When Does Life Begin?

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

A newborn is affected by original sin...I never said otherwise. I just said they are not guilty of sin. But yes they are affected by it.

Guilt infers judgment and since your Christian god has judged that all are born with original sin, in your god's eyes all are guilty, thus babies are guilty too, and not "innocent" as you claim.

Rather ass-backwards compared to our modern legal system where you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt because in your ass-backwards Christian thinking babies are guilty and there is no reasonable doubt.

This is not my thinking chumly.

Bartikus wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

A newborn is affected by original sin...I never said otherwise. I just said they are not guilty of sin. But yes they are affected by it.

Guilt infers judgment and since your Christian god has judged that all are born with original sin, in your god's eyes all are guilty, thus babies are guilty too, and not "innocent" as you claim.

Rather ass-backwards compared to our modern legal system where you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt because in your ass-backwards Christian thinking babies are guilty and there is no reasonable doubt.

This is not my thinking chumly.

Then you are not Christian.

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

A newborn is affected by original sin...I never said otherwise. I just said they are not guilty of sin. But yes they are affected by it.

Guilt infers judgment and since your Christian god has judged that all are born with original sin, in your god's eyes all are guilty, thus babies are guilty too, and not "innocent" as you claim.

Rather ass-backwards compared to our modern legal system where you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt because in your ass-backwards Christian thinking babies are guilty and there is no reasonable doubt.

This is not my thinking chumly.

Then you are not Christian.

If they are guilty....what are they guilty of?

When the unbeliever ventures to instruct the believer in his belief, hilarity is the result.

When the unbeliever ventures to instruct the believer in his belief, hilarity is the result.

neologist wrote:

When the unbeliever ventures to instruct the believer in his belief, hilarity is the result.

It's unsurprising I have a better understanding of original sin than many so-called Christians. It would not take a whole lot of intelligence for most anyone to have a better understanding of original sin than many so-called Christians.

In your Christian god's eyes all are guilty of original sin thus even babies are punished by being denied access to Eden, thus even babies are punished by knowing pain and suffering.

neologist wrote:

When the unbeliever ventures to instruct the believer in his belief, hilarity is the result.

The hilarity is that the believer claims to believe but instead selectively believes and then tries to bennefit from the label of "believer."

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

neologist wrote:

When the unbeliever ventures to instruct the believer in his belief, hilarity is the result.

The hilarity is that the believer claims to believe but instead selectively believes and then tries to bennefit from the label of "believer."

T
K
O

Really?

The futility of trying to define another's belief is being well discussed in this thread:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=104369

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

When the unbeliever ventures to instruct the believer in his belief, hilarity is the result.

It's unsurprising I have a better understanding of original sin than many so-called Christians. It would not take a whole lot of intelligence for most anyone to have a better understanding of original sin than many so-called Christians.

Your above answer to Bart shows a complete lack of understanding of what the bible actually says.

Repeated here:

Chumly wrote:

In your Christian god's eyes all are guilty of original sin thus even babies are punished by being denied access to Eden, thus even babies are punished by knowing pain and suffering.

neologist wrote:

When the unbeliever ventures to instruct the believer in his belief, hilarity is the result.

The hilarity is that the believer claims to believe but instead selectively believes and then tries to bennefit from the label of "believer."

T
K
O

Unsurprisingly, bart and neo are both unable to argue thier superstitious mumbojumbo with any rational degree of coherency and logic, let alone empiricism.

This is not my thinking chumly.

Chumly wrote:

Unsurprisingly, bart and neo are both unable to argue thier superstitious mumbojumbo with any rational degree of coherency and logic, let alone empiricism.

I need not argue with you about my faith. I asked a question that you have yet to address. A couple actually.

The best I have heard of as of late is from bart when he said

Bartikus wrote:

This is not my thinking chumly.

I am not sure by that if I should be relieved or concerned or amused however.