Yes, I was hanging out with Catherine and Leah tonight and I mentioned something you had said in one of our debates.Miss Friendship wrote:Do you ever have debates IRL that remind you of what people say on the SS?
Yes, on Pascha it's a strict fast the day before.Miss Friendship wrote:Have you ever been gone almost a day without water?
ProbablyMiss Friendship wrote:Do you think I will pass you up in posts sometime?
I feel like that wouldn't be sanitary.Miss Friendship wrote:Yes. It works as a blood clot if you need something to help stop a terrible gushing wound. No, I have not heard of band aids. I suppose they are little devices packed with things that stop up your blood. Or do they merely cover the wound like a bandage? #Sarcasm
That's a quote from Genesis, do you think I had just never read Genesis?Miss Friendship wrote:Just to clarify for our next debate...which starts now. Since Jesus rose from the dead, everything He says is true.
Mark 10:6So Jesus here is agreeing with my interpretation of creation. By saying there was no millions of years. FROM THE BEGINNING, Adam and Eve existed.But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
I went to the funeral of a friend at a church that was currently going through an abuse scandal and one of the pastors who gave the sermon had helped cover up the abuse.Blitz wrote:Worst church service experience?
Because they didn't belong in the Bible. What's in the Bible is there for a reason but its not the whole of Christianity.Isaiah the Ox wrote:If the original Church (YOUR church) cannonized the Bible, then why aren't the more important (according to you) writings of other Church leaders in the Bible?
Could the past 2000 years of Christianity be wrong? (not on things you would say are "unchangeable"...but maybe on the importance of the Bible, or Christians in government, or something...)
Why are the writings of some priest more important that the teachings of Jesus?
What was it I said/you said?Eleventh Doctor wrote:Yes, I was hanging out with Catherine and Leah tonight and I mentioned something you had said in one of our debates.
It's natural. And sometimes natural remedies work. I mean, God made cinnamon for a reason.Eleventh Doctor wrote:I feel like that wouldn't be sanitary.
Talk about avoiding my question. Sure. But you claim Genesis was not translated right. However Jesus can be literal and He agreed with it. Therefore that tops everything you believe about Genesis being not literal.Eleventh Doctor wrote:That's a quote from Genesis, do you think I had just never read Genesis?
Hmm, they must be nicer than you then.Eleventh Doctor wrote:but they understood your concerns.
My main objection here would be one of the slippery slope where life is slowly devalued in the name of pragmatism. It starts with a brain dead baby but then goes to a baby that needs extreme life saving care and then goes to a car accident victim who probably won't make it or an elderly patient whose life is less important than the quality of life of someone else.aragtaghooligan wrote:A girl is born with a disease which effectively makes her brain dead. She therefore has no desires. She is not aware of life. The textbook basically claims this undoes her right to sanctity of life. To make it more complicated, her parents want her death to be hastened so they can donate her organs to help save another life. The hospital would not allow this and by the time she died (which was inevitable) her organs were unable to be used as they had deteriorated too much. The argument here is essentially that the organs were doing her no good but could have done another child good.
There are so many complications about conjoined twins both medically and ethically. I don't feel qualified to speak to this issue.aragtaghooligan wrote:Two children are conjoined twins. If they stay together they shall both die. If they are separated the weaker twin will die, but the stronger one will live. The parents are devout Catholics and say they can not actively kill one daughter. When told that both will die if they do not separate them the parents say that is up to God. The court intervened and ordered the twins to be separated. One lived one survived. Interestingly enough the argument that the court used was that they were not killing the twin, they were separating her, it just so happened they knew she would die as a result. Other arguments are similar to the first one.
I think we have to avoid the snowball fallacy but if we can make a convincing argument for each point from the initial point to the future then it isn't a fallacy. As for this specific case I don't see how this isn't just murder.aragtaghooligan wrote:This last one is the only one where I actually came up with something to say (after thinking about it for a long time). A father killed his 12 year old daughter because she was still operating at the level physically and mentally of a newborn due to an illness which was causing her a bunch of pain. This one did not have the complication of her death aiding another person. This was just a case of a person able to communicate thinking they can decide what is best for someone unable to communicate. My argument here is that just as the textbook said again and again that we cannot use the snowball fallacy to back up our arguments because we don't know what is going to happen in the future, I think we don't know what is going to happen in her future. I know tons of people who have lived when doctors thought they were going to die and who worked through great pain to have a better future.
I wasn't aware it was difficult to find Jesus in the Old Testament.Isaiah the Ox wrote:Why is it so difficult to find Jesus in the Old Testament?
Does the Bible give us clues as to when exactly Jesus will return? Or even signs of the times right before he returns? (in your opinion)
