Gyroscopic Investing

Jan Van wrote:

Desert wrote: Uh ... tell that to the unborn baby. 

Baby, fetus or embryo?

I don't believe that people who oppose abortion see a moral difference between the three.

Pointedstick wrote: I don't believe that people who oppose abortion see a moral difference between the three.

No, they don't I'm sure. Which brings us back to your reply #2 above. No agreement seems possible.

Mountaineer wrote:I know that you know there is a God so I'm not going to argue with you.

Well, I know that you know there is no God so I'm not going to argue with you.

dualstow wrote:

Desert wrote: I personally see little difference between an abortion "doctor" and an ISIS murderer.  Both addicted to death, both motivated by the darkest forces this world has to offer.

Where do you stand on people who murder abortion providers?

I'm making an assumption the "you" in your question is plural and not just addressed to Desert so I'll give my answer.  Remember I consider there are two kingdoms, the vertical deals with God stuff and the horizontal deals with civil stuff.  For the civil kingdom, I think people who commit murder should be prosecuted per the laws of the country in which they committed the murder.  I see no distinction between the ones who murder abortion providers and those who commit murder for any other reason.  For the God stuff kingdom, all sins are equal in the eyes of God and that sin must be dealt with because God is a just God, but for those who repent and turn from their sinful ways, and believe the promises of Jesus, God no longer remembers their sin because of what Christ did on the cross, paying for all of our sins and taking them to the grave with him; thus the repentant murderer who believes will be saved just llke all the rest of us sinners who believe.  This is the unequal exchange - Jesus took all our sin upon Himself and believers receive His righteousness.


... Mountaineer

Well, for starters, I am one of those weirdos who sees a big diffrence between ISIS and abortion doctors.
Yes, I think the killers of abortion doctors should be prosecuted.

Desert wrote: Uh ... tell that to the unborn baby.

It seems to escape anti-abortionists that torture, murder, whatchamacallit has no relevance to a non-sentient, non-volitional entity.  Calling a clump of cells an "unborn baby" is presuming sentience, volition and consciousness starts very early -- or for soul believers, when the soul takes permanent root into the flesh meatbag.  Details, details!  Since we're not regularly in the habit of aborting later term fetuses without very strong medical reasons because abortion is regulated and legal, I always presume we're talking about the first trimester when the clump of cells is none of the above.  "Moment of conception" is pure religious mysticism without a shred of proof.

Mountaineer wrote: I would also add, based on looking at the data of who the victims are, abortion is one of the more blatant forms of racism ** that exists in this country today; truly a wolf in sheeps clothing and an example of the emperor has no clothes phenomenona.  The idea of

But the sad fact is they're screwed either way.  They're just less screwed by regulated and legal abortion than getting it done in a back alley by some greedy amateur.  At least right now we don't have to worry about another crime wave pending from all the fatherless, unwanted, minority children!

MangoMan wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:
all sins are equal in the eyes of God

So you're saying shoplifting a candy bar is equally evil in God's eyes to premeditated murder? I don't know what's more ridiculous, that premise or that you actually believe that. No offense.

No offense taken.  I can only share what God's Word says.  God's eyes are not our eyes, God's thoughts are not our thoughts, God's ways are not our ways.  As ridiculous as many think Scriptural teachings sound, that is what it says about sin.  It is the reason we so desperately need a Savior - not one of us is sin free, especially when you throw our sinful thoughts into the mix with our sinful actions.  Your comments are reflective of many - to me, it all comes down to if one believes if God's Word is telling the truth and the Scriptures are what He says they are.  I think Christianity hinges on Christ's resurrection - if you can believe that happened (as reported by over 500 eye witnesses at the time), the rest is easy, even to an engineer like me.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: No offense taken.  I can only share what God's Word says.  God's eyes are not our eyes, God's thoughts are not our thoughts, God's ways are not our ways.  As ridiculous as many think Scriptural teachings sound, that is what it says about sin.  It is the reason we so desperately need a Savior - not one of us is sin free, especially when you throw our sinful thoughts into the mix with our sinful actions.  Your comments are reflective of many - to me, it all comes down to if one believes if God's Word is telling the truth and the Scriptures are what He says they are.  I think Christianity hinges on Christ's resurrection - if you can believe that happened (as reported by over 500 eye witnesses at the time), the rest is easy, even to an engineer like me.

Anything and everything is easy with belief.  Doesn't mean it has or had any basis in reality, though!

What about "God's Word" in the Koran, the Torah, the Hindu texts, or any of the innumerous religious cult texts throughout history?  What makes you so arrogant about your own particular Christian cult when there isn't a shred of convincing evidence for any of the above?  You can't even play a game of telephone with a handful or two of people today without distortion and yet you propose to literally believe straight-up the long-aged oral traditions, the censorship, the re-editing, the mistranslations, the embellishments, etc. of the "Holy Bible" over thousands of years?  My friend, you have a cognitive breakdown between the principles of science as applied to physics/engineering and your religious mysticism.  It's perfectly allowable to suspend the rules of evidence to believe in a faith because it is your own free mind, but don't presume it is at all authoritative to others who have higher standards.

The same likewise could be said for applying evidence towards sentience, volition and consciousness in a clump of cells that I use as a delineating mark.  Once science positively identifies those moments, the abortion debate will be pretty much over for the vast majority.

MachineGhost wrote:The same likewise could be said for applying evidence towards sentience, volition and consciousness in a clump of cells that I use as a delineating mark.  Once science positively identifies those moments, the abortion debate will be pretty much over for the vast majority.

And what if it's determined that sentience, volition, and consciousness don't occur until three weeks after birth?  A newborn is pretty much a lump.

Desert wrote:

dualstow wrote: Well, for starters, I am one of those weirdos who sees a big diffrence between ISIS and abortion doctors.
Yes, I think the killers of abortion doctors should be prosecuted.

Do you think you'd have any moral issues performing an abortion yourself?  And if so, at what week of the pregnancy term do you think it would become difficult?

No problem, but I'm going to give you a long-winded answer. No problem, morally, performing an abortion as long as I were a competent physician that could perform the operation safely for the mother, and not just one step up from the wire hanger job she would seek out on the street if my office were closed.

I don't think I would have any problem being an official executioner, either, although one never knows for sure until they're in that position. I don't get off on death or anything, don't believe in hunting for sport, only buy pasture-raised beef and pork (no factory meat, no sow stalls), and am generally a bleeding heart.

For a pro-choicer, I do think a lot about the pro-life side. As I have probably written in the past, I think it's entirely possible that one day we will look back on abortions the way we presently look at infanticide, i.e. with revulsion. In the present world, I think abortions are good for the planet. We've got too many people and not enough resources. I don't want to go down the slope of eugenics, forced sterilizations or anything like that. I think we should start with birth control, and the next step would be abortions, but that's the mother's right to choose.

I think small families are better now that the infant mortality rate is lower, but who am I to tell someone that he can't father 13 children? I'm no one.

With self-driving cars, we're going to have vastly fewer road deaths in the future, and I don't know what to do about that. I mean, people need killin'. If we have to thin the heard, better to do it safely and humanely with unwanted babies than become a third world country with starvation and viruses running amok through our overly dense population.

P.S. As for what week of the pregancy term: I would abide by the law. If I thought the law was off, I'd try to get it changed, but I would not take the law into my own hands.

Xan wrote: And what if it's determined that sentience, volition, and consciousness don't occur until three weeks after birth?  A newborn is pretty much a lump.

We'll all have to adjust, won't we?  I won't have a problem with it although I highly doubt it will be three weeks.  I suspect it'll be around three months.  The collective wisdom of the Common Law wasn't stupid.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: No offense taken.  I can only share what God's Word says.  God's eyes are not our eyes, God's thoughts are not our thoughts, God's ways are not our ways.  As ridiculous as many think Scriptural teachings sound, that is what it says about sin.  It is the reason we so desperately need a Savior - not one of us is sin free, especially when you throw our sinful thoughts into the mix with our sinful actions.  Your comments are reflective of many - to me, it all comes down to if one believes if God's Word is telling the truth and the Scriptures are what He says they are.  I think Christianity hinges on Christ's resurrection - if you can believe that happened (as reported by over 500 eye witnesses at the time), the rest is easy, even to an engineer like me.

Anything and everything is easy with belief.  Doesn't mean it has or had any basis in reality, though!

What about "God's Word" in the Koran, the Torah, the Hindu texts, or any of the innumerous religious cult texts throughout history?  What makes you so arrogant about your own particular Christian cult when there isn't a shred of convincing evidence for any of the above?  You can't even play a game of telephone with a handful or two of people today without distortion and yet you propose to literally believe straight-up the long-aged oral traditions, the censorship, the re-editing, the mistranslations, the embellishments, etc. of the "Holy Bible" over thousands of years?  My friend, you have a cognitive breakdown between the principles of science as applied to physics/engineering and your religious mysticism.  It's perfectly allowable to suspend the rules of evidence to believe in a faith because it is your own free mind, but don't presume it is at all authoritative to others who have higher standards.

The same likewise could be said for applying evidence towards sentience, volition and consciousness in a clump of cells that I use as a delineating mark.  Once science positively identifies those moments, the abortion debate will be pretty much over for the vast majority.

MG,

From your comments, I take it you have not kept up with the Figuring Out Religion thread.  Your comments have all been addressed - perhaps not to your satisfaction or agreement, but neverless addressed, particularly in the posts of the book "What They Need to Hear" by Klemet Preus.  It is however, very interesting that you KNOW what is going on in my mind and heart - I am curious how you have that specific revealed knowledge but discount the revealed knowledge of God; i.e. from your self-professed point of view, how can you prove I am what you say I am using science?  Perhaps God will choose to give you the gift of faith one of these days or perhaps you already have it if you were baptized and He will choose to help you to not reject His gift; perhaps putting the effort into reading that book, or going to a place where you can hear the Word might open your ears and heart.  Peace bro!

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: From your comments, I take it you have not kept up with the Figuring Out Religion thread.  Your comments have all been addressed - perhaps not to your satisfaction or agreement, but neverless addressed, particularly in the posts of the book "What They Need to Hear" by Klemet Preus.

I pretty much have but have not found this source--or any presented--to be convincing. They're all circular and self-referential!

"The Bible is the word of God because the people who compiled the Bible say it is. God exists because the Bible is the word of God. Jesus was resurrected because a bunch of people who believed he was a spiritual leader capable of supernatural acts say it happened."

None of these kinds of assertions are self-supporting, to me. They all rely on a critical missing component: faith. You have to believe that they happened. Trying to logically prove it all without faith just doesn't seem to work to me.

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: From your comments, I take it you have not kept up with the Figuring Out Religion thread.  Your comments have all been addressed - perhaps not to your satisfaction or agreement, but neverless addressed, particularly in the posts of the book "What They Need to Hear" by Klemet Preus.

I pretty much have but have not found this source--or any presented--to be convincing. They're all circular and self-referential!

"The Bible is the word of God because the people who compiled the Bible say it is. God exists because the Bible is the word of God. Jesus was resurrected because a bunch of people who believed he was a spiritual leader capable of supernatural acts say it happened."

None of these kinds of assertions are self-supporting, to me. They all rely on a critical missing component: faith. You have to believe that they happened. Trying to logically prove it all without faith just doesn't seem to work to me.

Actually, I agree with you.  Arguing from evidence will not convince anyone absolutely - I think evidence just begins to get one closer to the Word of God, perhaps from arousing curiosity, perhaps from something else, and perhaps that is a method God uses to soften ones heart.  Ultimately God is completely in charge of the whole deal.  My (our) job is to scatter the seeds, it is up to God to water and nurture them if He so chooses to do.  I also just try to point out inconsistencies in those who profess that science and/or logic and/or themselves are their god for whom they depend on all truth.  For example, MG is somehow convinced of his conclusion about me; he does not even know me other than from the random assortment of alphanumeric characters that appear on his computer screen God only knows of their origin; thus, he must have some sort of revealed knowledge about me from somewhere, yet he apparently discounts revelation as a source of knowledge - or perhaps he is just using dramatized hyperbole instead of factually expressing his thoughts.  To me, that is cognitive dissonance that is unrecognized in the one displaying it - but I'm weird, just a poor humble sinner like the rest of us and probably have it all wrong. 

... Mountaineer

interactive processing wrote: Latin religi?n- (stem of religi?) bond between humans and gods.

if there is a bond, then why have faith that some idea you have in your head is correct? (regardless of where it came from, a priest. a book, or the interpretation of a book using the same book) why not just seek out and explore the bond?

I may have misunderstood your question, but I do enthusiastically explore that bond.  The bond between God and me has a name - Jesus - who is the revealed Word of God and really does exist.  I try to learn all I can.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:...It is however, very interesting that you KNOW what is going on in my mind and heart - I am curious how you have that specific revealed knowledge but discount the revealed knowledge of God;...
... Mountaineer

So when you wrote

Mountaineer wrote: I know that you know there is a God so I'm not going to argue with you.

you were just kidding, right? Pulling MachineGhost's legs?

MangoMan wrote:

dualstow wrote: I think small families are better now that the infant mortality rate is lower, but who am I to tell someone that he can't father 13 children?

I agree with this right up until the parents want government handouts because they can't possibly afford to raise 13 kids on their own. You want 13 kids? No problem, as long as you pay for them and don't ask for my financial help.

Absolutely.

dualstow wrote:

MangoMan wrote:

dualstow wrote: I think small families are better now that the infant mortality rate is lower, but who am I to tell someone that he can't father 13 children?

I agree with this right up until the parents want government handouts because they can't possibly afford to raise 13 kids on their own. You want 13 kids? No problem, as long as you pay for them and don't ask for my financial help.

Absolutely.

But "we're all in this together!" Why do you have to be so cold and heartless? Won't anybody please think of the children!?!

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

interactive processing wrote: Latin religi?n- (stem of religi?) bond between humans and gods.

if there is a bond, then why have faith that some idea you have in your head is correct? (regardless of where it came from, a priest. a book, or the interpretation of a book using the same book) why not just seek out and explore the bond?

I may have misunderstood your question, but I do enthusiastically explore that bond.  The bond between God and me has a name - Jesus - who is the revealed Word of God and really does exist.  I try to learn all I can.

... Mountaineer

it seems to me (using a strange analogy) that god is like a coffee table. religious faith is like stumbling around the room with the table blindfolded, declaring your belief/faith the table is there, and when you smash your shins against it you say, it is ok a book about Jesus has told me about the table and he has forgiven me for being unable to see it, and promised the blindfold will come off when i die..
all the while at the core of every religion including Christianity is a simple message and a set of instructions ... for removing the blindfold...


on the topic of the thread i tend to side with the religious on the nature of abortion being evil and murderous, and with the libertarians on making it illegal being a horribly bad idea, prohibition has never worked..
a child in a mothers womb is a unique situation where it is a life and dependent on another life at the same time.  this situation makes it an extraordinary test of our humanity, if it can not be banned then it can only be ended when humans adopt a much better moral and philosophical compass to guide their actions...

Topic 1 - the coffee table.  Not bad, not bad ... and at death, I'll be sitting on, beside, or under the coffee table in the presence of God.  I hope that in all the perfection of that, I do not have to observe (like God does) all the ones who did not hear that soft whisper coming from the coffee table saying 'come to me' and stumble out of the door into the outer darkness and are forever lost.

Topic 2 - abortion.  I too think it is a test of our humanity and the moral compass (note - not moralism) that should guide all of us is the trinitarian God.  Unfortunately, many throughout history have rejected that trinitarian God in favor of other gods and can really muck it up for humanity as a whole (note - I do believe there are many atheists or agnostics that are "good" people in this civil realm; unfortunately, that does not assure one of salvation).  The state's role is to reduce chaos and provide order - it seems to me all the hoopla about "women's rights" only has made that worse.

... Mountaineer

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Topic 1 - the coffee table.  Not bad, not bad ... and at death, I'll be sitting on, beside, or under the coffee table in the presence of God.  I hope that in all the perfection of that, I do not have to observe (like God does) all the ones who did not hear that soft whisper coming from the coffee table saying 'come to me' and stumble out of the door into the outer darkness and are forever lost.

Topic 2 - abortion.  I too think it is a test of our humanity and the moral compass (note - not moralism) that should guide all of us is the trinitarian God.  Unfortunately, many throughout history have rejected that trinitarian God in favor of other gods and can really muck it up for humanity as a whole (note - I do believe there are many atheists or agnostics that are "good" people in this civil realm; unfortunately, that does not assure one of salvation).  The state's role is to reduce chaos and provide order - it seems to me all the hoopla about "women's rights" only has made that worse.

... Mountaineer

personally i prefer working on getting the blindfold off in life. i have little or no faith in faith...

"God in favor of other gods " the idea that there are other gods is a confusion caused by being stuck in the realm of "ideas in my head" there is no conflict between religions among those who remove or try to remove the blindfold. i posted this link to an interesting movie on the topic in the religion thread. 
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/other-discussions/figuring-out-religion/msg106060/#msg106060
it has leaders from a wide variety of faiths (some more eloquent than others) all trying to explain the common thread that runs through all religions..

"The state's role is to reduce chaos and provide order" and unfortunately prohibition has had the opposite effect wherever it gets tried, and has little or no chance of working to provide order with abortion..

1. Agree.  One must have faith only in the promises of Jesus; never, ever have faith in faith.  And, there is only one God; all those who profess that all religions have the same God are incorrect.  Really.  Truly.  Always.  But I can't prove it to an unbeliever.

2. Agree.  Abortion is a vertical realm issue with the caveat that one is expected by God to obey the state unless it conflicts with the will of God as expressed in Christian Scripture.

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote:

dualstow wrote:

MangoMan wrote: I agree with this right up until the parents want government handouts because they can't possibly afford to raise 13 kids on their own. You want 13 kids? No problem, as long as you pay for them and don't ask for my financial help.

Absolutely.

But "we're all in this together!" Why do you have to be so cold and heartless? Won't anybody please think of the children!?!

Because I'm a reptile. 

Mountaineer wrote: From your comments, I take it you have not kept up with the Figuring Out Religion thread.  Your comments have all been addressed - perhaps not to your satisfaction or agreement, but neverless addressed, particularly in the posts of the book "What They Need to Hear" by Klemet Preus.  It is however, very interesting that you KNOW what is going on in my mind and heart - I am curious how you have that specific revealed knowledge but discount the revealed knowledge of God; i.e. from your self-professed point of view, how can you prove I am what you say I am using science?  Perhaps God will choose to give you the gift of faith one of these days or perhaps you already have it if you were baptized and He will choose to help you to not reject His gift; perhaps putting the effort into reading that book, or going to a place where you can hear the Word might open your ears and heart.  Peace bro!

I'm a bit behind on that thread.  Not to be snarky, but simple reason, logical deduction and experience with various religious fundies allow me to draw certain conclusions about what you're believing because, honestly, its not anything novel no matter how much you think you're in some special reality-bubble with your own particular "God" concept.  And the fact that you actually ignore directly answering my critical questions goes further to prove my suspicion that you don't have a factual leg to stand upon.  But don't take it personally -- the vast majority of religious believers are exactly in that pickle.  They simply believe for lack of anything better to believe in and they exploit all the cognitive and behavorial biases in the book to stay in their special reality-bubble.

I have read the "Word" before.  It doesn't convince me upon critical thought and examination.  Why?  Well, I can only surmise that I don't have intentional blinders on about the origin reality of the "Messiah" and "Holy Bible" as you do.  I've alluded to this before and it upsets you.  I'm not easily swayed by emotional hyperbole.  So to the extent that you choose not to examine anything (such as historical evidence) that threatens your belief, choosing to believe is simply an act of faith over fact.  How else do you explain the cognitive disassocation?  Rhetorical question.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree over the referrent for "facts".  Even if you had what you thought was first-hand self- knowledge of "angels", "demons", the whole kit and kaboodle that comes with a belief in Christianity -- especially Catholicism, I would still offer a "higher" hierarcherical metaphysical explanation that you would refuse to believe anyway.

May I suggest you not act like a religious extremist and publically denounce that everyone that doesn't believe in your particular brand of faith is hencefore condemned?  That's particularly offensive when the stark reality of the observable universe does not operate upon faith one iota.  And if said universe was indeed created by the "God" concept, then people that choose not to believe anything based on faith over facts are logically excluded from condemnation, otherwise your "God" is nothing but a illogical, malevolent and non-emphathetic asshole.

To bring this back on topic, here's great news thanks to the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation (who I was reallly skeptical about initially, but have since impressed me with their clear thinking about solving problems as I would think about):

The one dollar contraceptive set to make family planning easier
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30026001

Desert wrote: It's fascinating to me how the most "progressive" in our society are also the most barbarous.  I wonder if most defenders of abortion have done any study of the procedure at all?  I doubt that they have.  They fall in line with the progressive beliefs that the cool people hold, rarely questioning.  It makes it easier for me to see how genocides around the world have happened, and continue to happen.  We're not getting more civilized ... quite the opposite.  It's very sad.

And its fascinating how the most "conservative" in our society are also the most barbarous.  You must be hautily confident that as an executioner only those that deserve it are being executed.  Like all the hundreds of innocent victims killed on death row only later to be exonerated by science (DNA fingerprinting) instead of moral posturing.  Or how about all the hundreds of thousands not just excuted but tortured during the Crusades or by Bloody Mary? 

It's not what religious mysticism you choose believe that is the real problem per se, its the blinding hypocrisy that goes along with it.

Desert wrote:
It's fascinating to me how the most "progressive" in our society are also the most barbarous.  I wonder if most defenders of abortion have done any study of the procedure at all?  I doubt that they have.  They fall in line with the progressive beliefs that the cool people hold, rarely questioning.  It makes it easier for me to see how genocides around the world have happened, and continue to happen.  We're not getting more civilized ... quite the opposite.  It's very sad.

I too wonder why the liberal/progressives who proclaim to be looking out for the downtrodden seem to be the ones preying on the weak of society, whether by abortion or making end of life suicide look acceptable to the gullible.  The progressive liberals seem to have encapsulated the worst of Nazism (e.g. eugenics, ethnic, homosexual, and special needs people cleansing),  and expanded the Arian racism that idolized blue-eyed blond perfection to include those who disagree with their ideology; look at the examples of that behavior on this board alone which in many ways represents the smartest and best society has to offer.  Sad and almost unbelievable.  Satan is indeed prowling around like a hungary lion.

... Mountaineer