[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

The democrats figured out long ago that it was easier to kill your babies and replace them with illegals ready for the work force.

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

Max, I didn't call anyone evil.

This sounds like a bizarro Seinfeld routine, Charlie: "What's up with Democrats killing their babies? I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that."

[Charlie Southerland]

Max, think about what I said for a cotton pickin' minute. Just give yourself time to think about it.

To ascribe evil to a thing, one must acknowledge a spiritual connotation to the concept of an evil. There are folks here who have no belief in anything inherently coming from God. To admit to evil would be to admit to God's existence, hence Satan's existence.

So, to try to relate the best I can without invoking God or Satan, I have refrained from using the word, evil. And yet, there are no other words that fit the extermination of babies in or out of the womb for whatever reasons. If you don't believe in God, then there is no such thing as sin, of any kind. If there is no such thing as sin, then one cannot be held responsible for their own actions. The collective judges all. I bet no one's ever told you that before. It's kind of like Obama saying: You didn't build that!

Well, hell yes I did. I was there when I did it. See?

Kind of like that other Seinfeld routine. Shrinkage. If you can shrink God out of existence, it (abortion) won't be a bad thing anymore.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Oh, a PM. Nonetheless I am quite sure I never said in any PM or thread that I attended a Methodist church with or without grandparents. I was brought up Baptist but thankfully saw the light. Rural I may be, but a farm girl I never was.

Oh, lordy, Charlie, you are a grudgeholder. What you call "taking to task" is usually called crits in these Eratosphere halls.

You said in a thread this morning that abortion is one of the mechanisms to control the population. (I am paraphrasing) Go back to your quote and I think you will find that I am factually correct in my interpretation of your comment. Like I said, You and millions of Democrats support abortion on demand, which looks and smells and works just like genocide. Progessives, Democrats, all the same to Hillary. I heard her say that more than once. Are you with her?

Do you see the factual difference in these statements below?

Mine #112

Population control, including contraception, abortion, and sex education are necessary for the world at large as well as for the individual women and their already-born children.

Yours #115:

Says you that contraception, population control, abortion and sex education is the ticket to our survival as a species.

Yours # 117

And staying on the subject of the Democrat Convention, which you gratefully started, the Democrat Party platform is the most pro-abortion party it's ever been. Hurray! In the name of progressivism millions of Democrats are for genocide, Janice said so. It has to be true.

Yours #120:

Like I said, You and millions of Democrats support abortion on demand, which looks and smells and works just like genocide.

A woman's right to abortion cuts across all ethnic, national, racial and religious groups. Whereas "genocide" is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group. The word is a combination of "genos" (race, people) and "cide" (to kill). The United Nations Genocide Convention defines it as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

Whether the science of cooling or warming, cooling was taught as fact in my backwards high school when I attended. I know this kind of thing drives you and Cantor and others wild, but according to scientists, the earth hasn't warmed in 17 years. Many scientists are coming around to the conclusion that it is the Sun that is responsible for "global" warming and cooling. Most of the world's Leading "progressives" falsely push their meme on the public purely for the treasure trove of money instead of legit taxes they'll never get approved by the populace. Let me be clear, I believe in global cooling and global warming. I do not believe it is caused by mankind.

This above is so indicative of how you argue. It simply does not make sense. Which I suppose is because it is your own reasoning and not grounded in any fact or meaningful context.

cooling was taught as fact in my backwards high school". This is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

according to scientists, the earth hasn't warmed in 17 years. What "scientists"?

Most of the world's Leading "progressives" falsely push their meme on the public purely for the treasure trove of money instead of legit taxes they'll never get approved by the populace. Would you consider naming one or two of the so-called most who do this?

Let me be clear (oh please, we are hoping) I believe in global cooling and global warming. I do not believe it is caused by mankind.

Such magical thinking should be confined to the privacy of one's home. The rest of us know it isn't an animal or ghost or divine being that is responsible for the greenhouse effect.

The point you are missing is that the climate oscillation, i.e. the cyclic warming and cooling that the earth has undergone, is amplified by the emission emanating from the burning of fossil fuels.

Read this link http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env.../natural-cycle and ponder this paragraph.

The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle.

This your paragraph below is mind-boggling. It would take an entire page, at least, to refute the multitudes of airy misstatements misleading inferences it contains.

When it comes to sustainability of the population, talk to the Chinese or Indians or Pakistani's or some of the states in Africa. For far different reasons their populations are exploding. Conversely, look at Greece and Japan whose populations have declined so much that there are incentives by the Gov't in Japan for their young to have more kids. And Greece, unable to satisfy the EU with enough euros to get it out of hock, are welcoming foreign immigrants so that they can remain in the Union. (to their detriment on all counts)

[Richard Meyer]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

If you don't believe in God, then there is no such thing as sin, of any kind. If there is no such thing as sin, then one cannot be held responsible for their own actions. The collective judges all.

Well, I think you’re on shaky theological and philosophical ground here, Charlie. The problem of evil, or sin if you like, has been addressed by many philosophers and religious thinkers, from the ancient Greeks to the moderns. Furthermore, the various answers to the problem of evil and attendant attitudes about the good and the virtuous do not always depend upon the recognition of a deity, or specifically a deity as envisioned by you.

In addition, the very God you reference is suspect, since that God permits evil. I’m sure you’re familiar with theodicy, the field of philosophy and religion that deals with the problem of evil. Theodicy largely applies to religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism that believe in a monotheistic God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and it addresses the problem of how and why does an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God allow evil.

Richard

[Charlie Southerland]

Uh, Janice, what is unintentional about the medical procedure known as abortion? In most cases, is it not an elective procedure? Tell me, Janice, what would you call the intentional elimination of a species or a portion of a species?


With abortion, sooner or later you run out of people to kill.

[Ann Drysdale]

Hunting...?

[Charlie Southerland]

Yes, Richard, philosophers have struggled with the problem of sin for millenia. I am not aware of a previous culture that was devoid of some supreme type of deity, whether invented or real. The issue of right and wrong is subjective, in some cases. Granted. That would help to explain the necessity for God to lay rules at men's feet. Of course one would probably have to have a grasp on God's sovereignty to make heads or tails of his designs. It is obvious that man is incapable of always doing the right thing, even when trained or subjected to try. To me, it is inherent in mankind to do wrong before right, assuming that he knows the difference. We've had six-thousand years to clarify that idea. I think it is pretty well defined, if not refined. I took notice of the one thing you missed, in that, God is all-loving as well. That's another debate for another time.

If mankind has no grasp on right as opposed to wrong, I submit to you that mankind could not have survived as long as it has. You might say common sense would come into play. Who says? Man can be conditioned, and is in many parts of society. North Korea comes to mind. Yet, given information that is of innately supreme value, (God's love) somehow causes the enlightened man to "come alive" no longer slave under that conditioning even if that conditioning continues uninterrupted.

I would say that love is of uncountable value more than evil or the awareness of wrong or right.

However, when the love of God is combined with common sense and self-preservation along with the enlightened desire of man to emulate that good love, his inclination would be to procreate and love that creation as well, not kill it out of hand for convenience sake. Shaky? I think not.

[Charlie Southerland]

Why, yes, Annie.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Uh, Janice, what is unintentional about the medical procedure known as abortion?

Where did that come from, Charlie? I can't see that I or anyone else has claimed otherwise. Surely you are not so doltish as to infer that I am saying that ALL pregnancies should be interrupted? But with you, one never knows.

Whereas "genocide" is the intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group.

[Janice D. Soderling]

I took notice of the one thing you missed, in that, God is all-loving as well.

I think you mean "self-loving".

Exodus 20:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Jeremiah 51:55-56 New International Version (NIV)
For the Lord is a God of retribution; he will repay in full.

Exodus 34:14
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Revelation 14:10
he too will drink the wine of God's anger, poured undiluted into the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

Deuteronomy 2:32-34
32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.
33 And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

There must be smarter ways to show love.

PS. Post #122

And yet, there are no other words that fit the extermination of babies in or out of the womb for whatever reasons.