Romney vs. Obama

[PassedOut]

[Winstonm]

 

The U.S. should be a Christian theocracy, just like God intended...

[luke warm]

The U.S. should be a Christian theocracy, just like God intended...

link?

[kenberg]

I suppose if we believe that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will we can also believe that aborting the pregnancy is God's will and voting against idiots like Mourdock is God's will. And so on. Everything is just all God's will.

 

Voters should try hard not to embarrass themselves. Of course if they do embarrass themselves, it's God's will.

[Winstonm]

link

 

What is Mod Squad?

[dwar0123]

I suppose if we believe that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will

I had to read that three times to realize you were not referring to the virgin birth but rather to the video linked.

 

My confused state of thinking was more profound.

[phil_20686]

I suppose if we believe that a pregnancy resulting from rape is God's will we can also believe that aborting the pregnancy is God's will and voting against idiots like Mourdock is God's will. And so on. Everything is just all God's will.

 

This was basically a non event. He was just saying, in a not very elegant way, that the designs of providence take account of men's evil. God allows evil, He does not will it, nor intend it, but He does take account of man's evil in the designs of providence. Moreover, evil makes possible some goods that would otherwise be impossible, on account of being unnecessary. It is the position of nearly all Christian churches, that human life, from conception, is inherently a good thing. A life conceived by rape is a good that has come out of evil.

 

This is the position of essentially all Christian churches. I didn't think it was very controversial, except insofar as the existence of God is controversial.

[hrothgar]

link?

 

“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good… Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne

 

“So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

–Gary North, quoted in Albert J. Menendez, Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach, Prometheus Books, 1993

 

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ."

From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press

[blackshoe]

This was basically a non event. He was just saying, in a not very elegant way, that the designs of providence take account of men's evil. God allows evil, He does not will it, nor intend it, but He does take account of man's evil in the designs of providence. Moreover, evil makes possible some goods that would otherwise be impossible, on account of being unnecessary. It is the position of nearly all Christian churches, that human life, from conception, is inherently a good thing. A life conceived by rape is a good that has come out of evil.

 

This is the position of essentially all Christian churches. I didn't think it was very controversial, except insofar as the existence of God is controversial.

God created Man, Man created Evil? I don't buy that. Man had nothing to do with Lucifer's Fall. Besides, everybody knows that God created everything. It says so in the Bible.

[PassedOut]

Interesting analysis by Nate Silver today: The Virtues and Vices of Election Prediction Markets

 

At the political betting market Intrade, however, traders seemed to have a much stronger opinion about the day’s news. Mr. Romney’s stock, which can be read as a forecast of the chance that he will win the Electoral College, rose to 45.4 percent from 39.7 over the course of the day.

 

The probabilistic forecasts issued by FiveThirtyEight have been quite close to Intrade and those at other trading and betting markets over the course of the election. The spread as of Tuesday night – with Intrade implying that Mr. Obama has a 55 percent chance of winning the election, and FiveThirtyEight a 68 percent chance – is much wider than usual.

Looks like Romney supporters have decided to bet.

B-)

[lalldonn]

Looks like Romney supporters have decided to bet.

B-)

You mean Romney supporter.

At several points on Tuesday and early Wednesday, what appeared to be a single trader bought a large number of Mr. Romney’s shares at Intrade, at one point boosting Mr. Romney’s chances to about 49 percent from 41 percent over the span of a few minutes. The betting patterns echo similar ones in the pricing of John McCain and Mr. Obama’s stock at Intrade late in the 2008 cycle.

[Flem72]

This thread started out as a question about Nate Silver's statistical analysis of poll results and his 2008 success. Let me ask: What are the odds that he turns out to be a One-Hit Wonder? And whether you think the answer is relatively yea or nay, do you have anything upon which you base that answer other than his 2008 success?

[dwar0123]

An interesting use of campaign cash, I wonder if it could become a type of self fulfilling prophecy. Buy enough stocks to keep Romney over 55%, convincing some people he will win, leading to an actual victory.

 

If it works, you help Romney win and you make a staggering amount of money.

 

If it fails, you lose a staggering amount of money. Of course, staggering amounts of money are being spent by both sides already, so this might not really be that big a downside.

[dwar0123]

This thread started out as a question about Nate Silver's statistical analysis of poll results and his 2008 success. Let me ask: What are the odds that he turns out to be a One-Hit Wonder? And whether you think the answer is relatively yea or nay, do you have anything upon which you base that answer other than his 2008 success?

People's who opinion I respect supporting Nate Silver's predications.

vs

My opinion of those who disagree with Nate Silver.

 

Given the vast difference in my opinion between the two sets of people, even if Nate Silver was totally wrong in 2008, I would still grant him more weight.

[hrothgar]

This was basically a non event. He was just saying, in a not very elegant way, that the designs of providence take account of men's evil. God allows evil, He does not will it, nor intend it, but He does take account of man's evil in the designs of providence. Moreover, evil makes possible some goods that would otherwise be impossible, on account of being unnecessary. It is the position of nearly all Christian churches, that human life, from conception, is inherently a good thing. A life conceived by rape is a good that has come out of evil.

 

This is the position of essentially all Christian churches. I didn't think it was very controversial, except insofar as the existence of God is controversial.

 

Hardly know where to begin here...

 

Let's start with the biggie. I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. The notion of an activist God, who creates miracles or takes action to determine whether people get pregnant is completely foreign to me. I know that other denominations have very different beliefs. However, I personally find the notion that god intends for someone to get pregnant from a rape downright offensive. This is a complete misrepresentation of what I was taught.

 

Second, you are conflating conception with the start of human life. Here once again, I'll use the ELCA as an example.

Where does the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America locate itself in the midst of this debate? First of all, it is fair to say that our people look at this from the various vantage points we can discern in the general population. However, we do have a common place from which to begin our moral deliberation. The document, A Social Statement on Abortion, adopted by the Churchwide Assembly in 1991, operates with the following conviction, "Human life in all phases of its development is God-given and, therefore, has intrinsic value, worth, and dignity." One could readily infer from this statement a moral prohibition of research with embryonic stem cells.

 

For the purpose of this discussion, the import issue is how carefully the language skirts when life begins... "Life begins at conception was most certainly NOT church teaching back when I was actively involved with the ELCA.

[hrothgar]

deleting duplicate post

[kenberg]

This was basically a non event. He was just saying, in a not very elegant way, that the designs of providence take account of men's evil. God allows evil, He does not will it, nor intend it, but He does take account of man's evil in the designs of providence. Moreover, evil makes possible some goods that would otherwise be impossible, on account of being unnecessary. It is the position of nearly all Christian churches, that human life, from conception, is inherently a good thing. A life conceived by rape is a good that has come out of evil.

 

This is the position of essentially all Christian churches. I didn't think it was very controversial, except insofar as the existence of God is controversial.

 

I am in no sense whatsoever a crusader against religion but I really would hope that my devout friends do not believe that a pregnancy that comes from a rape is somehow in God's design of the universe and therefore cannot be interfered with. For those who do think in that way, I would insist that they apply this moral imperative only to themselves and let the rest of us deal with practical problems in practical ways. I simply cannot imagine arguing that a woman impregnated by a rapist must bear and raise the child because it is God's will. I was brought up as a member of a church, and quite a rigid one at that, lots of threats of damnation, but this one is beyond me.

[PassedOut]

For the purpose of this discussion, the import issue is how carefully the language skirts when life begins... "Life begins at conception was most certainly NOT church teaching back when I was actively involved with the ELCA.

Seems hard to support that it does. Suppose that after conception occurs, the fertilized egg divides into identical twins or quadruplets. Do they share fractional lives, or do the extra lives from that egg start with its division?

[Flem72]

For all those folks who are arguing the abortion question: Isn't it really VERY DUMB to swing a presidential election upon this issue? as the Dems seem to be doing (since every BHO commercial I see has to do with abortion or birth control....).

[PassedOut]

For all those folks who are arguing the abortion question: Isn't it really VERY DUMB to swing a presidential election upon this issue? as the Dems seem to be doing (since every BHO commercial I see has to do with abortion or birth control....).

Probably an issue of importance to some voters.

[phil_20686]

God created Man, Man created Evil? I don't buy that. Man had nothing to do with Lucifer's Fall. Besides, everybody knows that God created everything. It says so in the Bible.

 

I assume this is intended to be humourous? Where in what I wrote is the implication that man `created' evil. Besides which, its not clear that evil is a thing, so much as a lack of a thing.

[phil_20686]

Seems hard to support that it does. Suppose that after conception occurs, the fertilized egg divides into identical twins or quadruplets. Do they share fractional lives, or do the extra lives from that egg start with its division?

 

So this is a non issue. You can just consider one twin to be the `asexual' parent of another, in the same way you would be if someone cloned you. Fertilisation is the time when two distinct entities become one different entity. The DNA is complete, and given an appropriate environment development will proceed on its own. I do not see any other logical place to consider life to begin.

[phil_20686]

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne

 

So I happen to have read this speech or at least a very similar one, by Randall Terry, and I would feel comfortable that the hate he is talking about is hate directed at pro-lifers by pro-choicers. I have no idea who the other people you quoted are, Google has nothing on Gary North. There are two somewhat famous George Grant's, one an evangelical writer and one a philosopher, and this book appears in neither of their Bibliographers. I looked it up on amazon and found that it was edited by none other than Gary North, and I still have no idea who that is. Obviously large groups are filled with crazy people at the margins. I think you need to find quotes from at least reasonably mainstream people in the evangelical movement. Pat robertson, Falwell etc.

 

However, I know that the evangelical churches did make a deliberate attempt to capture government in the eighties, via the Moral Majority, but I don't particularly see anything strange in a large grass roots political movement attempting to get a democracy to act on its point of view. You seem to think this is in some way subversive.

[phil_20686]

I am in no sense whatsoever a crusader against religion [snip]

 

 

I would never imagine that you are. But I do not see what you find hard about this. If you believe that life begins at conception, then how a child came into being should not affect its right to life. It seems irrational to oppose abortion generally on such grounds and yet allow it in the case of rape. Of course, people are not very rational generally, and people obviously have a lot of sympathy for rape victims, but it doesn't seem to affect the logic.

 

 

[phil_20686]

(1)The notion of an activist God, who creates miracles or takes action to determine whether people get pregnant is completely foreign to me. I know that other denominations have very different beliefs. However, I personally find the notion that god intends for someone to get pregnant from a rape downright offensive. This is a complete misrepresentation of what I was taught.

 

(2)Second, you are conflating conception with the start of human life.

 

So I specifically stated, God does not intend Evil, but he does allow humans to exercise their free will, and some humans do evil, like rape. I understand your statement that "God intends for someone to get pregnant from rape is offensive" is basically just the statement that you think the world would be better if no rape ever resulted in pregnancy. There are estimated 35,000 persons born every year in the US who were conceived in rape. Who are you to say that the world would be better if none of them ever existed?

 

The idea that God is intimately, and personally, involved in the creation of every human being goes back to the very first years of Christianity. Most famously in Jerimiah Chapter 1 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart.". I could look up a bunch of Psalms for you, but its late here. God is the Author of every individual human life, as well as human life generally, and that has been a feature of Christian belief since the very beginning. Similarly, the belief that God does act on a day to day basis to influence the lives of both believers and non believers is a universal feature of christian belief. God sitting in judgement and providing temporal punishment is a fairly common theme. In the bible God, on multiple occasions, sends angels to help out his believers, and prophets to influence the course of events. These explicit acts are the exception, the rule being small spiritual nudges, but still, all of christianity believes that God can and does answer prayers. I am not sure what you intend to say in opposing the conception of an activist God, as you say, but I am pretty sure you are leaving mainstream Christian theology. I have no particluar knowledge of the ECLA, but it would be truly shocking if they have really abandoned a theological belief in an activist God, and way out of line with other Lutheran denominations.

 

(2) I am not conflating. I am explicitly identifying. Strictly speaking, even the Catholic church does not believe with certainty that ensoulment happens at conception, only that the beginning of life is somewhat fuzzy, and that in the absence of firm evidence it is right to err on the side of caution. Although certainly catholics believe that it has happened, by, say, a few weeks after conception, which is before most people even realise they are pregnant, making it a largely academic distinction, at least wrt the abortion debate.