If Only They Would Stick to Fiscal Issues

[ladajo]

atheists are pretty much an embarrassment to any party they embrace

Of course you would say that, ROFL!

Well of course they are. There is probably not more than 1% of liberals who like and agree with Bill Maher and most of them are deeply embarrassed by much of what he says. He's extremely outspoken, deliberately offensive to the vast majority and most liberals are ashamed to have him give the poor reputation he does to the left. Not hard to do the math here. Just as the religious right embarrasses the right, the irreligious left embarrasses the left.

What about the irreligious right and religious left?

[93143]

I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

This is a completely reasonable and intelligent statement if you actually bother to parse it and consider its meaning. The article is careful about this.

The problem is that a lot of people won't bother; they'll just kneejerk about "rape" and "God intended" showing up in the same sentence...

[Skipjack]

This is a completely reasonable and intelligent statement

I dont agree.

[93143]

Then I think it probable that either you don't understand it or you're hung up on the "God" part by itself... Care to elaborate?

[GIThruster]

You're asking Skippy to understand Leibnitz's theodicy, that this is the best of all possible worlds, but you have to expect him to respond with the trashy parody from Voltaire, which is to refuse to understand it and mock it.

No way to get common sense out of some conversations.

In the same way that Votaire's Candide obtains by ignoring the real intent of Liebnitz's theodicy, the quote above will form a caricature sufficient to demonize it in the minds of those who don't understand the point being made.

To this day, people know who Voltaire was despite he was a depraved degenerate whose own father would have nothing to do with, and know nothing of Liebnitz who was in all ways brilliant and noble.

[Skipjack]

but you have to expect him to respond with the trashy parody from Voltaire

And why would that be? I am confused. I have never quoted Voltaire.

I was simply disagreeing with the "reasonable and intelligent statement", since the person quoted obviously hinged his thoughts on the existance of a god. That is however not proven, nor is it in any way relevant, nor does it prevent the rape victim from having to carry out and giving birth to and subsequently raising the child of the very person that put her through what probably were the worst moments of her life.
I am sure the same idiot that said this would never consider giving the rape victim the money for tall this. He would have it and plenty more. I guess the moment you demand him to do that, he would be all for abortion, hypocrits as these people usually are.

[GIThruster]

I suppose my statement is not fair when left unexplained.

Theodicies, or answers to what is known as the philosophical "problem of evil" are not the kind of logical proofs some people pretend they are before disputing them. They are answers to the question "if God is all good and all powerful, why is there evil?" To answer the question, you need to presuppose the existence of God. Once you do, Augustine's answer, Iraneaus' answer and Leibnitz' answer all make good sense. (The three main historical theodicies or answers to the "problem of evil question".) That's why they're time honored as logical arguments.

Voltaire's answer to Liebnitz answer was to mock it without ever trying to understand it. The Candide does not in fact presuppose the existance of God, so it never treats with Liebnitz theodicy in honest terms. In order to understand what Liebnitz is saying when he says "this is the best of all possible worlds", you have to understand it as a statement of faith, not a statement that one could not imagine a better world, but that this world will work out to be the "best" in the most relevant sense.

So it is with most discourse with atheists, and you have just proved my point. You want to say the statement is not proven, but it need not be. It's a statement based on the existence of God. It's not an argument for God's existence. It's an explanation that someone who doesn't apply faith can't understand. You want to say it's not relevant, but it is completely relevant to anyone of faith. Someone who is already a believer is not bothering with arguments for or against God's existence the way you're implying he should. Rather, he's seeking to understand something like abortion in light of his beliefs about God's providence, predestination, etc.

So you see, I was right as was 93143. You are the one who made the statement about something other than what it relates. In your case, it may be a lack of familiarity with those of faith. In Voltaire's case it was certainly out of spite and malice.

[MSimon]

I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

This is a completely reasonable and intelligent statement if you actually bother to parse it and consider its meaning. The article is careful about this.

The problem is that a lot of people won't bother; they'll just kneejerk about "rape" and "God intended" showing up in the same sentence...

I have no trouble with the belief. What I have trouble with is government making laws about it.

But consider it fully. If conception by rape is a gift of God why isn't also abortion?

Jewish law holds that if a mother's mental health would be severely compromised by such a conception ABORTION IS MANDATORY.

[MSimon]

Skipjack makes a valid point that would be actionable in Jewish law. The rapist has imposed a 20 year or so cost and expense on the mother and her family. It also makes the woman less marriageable (at least in another day and time - loose morals have changed that some - social improvement from loose morals, heh). So if we don't kill the rapist we must impose a financial obligation on him. If the state imprisons him the obligation is transferred to the state.

And the rapist is required to support her in the manner she is accustomed to. i.e. if she was rich the rapist must go first class with his support. You know the whole idea of doing what ever is required to restore the status quo ante.

[choff]

My brother bullied me when I was young, what does that mean? He is not that way now.

So, what does it say to kids that Obama used cocaine or went to that church or was close to Ayers (who killed a policeman), etc? Face it Ron Paul is not running and G. Johnson hasn't a chance. Some Libertarians say to vote for Obama because that is the quickest way to bankruptcy, but what then?

Do your best in picking the devil or the deep blue. I prefer to put off bankruptcy.

In my town we have a case in the news of a girl who committed suicide after being bullied nonstop, and now the same bullies are defacing her online memorials, so maybe I'm feeling a little oversensitive on the subject.

I also worry Obama is being manipulated by his closest advisers in an unhealthy sort of way.

I don't envy American voters over the pickings.

[Skipjack]

Skipjack makes a valid point that would be actionable in Jewish law. The rapist has imposed a 20 year or so cost and expense on the mother and her family. It also makes the woman less marriageable (at least in another day and time - loose morals have changed that some - social improvement from loose morals, heh). So if we don't kill the rapist we must impose a financial obligation on him. If the state imprisons him the obligation is transferred to the state.

And the rapist is required to support her in the manner she is accustomed to. i.e. if she was rich the rapist must go first class with his support. You know the whole idea of doing what ever is required to restore the status quo ante.

Once again proof to me that the jewish are generally smarter than most

[choff]

What I found bizarre was the time Obama came on TV to announce he was recommending the abolition of minimum fractional reserve requirements for the banks. You really have to wonder who put him up to it, keeping in mind that the banks had been ignoring the rule for the last 30 odd years.

[93143]

Then I think it probable that either you don't understand it or you're hung up on the "God" part by itself... Care to elaborate?

I was simply disagreeing with the "reasonable and intelligent statement", since the person quoted obviously hinged his thoughts on the existance of a god. That is however not proven, nor is it in any way relevant, nor does it prevent the rape victim from having to carry out and giving birth to and subsequently raising the child of the very person that put her through what probably were the worst moments of her life.

Okay, so it was the "God" part, combined with an utter lack of consideration for the life you're advocating snuffing out.

If conception by rape is a gift of God why isn't also abortion?

Judging from your recent behaviour I suspect this is an attempt at trolling rather than an honest misunderstanding, but whatever:

The clue is free will. Work from there. And try to maintain a clear separation of ideas; there's a conflation implicit in your question above.

Jewish law holds that if a mother's mental health would be severely compromised by such a conception ABORTION IS MANDATORY.

Like Skipjack, you are leaving the newly-conceived child out of your calculations, not arguing against but flat-out ignoring the argument that abortion constitutes the taking of a human life.

You have to dispense with that first, or none of your arguments from emotional or financial distress amount to a hill of beans. And it is not easy to do; whatever mental gymnastics you go through to justify abortion to yourself, it remains a reasonable and intelligent position to call it homicide.

...this appeal will likely prove fruitless, but please don't try to actually argue the above point here. The point I'm making is merely that it can be argued (and has been, on this very board - not that such a detail has ever stopped a thread derailment before...). @Skipjack (MSimon already knows this): Not everyone shares your philosophy, and not everyone who doesn't is unreasonable or unintelligent...

The rapist has imposed a 20 year or so cost and expense on the mother and her family.

Adoption?

Sheesh...

[MSimon]

Like Skipjack, you are leaving the newly-conceived child out of your calculations, not arguing against but flat-out ignoring the argument that abortion constitutes the taking of a human life.

It ain't me buddy. It is 3,300 years of Jewish law you have an argument with. In Jewish law the already born take precedence over the to be born.

It is an ethical judgment my ethical friend.

You might want to study the Talmud on the matter and read the different Rabbi's opinions. They were hardly ever unanimous. But what I stated is the consensus and the current Orthodox Jewish position. You know - quite a few of the founders were familiar with the Talmud and could read it in the original Hebrew. Which is better than I can do. I did study under one of the leaders of the Chicago Bet Din in my youth. Rabbi Groner. We discussed this and a lot of other issues every Saturday. Issues like ox gorings. And fences. And responsibility.

You might want to look up the penalties for killing the unborn by an attack on the mother. In Jewish law it doesn't even rise to the level of manslaughter. More like breaking an arm.

Now the fact that there are different systems of ethics on the matter confounds your whole position. My mother (bless her and her up coming 93rd birthday), would never vote Republican because of their stance on rape and abortion. She doesn't mind the position. What she objects to is making certain religious dogma into the law of the land. I agree.

And every time the Republicans get heavy handed on their view of moral issues they lose elections. You would think they would stop being stupid. Nope. The way to bet is that they will get stupider.

[MSimon]

This is making the rounds. The one point where it slips up is that Ron Paul would abort.