re: Here's what Rogan bro Republicans who disdain the Christian Right don't get

quote:

---

And I clarified that I meant income.

---

I still doubt it's true for that, and given where the article came from I strongly suspect they used all manner of statistical shenanigans to attempt to prove their point.

If your heart stops, what are you?

quote:

---

How so? What else do the parents need to do to baby?

---

We have an entire profession and industry dedicated to what parents need to do...

quote:

---

No emotions here. Just science. Life starts at conception. That is the only clear point of demarcation. The rest is just emotional rationalization to justify that killing it is ok.

---

If you weren't emotional about it, it wouldn't be an argument. Emotion and/or religion are what drives objections to abortion. Sure, you can bring some science to the table because you think it props up your argument, but that's not why you're arguing about it.

quote:

---

So your politicians stance on abortion, gay marriage, whatever other moral branding they want to portray, IDGAF. The politicians actions on SPENDING and growing/shrinking government is what I am looking at.

---

I agree. These political party clowns need to study the audited financials of each division of their local governments to see how many of the pro cop, pro military, patriotic bible thumping republicans are no different than democrats when it comes to spending and growing govt. The info is out there for review via a quick google search.

quote:

---

If you weren't emotional about it, it wouldn't be an argument.

---

The irony of this statement coming from an unhinged Never-Trumper....

quote:

---

Last I checked babies were born before all those institutions were even created.

---

Sure, and the infant mortality rate was exponentially higher.

quote:

---

So all discussions arguments are “emotionally driven” then?

---

Nope, but for you, this one is.

quote:

---

I’m saying it’s not just my gut that tells me it’s killing a baby or a fetus.

---

Oh, it's just the killing that you're arguing? Not that it's wrong?

Because without the latter, who really gives a frick...

quote:

---

oogabooga68

---

quote:

---

Because we know how disruptive these are, socially. That's the trial and error used in how religions and philosophers try to derive "morality".

---

Disruption to society is the standard for what is moral? That's a completely arbitrary standard, even if most people like it, and it also isn't consistent. People desire to "disrupt society" all the time for its own moral good.

Locking up large swaths of people because of drug crimes seems moral to a lot of people. Destroying people's way of life in the name of climate justice seems moral to a lot of people. Destroying the economy, changing everyone's way of life, and making public and personal enemies out of anyone who didn't toe the line out of fear for COVID seemed moral to a lot of people. There are countless ways that society can be "disrupted" for "moral" reasons.

And on the flip side, there may be positive aspects to theft, rape, and murder in the eyes of many in society who think such things are a good thing. Many people think that stealing all private property and redistributing it (Communism) is a good thing for society. Many think that killing off those who are "dangerous" to society (like those wacko anti-vaccine people I just mentioned) is good for society. There are even people who make a case for selective procreation with the best examples of the human species is best for society (which would entail to some degree, rape, or forced procreation). Even the forced nature of the vaccine mandates is a type of rape or assault on the populous who didn't want to get them but felt compelled to do so.

So yeah, what is "best" for society differs from person to person, and even majority rule doesn't make something "right".

quote:

---

That's how religions developed, too. Literally.

When societies formed, city-states literally merged their religious rulers with governmental rulers.

---

The truth of the Bible didn't come about this way, but was revelation from God.

quote:

---

The Covenant was an agreement between God and his followers where he gave them a plan for living in exchange for worshiping him.

---

That's not exactly what a covenant was, nor what happened with the many covenants that God made with His people over time. "I will be your God and you will be my people" isn't exactly the same as "here is my 30-step plan on how to structure every element of your lives".

Israel was (eventually) a theocracy whereby a nation was created to worship God. God, through Moses, gave the people practical ways to apply His moral law (the 10 commandments) to every-day life for the help of the people and the preservation of the relationship with God. The entire "structure" was based on God's moral character and how He wanted His character reflected in His people. The law was given to do that (at least as one reason), not a "social structure" apart from the moral law, as you were saying initially. You previously contrasted the social structure with the moral structure and I said that the social structure was an application of the moral structure, not the other way around, and they weren't divorced from each other.

The law was central to the life of the Israelite, and that's precisely why when Jesus came, the Pharisees and Scribes had such a hard time accepting Him as the promised Messiah. They thought that their obedience to God's moral law was what made them righteous, not faith in the Messiah.