Recruiting forum off topic thread (merged)

[Ashevolle]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe in God what guides your moral compass?

my parents, community, society, but above all my mind.

 

[Ashevolle]

If there is no God then what does it matter. God set out the rules of how to live because without Him human beings are selfish pleasure driven creatures. If God doesn't give us rules to live by and an afterlife to look forward to what keeps society from descending into anarchy?

if the only thing that makes a man behave is the fear of retribution from some deity, his motives are selfish. i behave without without hope of reward or worry of punishment. i simply behave because that is the kind of world in which i want to live.

 

[jspvol76]

You don't need God to know it's wrong to murder, rape, and steal.

But the origin of believing these things are wrong came from God, whether you believe in him or not. These beliefs were not passed down from neanderthal to man.

For some reason, I just can't see this fellow saying "don't murder, rape, or steal little neanderthals." Instead, I see him saying "kill the men, breed the women, and take what is left behind."

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

if the only thing that makes a man behave is the fear of retribution from some deity, his motives are selfish. i behave without without hope of reward or worry of punishment. i simply behave because that is the kind of world in which i want to live.

I don't see it being selfish to want to spend eternity in heaven with God the Father and the Son. I do try to behave in fear of eternal condemnation in hell fire. I personally think your stance to behave as a good moral person because it's the kind of world you want to live in is driven by the internal yearning to be rejoined with our Creator. I don't believe that is all that it takes to get us there, as I believe we have to be obedient to his commands until death or when Jesus comes again. We were created to be in fellowship with God, and when we break that through sin, we have a yearning to rejoin him in that fellowship one day. He tells us that can be accomplished by obeying his commands.

 

[Ashevolle]

if your religion gives you the meaning necessary to do good unto the world, then i am happy you have it. it is when your religion serves evil that i grow weary.

 

[Mick]

But the origin of believing these things are wrong came from God, whether you believe in him or not. These beliefs were not passed down from neanderthal to man.

For some reason, I just can't see this fellow saying "don't murder, rape, or steal little neanderthals." Instead, I see him saying "kill the men, breed the women, and take what is left behind."

Neanderthals were a hunting gathering society. They had the same rules governing who they could and couldn't kill. They probably killed someone whom stole from them. You act as though there were all in it for themselves without a sense of community, society, or right from wrong. What is innate is survival. If it came to the death of your unborn or the death of another unborn; where is the morality when the choice is obvious?

 

[volatil]

What in the world happened up in here?

 

[Brillovol]

I see that this isn't an issue with abortion, killing, eating meat, or being a vegetarian. It's an issue with God. I'm not here to debate, argue, or try to prove my point on anything. That won't solve anything and will only make someone who's jaded even more hardened. I will state my beliefs and the very basic reasonings (though I could go on for days in depth) as to why, which I have done.

I do pray, however that God will reveal his love, grace, and yes, sovereignty through this conversation or any other means He sees fit. Many may see Christianity as restrictive, hypocritical, or arbitrary. On the contrary, in Christ I have found grace and freedom through His love and sovereignty. In the face of an evil world, I have comfort and hope through this.

 

[Mick]

I found it catbone.

 

[Mick]

I see that this isn't an issue with abortion, killing, eating meat, or being a vegetarian. It's an issue with God. I'm not here to debate, argue, or try to prove my point on anything. That won't solve anything and will only make someone who's jaded even more hardened. I will state my beliefs and the very basic reasonings (though I could go on for days in depth) as to why, which I have done.

I do pray, however that God will reveal his love, grace, and yes, sovereignty through this conversation or any other means He sees fit. Many may see Christianity as restrictive, hypocritical, or arbitrary. On the contrary, in Christ I have found grace and freedom through His love and sovereignty. In the face of an evil world, I have comfort and hope through this.

Well stated. My problem is when politics corrupted the teaching in the church. Love thy neighbor stood out to me more than kill thy enemy.

Edit: some people are still looking for what you found and some have found that elsewhere.

 

[Catbone]

i found it catbone.

LOL lol:

 

[Mick]

LOL lol:

Do you know what movie that's from?

 

[densojb3]

Fritz the cat

 

[kmkemp11]

I think there is a common fallacy in the abortion debate whereby people equate what they believe to be right action with what they think should be law. Laws are meant to have a net positive effect on a society of people. Oftentimes, what the majority considers right action correspond to laws, but sometimes, they don't. Alcohol use is the most glaring example. It's hard to argue that alcohol isn't responsible for a lot of crimes and that we *might* be better off without it. But criminalizing alcohol has proven ineffective at stopping its use, so making a law prohibiting it doesn't have a net positive effect. In the same way, prohibiting abortion doesn't have a net positive impact in the USA. The debate shouldn't be about what's right or wrong. I think most people are sympathetic (even the far left) to killing unborn babies.

 

[Smokey49]

I think there is a common fallacy in the abortion debate whereby people equate what they believe to be right action with what they think should be law. Laws are meant to have a net positive effect on a society of people. Oftentimes, what the majority considers right action correspond to laws, but sometimes, they don't. Alcohol use is the most glaring example. It's hard to argue that alcohol isn't responsible for a lot of crimes and that we *might* be better off without it. But criminalizing alcohol has proven ineffective at stopping its use, so making a law prohibiting it doesn't have a net positive effect. In the same way, prohibiting abortion doesn't have a net positive impact in the USA. The debate shouldn't be about what's right or wrong. I think most people are sympathetic (even the far left) to killing unborn babies.

 

[engineerVOL]

I think there is a common fallacy in the abortion debate whereby people equate what they believe to be right action with what they think should be law. Laws are meant to have a net positive effect on a society of people. Oftentimes, what the majority considers right action correspond to laws, but sometimes, they don't. Alcohol use is the most glaring example. It's hard to argue that alcohol isn't responsible for a lot of crimes and that we *might* be better off without it. But criminalizing alcohol has proven ineffective at stopping its use, so making a law prohibiting it doesn't have a net positive effect. In the same way, prohibiting abortion doesn't have a net positive impact in the USA. The debate shouldn't be about what's right or wrong. I think most people are sympathetic (even the far left) to killing unborn babies.

Let's trumpet human rights then, just not for the unborn. Let's saturate our borders with illegal aliens grant amnesty and promise a future, just not for the unborn. Excuse me while I vehemently disagree with you.

 

[engineerVOL]

I think there is a common fallacy in the abortion debate whereby people equate what they believe to be right action with what they think should be law. Laws are meant to have a net positive effect on a society of people. Oftentimes, what the majority considers right action correspond to laws, but sometimes, they don't. Alcohol use is the most glaring example. It's hard to argue that alcohol isn't responsible for a lot of crimes and that we *might* be better off without it. But criminalizing alcohol has proven ineffective at stopping its use, so making a law prohibiting it doesn't have a net positive effect. In the same way, prohibiting abortion doesn't have a net positive impact in the USA. The debate shouldn't be about what's right or wrong. I think most people are sympathetic (even the far left) to killing unborn babies.

Also "net positive effect on people"???

Did you read that before you hit Submit? Surely you jest. Babies are people.

 

[kmkemp11]

Also "net positive effect on people"???

Did you read that before you hit Submit? Surely you jest. Babies are people.

Not sure if serious. My entire post was about how making abortion illegal has failed at preventing abortions. It has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. I even say that almost everyone is sympathetic to killing unborn babies. It's just irrelevant.

 

[engineerVOL]

Not sure if serious. My entire post was about how making abortion illegal has failed at preventing abortions. It has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. I even say that almost everyone is sympathetic to killing unborn babies. It's just irrelevant.

The unborn doesn't have a voice. Every other scenario essentially has a lobbyist. I and others are that voice. Simple.

 

[Crookruss]

Keep it up guys. A few more days of arguing on a football message board and you'll have this abortion/religion issue solved for good.

 

[KokoBVol]

Keep it up guys. A few more days of arguing on a football message board and you'll have this abortion/religion issue solved for good.

Lol

 

[Burger]

Abortion reduces crime.

 

[triadvolfan]

I think there is a common fallacy in the abortion debate whereby people equate what they believe to be right action with what they think should be law. Laws are meant to have a net positive effect on a society of people. Oftentimes, what the majority considers right action correspond to laws, but sometimes, they don't. Alcohol use is the most glaring example. It's hard to argue that alcohol isn't responsible for a lot of crimes and that we *might* be better off without it. But criminalizing alcohol has proven ineffective at stopping its use, so making a law prohibiting it doesn't have a net positive effect. In the same way, prohibiting abortion doesn't have a net positive impact in the USA. The debate shouldn't be about what's right or wrong. I think most people are sympathetic (even the far left) to killing unborn babies.

How so? Are you arguing that there would be the same # of abortions if it were illegal? Or are you arguing abortion is beneficial to society in some other way?

I've heard the idea that people will have abortions even if it's illegal as an argument before but I've never seen any evidence that it's true (if you have some please share). It was illegal for years prior to Roe v Wade but I don't think we have reliable stats on illegal abortions. The stats immediately after Roe V. Wade show that abortion instances increased substantially over the first few years after it was legalized. This seems to imply that abortion was less common prior to Roe V Wade and the incidence rate increased as it became more acceptable.

The sheer # of legal abortions makes me think the # would have to be lower if it were illegal. Just cutting off federal funding along might reduce the incidence rate.

 

[RikidyBones]

This thread gives me this thought. Siap

 

[Vols4us]

Let's trumpet human rights then, just not for the unborn. Let's saturate our borders with illegal aliens grant amnesty and promise a future, just not for the unborn. Excuse me while I vehemently disagree with you.

Home run post. :good!:

The hypocrisy of the left astounds me at times. Add in they can go insane over a dead lion in Zimbabwe when they need to deflect from the Planned Parenthood body parts debacle.