So...if a fetus is created from only female DNA, it would be sinless? Why aren't the church and all Christians pushing for cloning research then?

Even if it were possible, it would all be for naught once the first sin was committed. Adam didn't have a sin nature either until he committed sin.

you need infinity +1 rooms, and then you're moving into unreal numbers....not the place to be when trying to prove something is real.

You can talk to the mathematicians about it. I was only using that as a rough analogy to illustrate an idea. I can't say for sure how the mechanics of it worked, I only know that God considered it justice for all sin.

If he atoned for all sin, why is disbelief still a sin? All sin is either atoned for or not.

There is atonement for unbelief but there is something you have to do, which is repent and believe the gospel. If you're in court and the judge tells you that if you go and see the clerk and sign some paperwork he'll let you go free, and you refuse to sign the paperwork, he isn't going to let you out.

@heropsycho

are we related?

well said my friend,and i totally agree with pretty much everything you just laid out.i love your commentary as a whole,but this was exceptional.

i guess i am coming from the dispassionate analysis camp.

i hope i wasn't coming across that i was dismissing the moral argument,because that was not my intention.i actually AGREE with the moral argument.i was just trying to add facets to the argument that a lot of people appeared to not even be considering.

i hold many liberal and progressive attitudes,and maybe i am just an old crotchety coot nowadays,but in my opinion..the left has lost it's way.

binary politics does not work.
dem vs repub does not work.
left vs right does not work.
demonizing people and calling them names....
does not work.

there has been a slow revolution in american politics,and has been over the past four decades.
what sheldon wolin called "inverted totalitarianism " and what john ralston saul deemed a "corporate coup detat'".

that battle is over...and we lost.

and i think that slow realization has finally sunk into the american psyche.

do i agree with their choice?
oh hell no...their choice is horrifying.
was a trump victory akin to a petulant child?
i guess thats as good analogy as any other,but now WE have to deal with the consequences.
all of us.(even including non-americans.so yeah..sorry bout this guys).

so just how do we tackle this new problem we face?

i say we start by not calling people idiots.
just a thought.

In order...

You've presented a false analogy and a series of ad hominem attacks.

You don't notice any such thing. You're a terrible liar.

I'm paying attention to your argument and your argument is incorrect.

I'm finishing my second, third and fourth degrees at the moment (it's a combined program). It's in a double major most people find "very hard". The thing is though, this has no bearing on my argument. My argument is correct because its based on a quantifiable fact.

Previously in the thread you've assumed I'm American. I'm not (and I don't assume you are). I'm on the outside looking in. American politics happens to be a hobby of mine.

I implore you to look through those lists.

I expect more of the same from you (false equivalences, ad hominem attacks, politically polarised rhetorical diatribe, etc.) so it's even more unlikely you'll receive any response. Good day to you.

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.

I may find myself using that dildo boomerang analogy in the future....

My mistake, it was from another thread....
http://videosift.com/video/Taking-Personal-Responsibility-for-Your-Health
The link...http://thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-against-dr-michael-gregernutritionfacts/

I was wrong, he only implied the WHO said that, using their announcement to make the false analogy. Smoking increases your chances of cancer by >2000%, eating processed red meat daily increased chances of colorectal cancers by 18%. They are in no way equivalent...but he claims they are, and goes even farther by saying that switching to a plant based diet is equivalent to quitting smoking, ignoring that the paper he references only contains results based on processed/cured red meats, and ignoring the 2000%vs18%, and ignoring the far more deadly cancers caused by smoking. That's a hell of a lot of extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation for one sentence.

The stats were percentage of total population, not individuals. The Jewish (immigrant)population was growing exponentially faster than non-Jewish. The concern is because it was the Jewish ones that decided to permanently relocate in huge numbers (larger than all other demographics put together) across the continent to a single small country that could not stop them, and then take it by force, expelling the natives.
This "refugee from hostility" bullshit is just that as I see it. If, as you claim, the Arab population in Palestine was already hostile to Jews specifically (and I contend that if they were it was a function of massive illegal immigration, often by militants, that pushed them to it), then moving there would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the concern they might have for people that are hostile in Northern Europe. It's a complete red herring argument, ridiculous on it's face, and worse when examined closely.

"except for the holocaust part"....
Tell that to the families of the students murdered by police, or the tens of thousands of Guatemalans fleeing murder squads. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder, it doesn't require total genocide (although the Jews don't have a monopoly on that either) and Mexicans and others have just as valid a claim that they are oppressed by it (not to the same extent as Jews under the Nazis, no, but as much or more than before the Nazis started their campaigns).

OK, let's play pretend...starting with pretending the rest of the world has an American constitution requiring equal treatment and denying discrimination based on race or religion....but I'll bite.
Almost all that happened in the 50's-60's....in case you weren't aware....without the Rwandan genocide part, or the backing by a foreign nation arming the black side. I think there were even attempts at succeeding by some groups back then....but they got no support, and were 'driven into the sea' in essence, mostly driven into prison, hiding, or a 6 ft box in reality.
Comparing the Arab league to NATO and the US is hardly realistic, unless the black nation in your "example" gets the military backing of Russia, China, Africa, South America, and parts of central America, and NATO only contains the US, Mexico, and Canada, and has no chance against new Africa and it's allies, which beats them mercilessly then expands north for decades. Also, you have to change the immigration from Rwanda, a tiny nation, to black "refugees" from the entire planet...and even then you don't have close to the same per capita immigration problem European Jewish immigrants posed to native Palestinians. All that said...I'm pretty sure some Northern leaders publicly declared they would drive the secessionists into the sea in the civil war, so it would be nothing new here. Also, it would be totally proper to do so in your hypothetical, IMO. Any invaders can be driven out by force by any nation...and that nation gets to decide who's an invader. Keep in mind that in your example, the black nation would expel all non blacks and seize their property....which is usually called theft.

I'll stick with my Mexican analogy, it's vastly more apt, IMO....it's as if you forgot that there are native Mexicans in the US that did have their property rights infringed on and were discriminated against (and still are)...and/or aren't aware that Rwanda is much smaller than the US or even smaller than many individual states, and/or ignored that the Arab League is much smaller and infinitely less capable than the UN or NATO, so not a decent comparison.....or aren't aware of.....well, that's enough, no need to harp.

@newtboy
If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%
Jews weren't the only ones relocating to Palestine you know, Arab population growth was being driven up as well. For some strange reason a lot of people were relocating en mass in between WW1 and WW2. Seems disproportionate to me to be the concerned exclusively with the Jewish ones. Doubly so given within that time frame they undoubtedly had better reasons for concern.

My Texas-California comparison stands...
Except for the holocaust part.

Here's the example you want. During the Rwandan genocide, let's pretend we saw a mass exodus of Africans seeking refuge in America. As the genocide in Rwanda was being sifted through, let's pretend that White America decided to ban all land sales to black people, and started refusing to conduct any business with black people. Let's pretend white folks even got up in arms and started committing a few massacres of Black towns and Black people did the same back in defense and retaliation. Now, while all this fighting takes place lets see it escalate to an all out war, and the black population declares independence and accepts a UN mandated solution where they keep Missippi, Alabama and Florida or something. The day after that however, America and NATO announce a joint declaration of war and the president of the USA declares that he's going to drive the Africans into the sea. Now you've got a made in America analogy.

Phil Schiller caused the largest collective eyeroll in the history of the world with his explanation of why Apple was leaving the 3.5mm analog audio jack behind. “It comes down to one word: Courage.”
If it’s courage to remove the headphone port, what is it when you include the ability to restore it in the box?

Fingerprinting is a nice analogy, Buttle. How can we be sure that all that pollution, CO2 levels, nitric oxide levels and cow farts are A) our fault, and B) actually causing changes in climate?

We cant be sure unless we predict, and then wait a few decades and keep measuring, can we? So we have to say, along with the man falling from the skyscraper, everything OK so far!

So the hysteria about nuclear weapons was a bit silly, beacause we would not all die in an all-out nuclear war. Because people high on hillsides on the far side of New Zealand with food and water and seeds and medical supplies for a couple of years would make it fine. They would not freeze, it now turns out.

Then maybe climate change will be OK too.

Well, it's not an exact comparison. You see, for us to say climate change is being oversold like nuclear winter, we would have to use the analogy that every year nuclear powers were setting off X number of nuclear weapons and slowly bringing about nuclear winter.

Because that is what we are doing with climate change; we are slowly actually bringing it about, where nuclear winter never happened because we never launched nukes.

You'll notice I didn't say germans, I said nazis. If you want to exempt someone on the basis that they weren't really signed up to the movement, that's fine, but they're then no longer properly a part of the analogy.

In any case, probably the most generous thing that can be said of the 'naive nazis' is that if they didn't know the people they called jews - judaism is no more a race than islam - were being murdered, they merely thought they were being robbed of everything they owned, used as slave labour, and forcibly resettled. That's alright then.

You see, Penn is flat wrong when he says most people are good. Most people are stupid, and stupid people follow social norms, and social norms are, surprise, for the most part pro-social. It's a comforting illusion.

The friendly nazi baker who loves his family, always has a treat for the neighbourhood children, and never invaded anyone gets no pass from me. He's a fucking nazi. Most muslims don't blow people up or throw homosexuals off buildings, doesn't matter, they're still muslims.

Terrorism is a moronic bogeyman and I spread hate every day. Any idea can be used to corrupt people, that's not important. What is important is whether the idea in question is corrupt in itself; Penn says this one is, I agree with him, and that being so I say the people who hold to it deserve to be hated.

I get it, hating on the game is super popular right now. I'm no fanboi, I certainly didn't pre-order the game (I only pre-order from a select few developers, those I know will put out great products, like CD Project Red). I'm quite enjoying the game. It's not the type of game you play on rails or with a strong linear narrative or that holds your hand through the experience. I'm on PC and have had not a single issue or crash. I have to put graphics at medium when they should be maxed out, but that shows the age of the engine and that it isn't as streamlined or polished as it could be.

Also the game 'does' have a story, it's just rather basic and while I'm not sure the game is worth $60 (I got it for $45 and think it's worth that) I look forward to future content and the fact that they've said 'no paid DLC' makes me happy as well.

When people ask me if I recommend the game, I tell them first that it's worth waiting for a price drop or the issues with AMD and top-end nVidia to be worked out. I use the analogy that it's like Early Access Starbound. Fun, with an open universe to explore, some interesting races and things to find and crafting but not a whole lot going on in it or directed content to experience. That's No Man's Sky, at $20-30 it's a great Early Access title. I'm glad that it sold very well as that will fund future development and hopefully we'll see new content and fan requested stuff soon.

And for the record I've seen equal numbers awesome wildlife as I've seen crazy shit like in this video lol. The craziest was on this cold, radiated world that was none-the-less flush with exotic life. There were these 1m tall blobs of jelly with elephant ears and like mice faces that bounced around like a bouncy ball all over the place. Hilarious!

Lambast it all you want but it's clearly still popular. Mid-day on a wednesday and it's #3 on steam with 70k users atm. And it's not like it wasn't super easy to find out what the gameplay was like in those 3 days it was on PS4 before PC. So anyone who still bought and is bitching about it is being hypocritical.

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.