Mighty God

[BorderGirl]

double post-sorry.

 

[anitram]

I think yolland said it best in his post.

All these God threads in FYM end up being about Christians who come in and offer their beliefs as it if were facts.

Those who have been here a long time know that when there have been attempts to discuss other faiths or concepts, like for example karma or reincarnation, it only resulted in the same thing - Christians coming in to try and dispel them with their concept of grace. You see it in the atheist/agnostic threads too, it's always the Christians who need to come in and present their views on sin, salvation, Jesus and whatever else. You tell me how many times we've seen in here a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, etc come in and behave in the same manner? Never? Yeah, pretty much.

Therefore I no longer believe it's possible to discuss "God" here - maybe the Christian God, yes, but anything else? Good night and good luck, cuz it ain't gonna happen.

 

[yolland]

Conversation/observations/ about a "Mighty God" (unless this was supposed to be taken sarcastically) was what the original post asked.
Believers of all faiths will be inclined to post/share/teach/inspire, etc.
But if this post becomes about defending aetheism (a belief in no God), then carry on.
Believers, Aetheists or Agnostics respectfully exploring questions regarding Faith or lack of it, God, Jesus, etc. and others respectfully responding?
ok then!
Questions are opportunities for all of us to learn.

I think perhaps a couple people (not necessarily you; I'm just running with your phrasing here) misconstrued what I meant, so I'll attempt to clarify.

Your last three sentences there are in fact pretty much what I was saying, and since there had been some grumblings throughout the thread from both sides to the effect that that wasn't happening, I thought that might be a good moment to provide a couple gentle reminders that (hopefully) might spare us all a repeat of the ugliness on display in the atheism thread or the "raptured" thread. I can't agree with your first couple sentences, however--as soon as the topic turns to who's being saved and who isn't and what the one way to salvation might be, that says loud and clear to me who the intended audience basically is. I still think the initial post didn't make that sufficiently clear though, and that that's part of the problem (not that I think this thread has problems on a par with the other two--and I would've phrased what I said as a warning, not a reminder, if I thought it did). I also think the pre-emptive chiding about being "mature," "choosing to participate," etc. in the initial post--particularly since it was a newly registered person's debut FYM post, and he was up 'til then a complete unknown to everyone in here--was a bit uncalled for, and likely to raise hackles from the get-go.

I certainly wasn't suggesting though that everyone start tacking some "This is just my humble POV" disclaimer or whatever onto everything they say--when I said "humility" I meant things like not taking disagreements on matters of (non)faith too personally, thinking about how the way you frame your (non)beliefs might come across to others, etc. Basically, expect disagreement and a clash of worldviews, but keep some perspective on what that really amounts to (i.e., not much) in the context of an open-to-all message board. And again--if a clear-cut scope of discussion is spelled out from the very beginning, that makes it easier for me to be fair and consistent in determining when things are getting derailed...which I'm inclined to decide based on things like how bitter *overall* the tone has become, or whether certain individuals are hounding others to a degree not warranted by the intended scope of discussion. I never said anything about not being "sweeping" (kind of a hard criterion to evaluate fairly, anyhow) or particular articles of (non)belief being too inflammatory to mention, etc.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Therefore I no longer believe it's possible to discuss "God" here - maybe the Christian God, yes, but anything else? Good night and good luck, cuz it ain't gonna happen.

No Chrisitian typically intransigent by nature could possibly respect the view or opinion of anyone from any other faith (with reagards to their God more specifically) because they 'know' everything the non-Christians are saying about their God is completely and utterly wrong.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I do the wrong things all the time, but i dont think they are "sins" or that I'm doing them beause some divine being made me not perfect so i can be humble or something. So when you call it 'sins' i feel like you are taking MY mistakes out of my hands and putting them into the 'this is how you're made, jesus died for your sins yada yada' and that makes me feel uncomfortable.

Has anyone here said that God made you imperfect so that you would be humble? I don't recall seeing that. I don't know of anyone who has put the blame for sin on anyone else besides the person doing the sinning. So, we've put it squarely where you wanted it: "in your hands". The solution to sin that we believe in, however, is not "in your hands" but rather in teh cross of Christ.

 

[80sU2isBest]

They are not, perhaps you miscontrue intent since I am not making claim to victimhood - I am more than capable of defending my position and I revel in doing so.

Then I have no idea what you were talking about. Could you please clear it up?

 

[Irvine511]

No Chrisitian typically intransigent by nature could possibly respect the view or opinion of anyone from any other faith (with reagards to their God more specifically) because they 'know' everything the non-Christians are saying about their God is completely and utterly wrong.

i think this gets to what i, and many others, find so frustrating -- certainly not all, but there are several posters on this board who are fundamentally convinced that their faith is not faith but fact, and since their understanding of faith leads them to the conclusion that there can only be a single path to God/salvation/eternal life/etc., it's virtually impossible to have dialogue with such posters because, as yolland said in another post, if you're coming from the position that your viewpoint is non-negotiable, then there's really not much point in having a discussion anyway. if you are going to present various articles of faith as fact, and simply dismiss the rest of the non-Christian planet (and even a sizeable portion of Christians who do not hold such views about there only being a single path to salvation) as wrong, then i'm not sure what potential for dialogue there is.

after the "rapture" thread where a poster demanded to know whether or not i had accepted Jesus as my savior, and then followed up by saying that he knew that i hadn't because "you can tell" when someone has accepted Jesus because they tend to change, i've lost a great deal of patience for this particular stripe of intolerance.

to me, the dismissal of all other religions, and then using your own religion to justify and make virtuous this dismissal, is quite simply bigotry. you are bigoted against other religions, and i don't care what commandment or dictate from Jesus you think you're living out.

and you're free to do so. if you think Jesus wants you to be a bigot, to condemn homosexuality, to think Hillary Clinton is the antichrist, you're perfectly free to hold those beliefs.

just don't think their status as a religious belief protects you from vigorous disagreement and debate and, yes, even mockery as that's often the best way to combat the inanity of bigotry.

 

[coemgen]

I think yolland said it best in his post.

All these God threads in FYM end up being about Christians who come in and offer their beliefs as it if were facts.

Those who have been here a long time know that when there have been attempts to discuss other faiths or concepts, like for example karma or reincarnation, it only resulted in the same thing - Christians coming in to try and dispel them with their concept of grace. You see it in the atheist/agnostic threads too, it's always the Christians who need to come in and present their views on sin, salvation, Jesus and whatever else. You tell me how many times we've seen in here a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, etc come in and behave in the same manner? Never? Yeah, pretty much.

Therefore I no longer believe it's possible to discuss "God" here - maybe the Christian God, yes, but anything else? Good night and good luck, cuz it ain't gonna happen.

If it feels like I'm forcing my beliefs on you anitram, I appoligize. However, I don't see Christ as a "belief," I know him as fact. Therefore, I'm going to speak like that. I would expect everyone else to do the same with what they know to be facts. Just because it doesn't jive with what you believe or see as fact, doesn't mean I can't speak about it and respond from with that perspective. That's why were all here in FYM — for the debate and the discussion.

At the same time, I want to make it clear that I respect other people's points of view and I don't expect everyone to share mine.

If we all believed the same thing, FYM wouldn't exist. . . or be nearly as much fun to visit.

 

[Irvine511]

If it feels like I'm forcing my beliefs on you anitram, I appoligize. However, I don't see Christ as a "belief," I know him as fact. Therefore, I'm going to speak like that. I would expect everyone else to do the same with what they know to be facts. Just because it doesn't jive with what you believe or see as fact, doesn't mean I can't speak about it and respond from with that perspective. That's why were all here in FYM — for the debate and the discussion.

but can't we agree that what we know as fact -- your heart beats, my eyes are blue, it is hot today -- is much different than "i know Jesus," which must be understood as a belief? you believe you know Jesus, and we can all respect the belief, but it stands to reason that your belief is not fact.

and you're free to present yourself in any manner you want, but it's going to be difficult for people to engage in dialogue if your beliefs are non-negotiable.

 

[coemgen]

Listen, and I'm saying this with as much respect for everyone as I can. I truly enjoy talking with everyone here, no matter what you're views are. I even enjoy talking with people who are hostile to my beliefs. It's fun, and it's made me a better person. No doubt. I'd love to hang out with all of you and go do some teambuilding stuff like catching each other as we take turns falling backwards off a ledge or something. (However, I have a feeling I might be dropped. )

I think the real problem is Christianity, and even more specific, Christ himself. He's offensive. He's been offensive since he came down here. He always will be offensive. (That's my belief.) 1. He's telling us we must change. 2. He's telling us, ultimately, we can't do it, but he can. 3. He's claimed to be the only way to God the Father.
This is offensive stuff.

I was once offended by it myself. I expect all non Christians to be, too. I understand that.

If I, coemgen, have done anything to offend any of you through my own actions, attitudes or words, I sincerely appoligize. I can see how I would get full of myself, become self-centered or appear to be a know-it-all. My wife hates it too. For that, I'm sorry.

However, if it's Christ or the Bible that offends you, I can't appoligize for that. Do I expect everyone to believe it? Nope. But I'm going to use it as my source of my beliefs because that is exactly what it is.

May we all continue to coexist in FYM, like the disfunctional family we are.

coemgen

 

[anitram]

What bothers me is that I have many friend who are not Christians, and in fact probably most of them aren't. I've spent more of my time with those of Jewish faith than anything lately, at my job. One of my best friends is Hindu, and another is Sikh. Many are agnostics.

And on occasion when I've spoken about religion with them, nobody and I mean nobody is adamant or pushy or staunchly evangelical or condescending. Nobody. This is a phenomenon I've come to associate with Christians exclusively, for better or worse and truth be told, I want no part of it. If Christians are to espouse the teachings of Christ and spread the good word, I don't understand how many of them don't see that they are turning away more people than they can imagine. And I guess that's easy too, chalk it up to somebody not accepting Christ as a saviour (as Irvine was accused of) instead of looking inward and asking themselves what it is about them and the way they are spreading their faith that has people screaming and running in the opposite direction.

The respect afforded to me in discussions with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs has astounded me. I only wish Christians by and large would be this way. Instead, I find most of them condescending and creepy, and that's a sad statement, but it has become my experience like it or not.

ETA:

coemgen, I can't disagree with you more.

It's not Jesus who offends me at all. I still believe his teachings are incredible and even for a non-Christian, I'd recommend them reading the New Testament because there are things in there that are valuable for every person, regardless of circumstances. I did not run away from the Church because I questioned my faith or God's resolve or anything like that. I don't believe the Bible is the final authority, and I do find a lot of it symbolic, but I was raised Catholic so this isn't out of the ordinary to begin with.

What offends me are Christians who I feel have perverted and politicized the faith to further their own ends. The ones who would like to push their beliefs and create a theocracy. Jesus said to the disciples to prepare their hearts for the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, not to go around legislating rules about homosexual rights, women's uteruses, cussing on TV, Janet Jackson's breasts, rap music, Harry Potter's witchcraft, pharmacists refusing to issue out medications and so on.

I said once that Gandhi said it best and I stand by that: "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians, they are nothing like your Christ."

 

[coemgen]

What bothers me is that I have many friend who are not Christians, and in fact probably most of them aren't. I've spent more of my time with those of Jewish faith than anything lately, at my job. One of my best friends is Hindu, and another is Sikh. Many are agnostics.

And on occasion when I've spoken about religion with them, nobody and I mean nobody is adamant or pushy or staunchly evangelical or condescending. Nobody. This is a phenomenon I've come to associate with Christians exclusively, for better or worse and truth be told, I want no part of it. If Christians are to espouse the teachings of Christ and spread the good word, I don't understand how many of them don't see that they are turning away more people than they can imagine. And I guess that's easy too, chalk it up to somebody not accepting Christ as a saviour (as Irvine was accused of) instead of looking inward and asking themselves what it is about them and the way they are spreading their faith that has people screaming and running in the opposite direction.

The respect afforded to me in discussions with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs has astounded me. I only wish Christians by and large would be this way. Instead, I find most of them condescending and creepy, and that's a sad statement, but it has become my experience like it or not.

anitram, I respect that. If I've been a part of this, as a Christian, I'm sorry. Truly.

coemgen

 

[80sU2isBest]

The respect afforded to me in discussions with Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs has astounded me. I only wish Christians by and large would be this way. Instead, I find most of them condescending and creepy, and that's a sad statement, but it has become my experience like it or not.

Anitram, it goes both ways. There are many times my beliefs have been treated condescendingly or without respect by athiests and others.

 

[Irvine511]

Anitram, it goes both ways. There are many times my beliefs have been treated condescendingly or without respect by athiests and others.

but do you see a difference between "i think your belief is wrong/silly/stupid/whatever" versus "this is how it is."

my objection (in the grand scheme) is never to beliefs themselves, but to the one thing that stymies dialogue -- the idea that certain things are non-negotiable. i would say that you do not fall into this category; you've said yourself how you've had beliefs change (though those were more political than religious) and i think that's healthy and positive and a world apart from statements that assert one thing to be true, and exclusively true, and all disagreements are evidence of a lack of proper faith.

i can give a distinct example. i remember being in CCD, and our deceptively fundamentalist teachers (they were a husband/wife) told us that part of our mission as Christians was to convert the non-believers. this drove me crazy. i asked them, point blank, if it was my job the next time my family had dinner with The Newmans (family friends) that i was to try to convert them to Christianity. they said, yes, absolutely. i must try to convert all the Jews i know. i said that there was no way i would ever do that, and they told me that i clearly needed to, "re-examine my faith."

oh, okay. the problem must be me.

i wholeheartedly agree with most of anitram's thoughts in her last post. there's something extremely confrontational about a particular stripe of Christianity that has surfaced recently on FYM, and to my mind, this is evidence of a weak, insecure faith. it shuts down dialogue precisely because it cannot entertain dialogue, so fragile is the position and so weak is the argument that it cannot sustain itself under any sort of scrutiny.

thank goodness there are articulate spokespeople for Christianity on this board. i value you more and more.

 

[BorderGirl]

What offends me are Christians who I feel have perverted and politicized the faith to further their own ends......
Jesus said to the disciples to prepare their hearts for the arrival of the kingdom of heaven, not to go around legislating rules about homosexual rights, women's uteruses, cussing on TV, Janet Jackson's breasts, rap music, Harry Potter's witchcraft, pharmacists refusing to issue out medications and so on.

I would like to know how "further their own ends" compares with doing the work asked of us as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
I might remind you that most religions object to some of the behavior stated above.
To live a moral life is a struggle, but we are called to do so. With prayer, instruction and above all a willing heart, it is possible.
Unlike eastern forms of religion that demand levels of perfection, Christianity is a concept of grace, not karma.
Christians are asked to die to self clearing the way for God's spirit to have dominion in you, producing peace, joy, and hope, wherever this life finds you.
His authority is perfect even though the "humanity" of the Church is not.
If religion were as perfect as we all wanted it to be, none of us would be allowed in.
Patience with ourselves and with one another is what's called for.

 

[anitram]

I would like to know how "further their own ends" compares with doing the work asked of us as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
I might remind you that most religions object to some of the behavior stated above.

When Hindus start to try legislating that I can no longer eat beef and when Jews start to legislate that I have to keep kosher, we can talk.

If Christian groups would cease and desist from attempting to push their religious beliefs on the general secular populace, many of us would have nothing to complain about.

But I think you really did miss my point.

 

[Irvine511]

But I think you really did miss my point.

yes, totally.

 

[JCR]

Hey Bordergirl! I think anitram was merely pointing out that religion imposing its "morality" on government is not a good idea and when politicians make laws to appease or side with a particular religion, such as, making laws banning homosexual couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples or laws that infringe on personal decisions, is unconstitutional. It's in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no laws...
Jefferson said: "The first amendment necessarily implies a wall of separation between church and state."
I daresay that this is a bloody good thing. America is a democratic republic, not a theocratic one...(If you want a theocracy start rooting for Hizbulla (also spelled Hezbollah) and Hamas.)

P.S. I don't find living morally or ethically to be much of a struggle at all.

 

[BorderGirl]

If Christian groups would cease and desist from attempting to push their religious beliefs on the general secular populace, many of us would have nothing to complain about.

It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.

 

[Irvine511]

It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.

ever heard of the Federal Marriage Amendment?

 

[80sU2isBest]

With all the accusations of "legislating morality" flying around, I think that people should keep these 2 things in mind:

(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?

(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.

 

[anitram]

It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.

Huh?

I'm not talking about Papal decrees. Are you purposely misunderstanding me?

I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights, control access to birth control, pass through bigoted marriage amendments and so on. These are not people speaking to YOU, they are people who are trying to politicize their religion to restrict the rights of the rest of us who don't follow their beliefs in the first place. So yes, I'll criticize all I want.

ETA: 80s, I really think condoms are a poor example because your premise is all wrong. Schools are not giving them out in order to question the chosen morality of the parents, but they are introducing them as a matter of public health. This benefits the society as a whole. Nobody is telling the children to give up on their virgin pledges or whatever they're called. But they are giving them information about how to best protect themselves AND other people in the event this should become an issue.

 

[Irvine511]

(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.

the presence of condoms in a school is not the same thing as the distribution of condoms; the message that is sent is not "you're going to have sex anyway" but that "ultimately, teenagers are going to make their own decisions." i think it's much less intrusive to view sexuality as a health matter than a moral matter.

this is a far more respectful attitude towards sexuality than abstinence-only curricula that present outright lies (such as that 50% of gay teens are HIV positive, that HIV can be passed through sweat and tears, that mutual masturbation can get you pregnant) as "fact" in order to frighten teenagers.

but that's neither here nor there in regards to this particular topic, i don't think.

 

[BVS]

(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?

A large portion? That's laughable. Even the Catholic church teaches evolution in their private schools. Just because one has evidence and one is strictly faith doesn't mean that somehow the point being made in here by some is false.

(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.

I always love the "passing out condoms" argument. You make it sound like they come with the textbooks. Schools that do have condoms, are obtained by asking the nurse. Once you ask the nurse, you're pretty much on the path. It has nothing to do with a left morality, it has everything to do with prevention. A fire extinguisher doesn't promote fires being set.

 

[nathan1977]

I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights, control access to birth control, pass through bigoted marriage amendments and so on. These are not people speaking to YOU, they are people who are trying to politicize their religion to restrict the rights of the rest of us who don't follow their beliefs in the first place. So yes, I'll criticize all I want.

But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.

But this is all quite off topic from the original thread.

 

[Irvine511]

But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.

But this is all quite off topic from the original thread.

well, to set aside church and state issues (not least to protect the church from the state ... would you like the state to have input into the moral positions of the church?) and to try to bring it back ... what i think many of us were having a problem with in this thread, and the atheist thread, and the "rapture" thread, was the presentation of religious beliefs as irrefutable fact, as non-negotiatble points of view, and deviation or disagreement with such views was seen as a malfunction of the person who was in disagreement.

of course people have every right to champion whatever they want, however they want, but being dogmatic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the weaver of the fabric of space-time is quite unproductive to dialogue in a forum like this.

 

[Judah]

With all the accusations of "legislating morality" flying around, I think that people should keep these 2 things in mind:

(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?

Ah, this thread has taken more turns than a Bollywood movie...

I wouldn't want this thread to veer toward an evolution-vs-creationism angle, but, with regard to your evolution statement above '80s, credible scientists may differ on various theories of evolution, but rarely do they say that evolution did not occur (or, as many say, evolution doesn't presuppose that there's no guiding hand of God at work). Robert Todd Carrol says it best (in his "Creationism" write-up at his web-site):

"Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false. The vast majority of scientists who disagree about evolution disagree as to how species evolved, not as to whether they evolved."

http://skepdic.com/creation.html

 

[BorderGirl]

But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.

Thank you, from all of us here. And may we all have the ears to appreciate the intention, at least, of what is being said.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights

If human life begins at conception, as is the general consensus amongst embryologists, why do you see abortion as a "right"? There were no "abortion rights" until 1973. Prior to 1973, the courts had embraced the scienctific testimony of those who knew such things, the embyologist.

 

[BVS]

If human life begins at conception, as is the general consensus amongst embryologists,

I'd like you to prove this. I'd like you to show the general consensus amongst embryologists that defines life, the way you define life, at conception.