both the new testament and the old testament should be taken into account, by targeting only one part your argument only applies to that testament not the Bible as a whole since the bible is basically two parts.

Out of interest, while you are on this roll, sell a head off Mount Rushmore, Statue of Liberty island and the Library of Congress, The Louvre, the Eiffel Tower and every other culturally linked creation occupying space. Destroy culture and opt for a Orwellian future of monotony.
Its ridiculous, and fanciful to speculate on selling things with such huge significance to so many, and entirely not feasible.

And I can bet top dollar you probably wouldn't want to see all American relics sold either.

As said before, last time I checked USA has the dole to support the unemployed and unpaid. Somalia, Cambodia and all these other poor places sure as hell don't. I know which I consider the more serious situation, and that in undeniable.

The "owners" of those structures don't preach to live humbly, sell your possessions, and feed the hungry, now do they?

Yet another pathetic attempt at a rebuttal by elrunethe2nd, yay!



Uh, just an FYI, but the Vatican isn't in the USA nor owned by the USA nor in any way linked to the USA.

Just thought I'd point out that in America, there's also more Christians than any other individual religious demographic. Statistics fail?

You are aware elrune acknowledges this, right? His example in your first quote he states that if we - as a human race not a nation - sell the Vatican and it's possessions, why not sell a head from Rushmore, Eiffel tower, etc.

The last quote of his is saying that the USA doesn't need to sell it's popular attractions because it has the ability to pay the unemployed/unpaid while third world countries cannot, not that the USA owns or in any way tied to the Vatican.

No where in his post is he tying the Vatican to the States.

--
Edited the first paragraph for clarity.

ComicIDIOT probably summed that up better than I could have there. So thanks to him.

Also;

I leave your [redacted] out of my arguments, so kindly remain a degree of objectivity and non-personal comments in yours also.
Especially when a few of your arguments or as Wikipedia could call them "Sweeping Statements" got rebutted quite well.

Yes, I was aware of his statement, I was pointing out that it is *wrong*. The point of the video is that the CATHOLIC CHURCH, which preaches to live humbly, is not doing so. It says nothing of the human race NOR of any specific nation. So again, logic fail, yay!

Your name is quite fitting, by the way.



Uh, no. Apparently neither of you understand how unemployment benefits work in the USA.



Wow, clever, think that up on your own?



No they weren't.

He he he.

You just admitted you HAVE unemployment benefits.
Which, of course, your country does.


Ability doesn't imply that it does, although it should. Given the size and relative prosperity levels of USA to other countries.


Your sweeping statement that all wars were caused by religion was a falsehood in the entirety.
I disproved it with the two greatest wars known to man.

wait so according to you only the catholic church can be hypocritical

This thread is being edited for post-facto civility. I'll make my intelligent reply when I'm done with that.

No, you're abusing your admin powers defending your religion.

Uh, yes? Its also entirely irrelevant to this thread... Not sure why you are laughing like you actually pulled off a win of sort - because, of course, you haven't.



Are you capable of reading comprehension in any form whatsoever?

Mostly I deleted pictures of mutilated people, and unnecessary use of the term "faggot"


That was intended to be a per-capita average.


It's worth noting that more Christians (45.5 million) were killed for their faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries combined (about 65% of the total), and the majority of these were killed at the hands of atheist regimes.


Why? What is the importance of a human life that it's even relevant whether you let someone live it un-interfered, or force harmful actions upon them? If you're just a meat sack, or a shambling pile of molecules, I have no basis for caring what happens to you, or what I do to you, other than whether or not it might have a negative impact on myself.


Survival of the fittest, or most adaptable. If your mutations aren't working out, we don't need you to pass those genes along. If you get in a car accident, you we were probably too stupid to be driving a car, or your reflexes were too poor to avoid it, and we'll be better off having someone else pass on their genes instead. Darwin awards carried to the natural conclusion. Improving the human race by removing yourself form it.


Cloning tends to raise the same issues as embryonic stem cell research, since, as far as I'm aware, cloning requires an embryo. I'm not sure what "other research" you're referring to though.


Fair enough, but again, we don't know, and if you believe in the sanctity of human life, why gamble when there are other sources?


The highway to hell is paved with good intentions (for the record, not quoting that as serious theology, but as a general principle)


Because that's what I challenged you to do, and because it's teachings of Christ that I'm interested in.

Why? Simple. Survival of the species



I'm going to ram a semi through your house while you are sleeping, seriously injuring you, and then shrug it off saying you weren't tough enough.



If you are cloning an entire person, you do need an embryo, but you aren't killing it, and thus doesn't have the same moral objections of embryonic stem cell.



Me > them.



Yes, but it is a far cry from harvesting stem cells to preserve life to going around kicking puppies. Just saying.



And I just like making fun of your beliefs. Hence why these always go in circles.

I'm not Catholic myself, but I like to think there's more to life than cynicism and criticality of others.

The species will do just fine, regardless of what I do (that doesn't involve launching a nuclear firestorm). Morality governs the relationship between individuals, and my point is exactly what you end up saying later in your post. Morality from your definition is now based entirely on what serves your own needs (does it help me? can I be amused by this without negative consequence?), and everything else is secondary.


And why would that have any moral consequence if you think you can do that without being caught? Why should anyone care? You're not rebutting my point, you're illustrating it.


Research into cloning is usually for therapeutic purposes which doesn't involve letting the embryo grow into adulthood.


And with that out in the open, you've admitted that this thread serves no further intellectual purpose, and indeed has served no purpose other than a big trolling attempt. I guess it doesn't really need to stay open. No crocodile tears from you about freedom of expression, or how I'm just being defensive about my religion. You've made it clear that you have no interest in either, and further complaints from you in this arena aren't going to be taken seriously.

You may disagree with elrunethe2nd, and he may be trolling, but I believe the other members were trying to hold a halfway-intelligent conversation, so I have unlocked this. If you disagree, feel free to relock.

Yes, but helping the species does help me. Improving modern medicine has the potential to help ME. "Morality" helps ME (by keeping other people from doing "evil" unto ME).

Religion can easily be seen as equally selfish. Your help others because you believe in a heaven and hell and want to save *YOURSELF*. All forms of good deeds can easily be seen as selfish.



It wouldn't. I was disputing your claim that someone being seriously injured is somehow their fault and/or an evolutionary defect. If someone crashes into me, you can be certain that I would happily murder embryos if it kept me alive.



True, but the cells also stay alive in whatever animal they are placed. Thus life is not ended, but instead merges with another life.



Still serves an intellectual purpose, just one that will never come to any form of a conclusion.

Also, why would you think that locking a thread would stop me from responding?

And others.

Also, because a personal relationship with the omnipotent and loving creator of the universe can have benefits in this life, and it's nice to share those with people. Also, if someone is willing to suffer death to save your life its a bit of a slap in the face to have that knowledge and ignore it. Showing respect to other human beings becomes a matter of showing respect for their creator.



This is the only point I really cared about. Why are you in here debating someone else's moral principles when your own consist of "I'll do whatever pleases me, as long as I think I can do it without getting in trouble" ? Something about throwing around terms like "clearly evil" strikes me as hypocrisy in this case.


that's honestly one of the few reasonable arguments I've heard on the subject, but doesn't really convince me to move beyond "err on the side of caution"


If you describe self entertainment as "intellectual purpose"