, let's say a person has killed someone. This person is sentanced to death. How can it be justified to say it was wrong for you to kill this person, but we're going to kill you because we're right. Does a human being lose the right to be a human being as soon as they kill someone? If a person supports the death penalty because of issues reagarding money, that person needs to know that is costs about the same amount of money to feed, clothe, and house a prisoner, as it does to execute them.

I came up with these views on my own. I use my brain. That is the beauty of having one, one has the ability to think for themselves. Life is a paradox. Rather than having someone feed a person information saying this is what is right and wrong, I think a true measure of intelligence is deciding what is right for you.

If those who follow the Bible are so versed on moral codes then why is it that they still kill, rape, etc. when they fully know it is a sin? Also, why is it that some of the kindest people have no religion at all? Could it be that they have taken the time to truly examine life and their own hearts and minds without someone else telling them what they should think. Different ideas of what is moral will come from people thinking for themselves. That is fine. Could you imagine what life would be like if we all thought the same about everything? Hmm...the words 'Sieg Heil' come to mind.

Bec, is this no longer fun for you or are you just trying to win the debate?
I understand about wanting to win the debate, but I want this to be fun.

Maybe my last post wasn't clear enough. I didn't argue in favor or against a particular position, though maybe some of my personal bias showed through. I was trying to convey that even Agnostics who use their brain instead of the Bible for moral guidance come to radically different conclusions that can't both be true. Additionally, there are lots of people that are well-versed in the Biblical standard of morality but make no attempt to abide by it. They are outside the scope of my argument for the moment, however. But if everyone did rigidly adhere to the Biblical standard of morality, I think society would resemble The Sermon on the Mount rather than Mein Kampf.

When it comes to abortion, the concept of having them be "Safe, Legal, and Rare" sounds agreeable exept that fewer and fewer people put as much thought into these kinds of matters as you do. As long as abortions are unrestricted, there will always be some ditzy teenage girl, for example, who dosen't bother to think about their actions (the boyfriend is equally at fault too) and uses an abortion as an easy out. Which is why I believe baning abortions in all but the most extreme medical cases.

Capital punishment is a matter of due process, same as asset seizure. The difference is that in one case, someone has gained assets wrongfully and the court had authorized the Sheriff to forcibly and rightfully return them to the party delclared to be the wrightful owner. In capital cases, someone has taken someone's life wrongfully and the court, by due process, has authourized that state's prision system to rightfully take the killer's life as a just consequence for the murder of the innocent victim , or at least to help deter more murders. Now, I agree that Death Row is even more expensive. State's systems for the administration of death row need a total overhaul to cut costs. And if people started hearing about weekly executions in every state (maybe even more frequent than that), criminals would think twice about killing people. Last of all, keep in mind that Death Row inmates are only awaiting execution for the people they are known to have killed, and do the math on how many lives are potentially saved by the death penalty.

I am so sorry, Sean. When I debate something I tend to get a little passionate.



Once again, sorry. I noticed that after I wrote that whole post so I decided to leave it.

Yes, I agree. When people think for themselves they do end up with different conclusions. Philosophical question: What is truth? To me the Bible is not truth. To me it is a book that was written by men thousands of years ago, and was used to have control over people. There is some truth in the Bible, but the actual events and words spoken have been twisted by both poor memory and corruption.

I believe that life is not black and white. There are many different truths. The reason I like using my brain and heart to decide where I stand is the world is always changing. No one is the same person at 20 as they are at 80. So, why should they use the same guidelines or have the same beliefs? The world in 2005 is not the same as it was in 1705, 1305, or 5005 BC. So should the rules change?

I understand about getting passionate in a debate. I just wanted to make sure this isn't becoming burdensome.



The Bible was written thousands of years ago. However there were at least 600,000 Jews that left Egypt with Moses who could have discrdedited his accounts of the plagues and cosmic phenomena documented Moses' account in the Torah through oral tradition. Keep in mind also that these were people who were quick to disobey God's commandments and lose faith despite all that they have witnessed, but never opposed Moses' accounts of events.

To maintain the accuracy of each copy of the Talmud (all Old Testament scrolls), the Rabbis and scribes had an extremely rigid ritual they followed.
The Rabbi only copied one word at a time, not a whole sentence. Each word was spoken as it was written. There were deliberate spelling errors that were also copied. If the Rabbi made any mistake or even wrote sloppy, the scroll was discarded and he started over. When a scroll was finished, it was sent for review and approval by a council of Rabbis. If the Rabbis found any flaw in the scroll or could not agree unanimously about the scrolls accuracy, the scroll was discarded, rewritten using the same ritual, and the review process would start over until they reached a unanimous approval of the new copy.

Similar care was taken by the Early Christian church by having copies made by the Apostles and Elders. Eventually, the job was taken over by various orders of monks who took vows of poverty and chastity and had nothing to gain by changing anything because they did not live their lives in persuit of wealth, fame, or power. Many groups have tried to force-fit the scriptures to their own agenda, but there are texts frome all time periods to show that the changes are negligable and don't affect the doctrine of salvation.

Using the Bible to control people is largely a Catholic phenomenon that has died off in most parts of the world. There are also a few fringe Protestant groups who do this as well. All of them are inexusable.
In Old Testament times, abuses of power came from those kings and other leaders who practiced Baalism. This can be found in 1st and 2nd Kings as well as 1st and 2nd Chronicles. Keep in mind that the term "making their children pass through the fire" refers to the pracice of throwing live babies into a bonfire at the base of the statue of Ashtoreth, a Cannanite fertility goddess who was worshiped by performing various sexual perversions that produced the children for the human sacrifice.



I wish I had the best answer to that, but C.S. Lewis does in his book Mere Christianinty. The first chapter offers a decent explaination.
http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm
From what I can gather about you, I think you might like his stuff, especially The ScrewtapeLetters.

There's a more detailed anti-Bush rant in my new "Daily Blog."

I understand that the Bible might have not changed that much from the time it was first written to now. What many people fail to realise, though, is that the New Testament was written many, many years after Jesus died.

Philippians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans was written about 50-60, the Gospel of Mark was written 65-80, the Gospel of Matthew was written about 80-100, the Gospel of Luke was written about 80-130, the Gospel of John was written about 90-120.

Knowing these dates, it is not possible that the information could have been given by eyewitnesses. How is this impossible? Life expectancy during this time period was about 25-35 (40 if you were lucky). The people who knew Jesus weren't alive to give the information to the men who wrote it down.

I have more information and more of an argument, but this is an 'I hate Bush' thread and it seems we have gone a little off topic. Maybe we can continue this in the 'Ranting-pro Bush/Christian' thread.

We are way off topic, by yeah, we sohould use that thread instead.