Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What's wrong with Ron Paul? (Score 1) 577

My understanding of scripture is that we are not physical beings. We are spiritual. We live a time in a physical state here on this earth in a body created, formed, by God.
I am not aware of theology that posits that we are all Adam. Sorry. Decended from Adam? Yes.
I suggest that we are created spiritual prior to conception then placed into the formed physical at conception. This is directly in line with the passage I posted prior.

Comment Re:What's wrong with Ron Paul? (Score 1) 577

I won't touch on the other points directly, instead focusing on the philosophical and theological points.I personally don't see how philosophy has any say or bearing on when the soul develops. However, the theological is actually very clearly defined.

Jeremiah 1:5 says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

God is speaking specifically of the prophet here, but the same applies to all humans. Before being formed in the womb God knew you and me and each other human. So, clearly a knowable entity is created before being formed in the womb, e.g. this would be the zygote or even before.
God has always been clear when life begins. We, in our limited understanding, have been all over the place.

Comment Re:What's wrong with Ron Paul? (Score 1) 577

(d) wants to legally declare that life begins at conception

Why is this such a bad thing? Why is it such a fatal ideology to think that all life is precious? Even the unborn? How can the living hate life so much?

Now, to retort to the below response that Ron Paul voted against the constitutional amendment, you are right. He did vote against that. He did so because he believes abortion is a state level issue. He does see that life begins at conception. He is just confused on where the issue should be resolved. Life is a federal issue. Right to life is a federal issue.

Comment Re:Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Score 1) 577

I would not vote for Ron Paul for various reasons. I will respond on his behalf though on your curiosity. He thinks women shouldn't be able to choose to ave abortions because as an obstetrician he knows very well that life begins at conception, and he believes in the federal right to life. The unborn cannot speak for themselves, so we must protect them.

Comment Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score 1) 1108

You know I started to answer each one of these statements individually. I have decided that is not needed. I don't need to cover the differences in language in tanslations or limitations of culture of the time. This will be labeled as a troll response, but:

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

These passages tell us God is much smarter than us, and that understanding of His divine Word only comes by Spirit revelation.

Not the answer you're looking for, but the truth.

Comment Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score 1) 1108

Sorry, faith in the living God was an completely intrinsic part of life. It was not just a passing thought as you alude to. It also was not just colloquial language as you wish it was.
Perhaps you should rethink your language. It would very much be a sign of insanity to continue calling out to God when you don't believe He even exists. Although it could still benefit your situation as He very much does exist and cares about you.

Comment Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score 1) 1108

I certainly agree there is a huge disparity between people that call themselves Christian today and Christians in the days of the country's founding.
I'll also agree there was certainly no intention of the US ever becoming a theocracy. And I would not want it to be one.
And I tend to agree they had no intention of religion influencing government. They did however have the intention of God's influence. See the dating of the signing of the constitution, "Year of our Lord". See the first amendment proclaimation of Washington praising Almighty God for the drafting. Reference Ben Franklin's, least likely to do this btw, call to the constitutional convention to prayer at the beginning of each day's session for God's guidance in the drafting of the constitution.
These men had no reason to invoke God directly in the constitution. They were forming a God fearing nation; a Christian nation using the definition of Christian from that time. But certainly not a theocracy. The idea of being a secular nation was completely foreign to anyone until the mid to late 1800s.

Comment Re:There's Your Problem Right There (Score 1) 1108

The constitution specifically forbids any state run church. I am in agreement that is the way it should be. The new testament makes it very clear that the local church is the extent of the circle of oversight of any single spiritual leader established by God.
I also agree that you are fully free to worship whatever god you choose. Grant me the same freedom. Allow me to be free to worship God. Allow me to teach my children the truth about God and His creation.

I am not disagreeing with the general sentiment against religion here either. Religion is flawed. Religion is made by man. Faith, which everyone here possess, does govern individual mans thoughts and actions. So should it also influence their decisions in running government.
The writings of the founding fathers referenced here should be studied by all a little more closely. These fathers did condemn religion of the time and bravo for them. It was flawed. That is why they left England to begin with. But their words are twisted to mean things they did not say. I love how the things that fit with an anti-Christian slant are bolded in reference and the rest of the statement completely ignored. Just as one must rely on the whole counsel of God, the entire bible and not just parts, we also must read the entire writings of the founding fathers, not just parts.

Slashdot Top Deals

No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.