watcher 59 wrote:

By this criteria it would be ok to kill kids until age sixteen or more. Anyone who has any significant contact with children knows it takes years to reach a level of development that would allow survival. Ten year olds certainly don't have the physical or mental capacities to survive autonomously. It is arguable that anyone under the age of fifteen can. This viability outside the womb argument is a strawman. To reach adulthood and complete autonomy people go through a developmental process. That process begins at conception. Assigning an arbitrary point in that process to establish "personhood" demonstrates a total lack of reasoned, thoughtful consideration or compassion. It also demonstrates a disturbing resemblance to the policies of some of the most sociopathic tyrants in history.

Thank you for your reply. I agree that development is a lengthy process but I do not agree that I have set up a straw man argument. When I said that "the developing fetus becomes a person only when it is able to survive outside the womb", I meant only that it was able to survive with no more than the usual maternal (and paternal) care common to the vast majority of children. I had, perhaps naively, believed that this understanding would be obvious.

Jun 27, 2011 -- 10:56PM, watcher59 wrote:

Agreed. But the word Creator is what they chose. Why not God or Jehovah?

Creator is capitolized and in this usage replaces the word God.  Creator is also a better fit because the sentance before that says all men are created equal. So it stands to reason Creator would fit better with  "they are endowed by their Creator" vs "they are endowed by their God".

My next explanation will change pending what translation of the bible you have.  I am using ESV, my favorite digit translation and cross refrencing that with the kjv which was the standard for centries.  Some modern versions of the bible use God's name every chance they get such as the mkjv.

The reason Jehovah isn't used is because man has always held God's name in high regard.  In fact, I use his name so infrequently that I had to go check the spelling to make sure I was spelling it correctly.  To bolster my reasoning I offer these counts from the bible itself.  Note, this is based on about 20,000+ versus pending your translation.

kjv: Jehovah is used 4 times out of ....

esv: Jehovah is used 0 times out of....

mkjv: Jehovah is used like 5, 500 times.  They essentialy added Jehovah in front of nearly every usage of the word God.

kjv: Yahweh, YHWH is used 0 times...

esv: Yahweh, YHWH is used 0 times....

kjv, esv: God is used about 4,000 times.

kvj, esv: Lord is used about 6,600 times.

(only looking at the new testiment)

esv, kjv: jesus is used about 950 out of about 8,000 verses

esv, kjv: christ was used about 500 out of 8k ....

esv, kvj: God is used about 1,200 of the 4,000 times mentioned before.

esv, kvj: Lord is used about 600 of the 6,600 times mentioned before.

To my understanding, Jesus is the only name Christians have a right to invoke.  We have no right to invoke the name of Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH.  I can't speak for the Jews.

As you can tell, even in scripture God's true name is not used very often, so it would stand to reason in a document like the DOI his name wouldn't be listed.

Jesus wasn't used probably because the Jews would have rejected it and some may have felt that as "Son" he really couldn't be identified as the Creator per say.  But that gets us in to theological stuff and quite frankly isn't worth the fight from a political stand point.

{I used the e-sword application to compile this count and I also used catholic-resources.org as it relates to the number of versus.}

Jun 27, 2011 -- 10:12PM, watcher59 wrote:

Are you familiar with The Federalist Papers? Even the founders weren't agreed about what truths were self evident. The final Constitution was the culmination of two years of haggling, debate, fist fights and compromise. If you believe they were creating a Christian nation, read The Treaty of Tripoli.

If the truths were self-evident then there should not have been any debate.  People talk about the federalist papers but I have yet to find anyone to actually have read all the federalist papers. 

The federalist papers were about explaining the constiution, it had nothing to do with explaining the DOI.

My search of the papers revealed the word God used twice.  In neither case was this God defined.  Jesus was not mentioned nor Creator.  But this makes sense because the Constiution is not a philosophical document, it is a role, responsibility, and procedure document and the rrp document at my church doesn't mention God either.

Also, the truths the founders were talking about is here

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will
dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.

You may wish to argue that it goes a bit further but this is where the philosophical stuff ends and this is where the "We holds the truths to be self-evident" ends.

Jun 27, 2011 -- 5:29PM, watcher59 wrote:

anidominus,

While I agree Yaweh was, likely, the frame of reference for the founders, I also think The First Ammendment indicates their tolerance for other interpretations. The wording is a bit too ambiguous for me to believe they were narrowly defining religion and, by default, perceptions of God. They are pretty specific about other freedoms they intended to enjoy.

Thats the logical mistake people make.  Your "freeom of religion" has to stop somewhere.  But where?  If there is a religion that forced women to walk on their hands would we accept that?  No.

The very crucial part you are leaving out that statisfies your fears is a statement you've already written down.   "That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed."  In other words, the Government can't do something unless the people authorize them to do it.  The way the Constiution was written many argued the Bill of Rights wasn't even neccessary but they put it in anyway to calm fears.  But that created even more fear so they put in the 9th and 10th admendments.  This is so very important that we understand this.  Even without the 1st admendment, the congress of the United States HAD NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SPEECH BECAUSE SPEECH REGULATION WAS NOT IN THE CONSTIUTION.

 Also, do not believe that Yahweh was just some mere frame of refrence.  "We hold these truths to be self evident...."  This statement is to powerful to ignore.  When they say this what they are saying is that what we about to say is a TRUTH that's just as evident as the nose on your face and we are not about to explain it to you. 

Anyway, Im done.  But there a so many people who simply just don't understand this and its too freaking important for people not to understand this.  If people understood this it would transform our nation overnight!

Jun 27, 2011 -- 2:06PM, watcher59 wrote:

However, in the USA, we stake our freedoms on the fact that our "Creator" gives us our rights (not the consitution).

And it's absolute bull.  People of the government decide rights.  Been that way since government started.  And which rights? 

Public school education, iwantamotto? Here's the authority anidominus was referencing;

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness..."

That's from The Declaration of Independence. Here's a link:www.earlyamerica.com › ... › Declaration of Independence

The good ol' USA only wanted to hear from the Rich White Playboy Club and didn't even consider anyone else real people (despite the fact it's obvious that we are dealing with "real" people...

What the founders may, or may not, have believed or practiced isn't nearly as significant as what they recorded. Their hypocracy is fairly evident to anyone who cares to do a little research. However, their unwillingness or inability to apply the broadness of the founding documents does NOT render the ideal invalid.

 ... and, no, slavery and sexism is NOT the same thing as calling a group of undifferentiated cells "not a person").  You were told states would have autonomy until they finally realized states are selfish assholes who only care about themselves and to hell with the country.  In fact, our country was so stupid this lesson had to be learned at least TWICE.  There are laws against eating ice cream on the sidewalk!  Bribing officials is called "political free speech".

This is certainly well reasoned, well articulated argument.

Using logical analysis one can conclude this creator to be the creator of the Christian/Jewish Bible/Torah therefore, we must obtain our definition of personhood from this book.

Actually, in logical analysis this is a non sequitor. Many religions believe in a creator. Only three acknowledge the Abrahamic tradition of who or what that creator is. Therefore, it can not follow that Creator means Jehovah.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is The First Amendment to The Constitution. Here's a link; www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_...

Yeah, but you won't like the answer!  A fetus killed accidentally in a fight is worth about 50 bucks (I admit I don't know the true financial conversion), while killing the MOTHER ... you know, the one who CAN be productive in society and can theoretically make MORE children ... warrants DEATH. 

Great point. Regardless of the amount, this establishes, unequivocally, that the fetus has value. Under current abortion policy it is classified as "biological waste".

God has no real issue with killing off men, women, children, animals, etc.  He tells us He thinks we're special,

Actually, The Bible teaches that God thought the Israelites were special. So, unless one is Jewish, one can not claim special status.

In the Bible, you are expendable unless it amuses God to be otherwise.  For all the IMPORTANT characters in the Bible, there are countless "cannon fodder" characters.  They are merely red-shirts destined to crash and burn simply because SOMEONE had to.

I should probably point out that all the "IMPORTANT" people in The Bible are now just as dead as the "cannon fodder" character. BTW gunpowder wasn't invented until the 8th century A.D. The first known cannon is dated 1282 (A.D.)

Christianity likes to imagine A&E were "born" fully formed as adults.  "MAN" is made in God's image. 

Let me clear up this confusion for you. In Genesis Cain is the first recorded birth. Adam was created from the dust of the Earth. Eve from Adam's rib. This is also Judeo-Christian doctrine.

"EMBRYOS" are not even mentioned.

True, and children were not considered "viable" until they reached the age of one year and women were classified with cattle. What's your point? Are you suggesting that we return to those standards for children and/or women? Or, are you prepared to concede that we may have progressed beyond that cultural bias and recognize both children (regardless of their developmental stage) and women as equally valuable?

I'm going to make this as quick as possible.  The founding fathers understood legal procedure.  The DOI is a legal procedure kind of document.  The document in fact, is a civil lawsuit.  Lawsuits need 5 things in order to be effective.  1) Plantiff, 2) Defendent.  3) Complaint.  4) Legal System upon which to Adjudicate the Case 5) Impartial Judge.  1, 2, and 3 are not hard to figure out.  The other two  you have to understand who the founders were and what they believed.  1) They were Christians and Jews mostly and they were representing Christians and Jews mostly.  2)  They had a complaint against a sovereign king.  3)  The only entity higher than the king is God.  The founders appealed to this God by saying "Supreme Judge of the Universe" in the DOI.  4)  If the Judge is the supreme Judge of the uniserve then you can assume the legal system is the supreme legal system of the universe.  5) No lawyer with half a brain is going to file a law suit using a legal system he does not understand.  Therfore, the Judge, the legal system, and the Creator must be someone the founders understood or had some history with.  Considering the Christian and Jewish nature of all these men and the fact that even the ones who were not Christians or Jewish were heavly influnced by those "religons" value system it can be safe to conclude that the Creator is the God of the Christian and Jewish bible and no other. 

There is more evidence that the Creator in the DOI is Yahweh than there is evidence to support the big bang yet...