What is your main issue?

[ClayTrainor]

Yes, Christianity unequivocally teaches it. And not only that, the premise that men are evil has been a solid foundation for patriots in history to build a case against tyrants, and government power itself.

It is a GOOD thing to understand that men are evil by nature.

Thanks for clarifying.

Does this mean that babies are evil by nature too? If not, than at what point do they all become naturally evil?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Is that a scientific fact? What is the difference between a baby in the womb and an embryo?

An embryo is the first stage of pregnancy after conception, that generally lasts 8-10 weeks. It's pretty much just a mass cells reproducing. There's no brain, no motor functions, etc. These are all key characteristics i expect when someone uses the term, "Baby".

An embryo (irregularly from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full"; the proper Latinate form would be embryum) is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. ten weeks LMP), and from then it is instead called a fetus.

Why is it any less debatable at an earlier stage in the pregnancy?

Why is it any less debatable about life beginning in your pants?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Thanks for clarifying.

Does this mean that babies are evil by nature too? If not, than at what point do they all become naturally evil?

There is no point at which a man is not naturally evil, baby or adult. It isn't a matter of genetics, it is a matter of our legal standing with our Father which we have rejected. The Bible says we are "conceived in sin".

Adam acted as man's federal head when he sinned, thereby imputing his sin nature and the legal sentence of guilt to all of us. The second Adam, Jesus, acts as His children's federal head by imputing His grace to us. He is our advocate with the Almighty Judge and Lawgiver of this universe.

When God judges me, he will see not my own righteousness, but the righteousness imputed to me by His son (who acted as my federal head), and therefore I and all that are in Him will be legally declared innocent. What a wonderful God we serve!

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Thanks for clarifying.

Does this mean that babies are evil by nature too?

Yep, original sin, some guy from a long time ago spoke in tongues and said it was true, and that is why kids need to be beaten regularly. I say why stop at beating. Its like this: murderers = evil, babies = evil, why not give death sentence to both amirite?

 

[realtonygoodwin]

Yes, they are. However, I believe babies (and those like them mentally) are not held accountable until they are old enough to make their own decisions.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Yes, they are. However, I believe babies (and those like them mentally) are not held accountable until they are old enough to make their own decisions.

I find this to be a very sad way to look at the world.

 

[CCTelander]

I find this to be a very sad way to look at the world.

What? You have the NERVE, the TEMERITY to object to being held responsible for the actions of somebody who died (if he ever existed at all) THOUSANDS of years before you were even born?

 

[BarryDonegan]

Sound money. We can nitpick over the deck chairs on the Titanic once we secure the very fabric of society by purging the disease in the currency.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I find this to be a very sad way to look at the world.

I think it would be more sad to expect babies to be held accountable...

 

[osan]

The liberty message in all of this is...

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html

Not all Christians believe this, but many do. Here is a good article explaining it.

My question to all is this: What does your sense of liberty, such as it may be, say to you about your personal obligations toward your fellows where issues of belief are concerned? Would see force applied to those whose beliefs vary from your own when you feel they are "wrong"?

Issues such as have been discussed here distill down to the fundamental question of how one defines "freedom" and "liberty". What is yours?

 

[osan]

Yep, original sin, some guy from a long time ago spoke in tongues and said it was true, and that is why kids need to be beaten regularly. I say why stop at beating. Its like this: murderers = evil, babies = evil, why not give death sentence to both amirite?

Religious sects are full of wild and often dangerously destructive beliefs - destructive not only to adherents, but to those with whom they come into contact. George Carlin's treatment of the subject was masterful as he described the oldest scam on the books.

One does not need religion in order to be religious. I am highly religious, yet I adhere to no particular religion. I know what is right for me and require no instruction. Thus far, my in-born sense of right and wrong has not failed me in any way. My failures have all stemmed from willful acts of divergence from that which I knew was right. What is right is not always what is easy. This was a lesson that took me a long time to learn and it has cost me dearly in some ways. But I learned it and no bible or other external source could ever have imparted this learning to me. That is not my belief - it is fact.

 

[osan]

Sound money. We can nitpick over the deck chairs on the Titanic once we secure the very fabric of society by purging the disease in the currency.

Agreed. We should be attending to the basics first. Once accomplished, we can get our guns and murder each other over the idiotic abortion issue.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

My question to all is this: What does your sense of liberty, such as it may be, say to you about your personal obligations toward your fellows where issues of belief are concerned? Would see force applied to those whose beliefs vary from your own when you feel they are "wrong"?

Issues such as have been discussed here distill down to the fundamental question of how one defines "freedom" and "liberty". What is yours?

Personally, I don't believe you could use force to truly convince someone to believe something.

 

[lester1/2jr]

pro life people are too overbearing in their approach. They probably turn alot of people off that way.

 

[nayjevin]

Humans have the capacity for relatively evil or 'non-evil' decisions. Children hit others, first by recognizing it as an action that can consistently produce an interesting and different reaction. Most grow to learn the reaction is undesirable as it represents an element of pain in the person hit. This requires a cultivation of selflessness, which to me demonstrates an at least equal capacity for good as evil. ('selflessness' rephrased as 'good' selfishness, as in Ayn Randian objectivism, I believe would be inconsequential semantics here).

I believe it's a mistake to assume proponents of a representative republic hold the state as necessary because of the inherent evil of man. A more logical position in favor of limited government versus none at all is in the recognition that it only takes one immoral person - or one immoral act, to necessitate action toward justice or restitution of the harmed individual. I believe there are respectable positions on both sides as to whether markets can provide this traditional function of government. But the situation being as it is, the agreement we have is more notable than the disagreement - that being that the system we have does not do what we want.

Issue based voting is fundamentally flawed. More important than any single issue in selecting a decisionmaker is that one can be confident that he or she will do as they say. If there is no reasonable confidence in consistency of principle, there is no reason to consider whether the principles align with truth.

Second most important to consistency of principle is the method by which the individual has come upon his or her principles. In this regard, appeal to the authority of any man or document is equal. As an example, I may be more likely vote for a person who has a reasonable explanation for a belief I disagree with than one who agrees with me for the wrong reasons.

I believe the argument for life at conception suffers with appeals to the creator or natural rights, as the arguments are usually intending to change the mind of an individual more susceptible to an appeal from action/consequence/experience/data/science. To a person like this, it begs the question to appeal to a creator. I believe there are great arguments to be made without. The argument against life at conception suffers similarly when it attempts to dehumanize the embryo in an attempt to convince those who believe in a creator. Neither side is winning, which makes it quite a divisive issue. Politicized groups on both sides have attempted to capitalize on this - women are to stand up for their rights, and the religious are to stand up for the rights of the child.

So it's my view that Ron's position on this issue is both proper and consistent. He makes it a point to clarify that it is not a decision to be made by the President. He respects the sovereignty of the individuals in each state to aim for representation. This supports the potential for market competition in each state, while limiting the federal government's power to usurp same. I agree with him that change comes most readily by example; his solution provides for both sides to lead in this way.

But to answer the question of the thread, I'm confident a person holding these beliefs:
1. Governing least is governing best
2. Only individuals have rights
3. Spirituality is good, illusion is bad
4. Reason and logic beget truth
...will defend liberty suitably enough for me.

 

[BlackTerrel]

1. Taxes
2. Wars
3. Free Market Economy

In no particular order.

 

[Vessol]

I already gave rep, but I have to say that was a very well written post nayjevin!

 

[Brett85]

pro life people are too overbearing in their approach. They probably turn alot of people off that way.

What about the pro choice people who say stuff like "hands off my body." Is that not overbearing?

 

[silentshout]

pro life people are too overbearing in their approach. They probably turn alot of people off that way.

Yes, especially when they also want to ban birth control...that's what makes my head spin.

 

[RCA]

1) IRS
2) TSA
3) Post Office
4) Property Taxes
5) Federal Reserve

They are ranked by how much they affect my daily life.