if god came to earth,

Originally posted by Starrman
The motivations are not in the slightest bit the same, it has nothing to do with history, it has to do with the here and now and what reasonable use of the concept of euthanasia is. That euthanasia occurs does not make it a Nazi process. You are directly using the term Nazi to insult, it's not a strawman at all.

Stop generalising and clearly present y ...[text shortened]... asia is wrong. I'll let you into a little secret, that the Nazis killed people doesn't count.

Starrman: "The motivations are not in the slightest bit the same, it has nothing to do with history, it has to do with the here and now and what reasonable use of the concept of euthanasia is."

Comparing past Nazi ideas and present ideas such as the ones Bbarr is advocating regarding the killing of disabled people has everything to do with history. How in the world can one compare them if one cannot turn to history ? How can you deny such a thing ....

Moreover you are now changing the subject. We were talking about killing disabled people. We were not talking about the usual issues concerning the euthanasia debate.

Starrman: "You are directly using the term Nazi to insult, ... "

I am using the term Nazi because the ideas I want to compare are the Nazi ideas and Bbarr's ideas ... and they show a striking resemblance. I cannot help that the facts are what they are.

Starrman: " ..... it's not a strawman at all."

I am not claiming that everybody who advocates euthanasia is a Nazi as you unjustly insist on claiming.

That's why your claim is a Straw Man.

If you think your claim is correct, please present the relevant quotes.

Starrman: "Stop generalising and clearly present your support for the claim that euthanasia is wrong. .... "

I indeed hold the position that euthanasia is wrong, but that is not what I am adressing in the thread "First they came .... ". You're changing the subject.

Starrman: "I'll let you into a little secret, that the Nazis killed people doesn't count."

... and the fact that Bbarr chooses to rationalise the continuation of the killing in a new ideological jacket doesn't count either, I suppose.

Originally posted by josephw
Don't assume christians don't understand why murder is wrong. That is very shallow of you.

What you don't understand is that before the law was given it wasn't a crime.

That outta throw you off balance for awhile.

A simple one actually. Human beings wrote sometime in the past "Thou shalt not kill". Which, by the way, is a very simplistic sweeping statement, but is based on the morals which bbarr has been stating about murder.

Future human beings (such as yourself) eventually believe that God wrote it. Murder is made illegal based on morals and Christians still believe God wrote it first.

If you understand why murder is wrong, what is the point in referring to that commandment? Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" supposed to be definitive? What aren't we supposed to kill exactly? It seems to me that the legal system gives a lot more precise definitions about murder than what the bible provides.

Originally posted by bbarr
What an impoverished conception of love! Love isn't simply a deed, but whole host of dispositions with cognitive, evaluative, and motivational components. The lover creates with the beloved a "loveworld", wherein the lovers form a 'we'. When you are in love you take the interests of the beloved to be directly reason giving; their interests become your inter ...[text shortened]... ether love consists merely in acting in a particular way.

Edit: How old are you?

The lover creates with the beloved a "loveworld", wherein the lovers form a 'we'.

You know, Bennett, I was over 40 when I learned this. My wife and I say there are really three people that live in our household: the “I”, the “You”—and the “We”, which takes on a force all its own, as a wise man once said to me.

I cannot describe that “we” except in quasi-mystical terms. Whoever does not get it doesn’t get it.

Rec’d.

Originally posted by lausey
A simple one actually. Human beings wrote sometime in the past "Thou shalt not kill". Which, by the way, is a very simplistic sweeping statement, but is based on the morals which bbarr has been stating about murder.

Future human beings (such as yourself) eventually believe that God wrote it. Murder is made illegal based on morals and Christians still belie ...[text shortened]... gal system gives a lot more precise definitions about murder than what the bible provides.

It's amazing how those who do not believe there's a creator are able to imagine they actually think they know so much truth.

Why insist on telling me "there is no God", when you know I know there is?

Originally posted by lausey
"Thou shalt not kill".

[q]Originally posted by lausey
"Thou shalt not kill".[/q]
your wrong, its "thou shalt not murder" which is a giant differnence.

Come back and give us your ideas when you learn what you are arguing against

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The lover creates with the beloved a "loveworld", wherein the lovers form a 'we'.

You know, Bennett, I was over 40 when I learned this. My wife and I say there are really three people that live in our household: the “I”, the “You”—and the “We”, which takes on a force all its own, as a wise man once said to me.

I cannot describe that “we” except in quasi-mystical terms. Whoever does not get it doesn’t get it.

Rec’d.[/b]

I can't describe it well, except to say that it is irreducibly normative and direct. It is not as though the good of the beloved is indirectly reason-giving; it is not like the lover recognizes that something is good for the beloved and then infers that there is a reason to act. Rather, it is that the lover just perceives these reasons. Phenomenologically, the normative force of these reasons is directly apparent to the consciousness of the lover. It is as if the domain of prudential interest comes to encompasses the "we". Better put, the "I" becomes a flavor of the "we". Is it any wonder that when a relationship ends, you don't really know who you are anymore?

Also, it is good to hear from you.

Originally posted by bbarr
I can't describe it well, except to say that it is irreducibly normative and direct. It is not as though the good of the beloved is indirectly reason-giving; it is not like the lover recognizes that something is good for the beloved and then infers that there is a reason to act. Rather, it is that the lover just perceives these reasons. Phenomenologic p ends, you don't really know who you are anymore?

Also, it is good to hear from you.

The Sufis seem to be the ones who speak most articulately about this. In the domain of the We, I cannot always sort out who is touching whom, or who is thinking of whom, or who is acting for whom.

Rumi has a poem about this that goes something like—

“I want to kiss you.”

“The price of kissing is your life!”

Now my loving is running after my life, shouting: “What a deal! Let’s buy it!”

Originally posted by Starrman
I have alerted all your posts in which you suggest he is a Nazi as it is a vile pernicious and appalling thing to suggest.

Damn, I missed the party 🙁.

Retroactive HOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWLLLLL!

Originally posted by josephw
It's amazing how those who do not believe there's a creator are able to imagine they actually think they know so much truth.

Why insist on telling me "there is no God", when you know I know there is?

It's amazing how those who do believe there's a creator are able to imagine they actually think they know so much truth.

Where did I mention that "there is no God"? I am agnostic, so I believe that it is impossible to prove that there is one. One thing that I am quite sure of is that there isn't a God that is defined by Christianity. Why insist on telling me that "there is a God"? How do you "know" there is?

Originally posted by Kippy
[q]Originally posted by lausey
[b]"Thou shalt not kill".[/q]
your wrong, its "thou shalt not murder" which is a giant differnence.

Come back and give us your ideas when you learn what you are arguing against[/b]

Hmmmm....when did it change to "Thou shalt not murder"? The bible is more dynamic than I thought.

EDIT: Which, incidently, still does not invalidate my argument.

EDIT2:
Inconsistancy:

Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17
Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 23:7
The innocent and righteous slay thou not.

Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20
Do not kill.

Matthew 19:18
Thou shalt do no murder.

Exodus 32:27
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

Numbers 15:35
And the Lord said unto Moses, The man [who was found picking up sticks on the sabbath] shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones.

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.