Well first cousins have a lower possiblity for birth defects than do women over 40 (8% chance of down syndrom the most common for women over 40, and ~6.5% for first cousins), so should it be illegal? Or should women over 40 be forcibly sterilized to prevent birth defects? What if a brother and sister sterilize themselves?
 July 16, 2015 at 1:49pm
While birth defects are more likely with incest they aren’t even close to a sure thing (you would need a long term pattern for that, several generations of inbreeding). In fact if we are going to call incest harmful enough to make it illegal than perhaps having babies after 40 should be as well (as 1 in 12 babies born after the mother is 40 will be born with a chromosome abnormality (down syndrome). To be clear I’m not advocating it, I’m just saying that if higher potential for birth defects is cause to make something illegal then we have other laws to write. Incest is illegal because we find it morally unacceptable, not because of birth defects. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
 April 7, 2015 at 2:19pm
First, chase and follow are two different things. Secondly, following someone isn’t provoking a fight (unless you’re unstable). So you’re solution to someone breaking the law (unsafe driving is breaking the law) is to mind your own business? Is this the solution if you see someone being robbed, raped, or murdered? Just mind your own business. If you think the guy with the chainsaw had a reasonable reaction you are wrong. His problem is he feels he has rights but no responsibilities. He has the right to drive however he wants. He has no responsibility to drive in a way that is safe for the other drivers on the road.
Would I have put my kids in that situation? No, I would have gotten a quick picture maybe and then contacted LE. However your need to justify clearly wrong behavior because you don’t like what the victim did is scary. There is no way his actions were justified.
 September 22, 2014 at 1:16pm
It depends for me. I know most actors in Hollywood are leftists. I won’t not see a movie because of that. However, some of them make it so much a part of who they are (Garofalo, Damon, Penn) I find it difficult to enjoy them in movies because their politics are all I see. I see them and I expect to get preached at about something.
Although generally I don’t go to the movies because so many films are ok at best and they are so expensive now, I generally wait for Netflix or Redbox.
 June 30, 2014 at 6:44pm
True it’s in England and they do have some weird food. However if you change the way KFC is made it would cease to be KFC. I think the brand would mean too much to them.
And the only reason I care is because I hate when people make up stories about how they got a chicken head instead of a McNugget or something like that just to try to weasel some money out of a company. Especially when they’re obviously not true (they grind up McNuggets so much even if there was a head in there you’d never know it).
 June 30, 2014 at 6:18pm
This has got to be bogus. KFC fried chicken is not battered it’s breaded (as any respectable fried chicken should be). You dredge it through a flour mixture, not dip it in batter (like you would with fish). No way this happened.
Your right I used to work at one a long time ago. It is a flour and spices mix not a batter. Unless in some part of the country they dip them in a batter.
True, but who knows what they do to their chicken across the pond. If you've ever done any time there you'd realize they love deep-frying everything. Visit a fish-n-chips shop after the pubs close - it's crazy.
Also, ever taste their ketchup???
did anyone read the article? It happened in ENGLAND...so frankly, who cares?
True it's in England and they do have some weird food. However if you change the way KFC is made it would cease to be KFC. I think the brand would mean too much to them.
And the only reason I care is because I hate when people make up stories about how they got a chicken head instead of a McNugget or something like that just to try to weasel some money out of a company. Especially when they're obviously not true (they grind up McNuggets so much even if there was a head in there you'd never know it).
You can't get Biscuits in English KFCs... It's wrong I tell you.
They don't sell 'scones' even!
 June 4, 2014 at 4:28pm
I think he meant that people who use race as an excuse for their lack of success treat it like a religion. He’s describing how he sees their behavior, not that it is a religion to him personally.
November 7, 2013 at 12:51pm
For example when the WHO did a study to determine which countries had the best health care they decided that if in country A there were two people who had heart attacks, one who could afford good insurance and one who couldn’t so one died and one lived, That country is doing worse than a country where both people died (rich and poor) because there was equity. Tell me which country would you rather live in? Where some people survive heart attacks or where all die? I realize that’s an over simplification but it goes to the heart of the matter. How do you determine what is, or is not beneficial?
That’s the crux of it. How do you decide without a standard?
November 7, 2013 at 12:50pm
And you then miss the character building that comes with actually dealing with hurting people. But you get the sense of self-righteousness (not speaking of you specifically) that can be so dangerous to your salvation.
“So, no capital punishment then?”
Capital punishment is not murder.
“What if someone is threatening your family, or an innocent?”
There’s a difference between homicide (the non-natural taking of a life) and murder. Again the commandment is to not murder, not kill. It’s an important distinction.
“Bottom line: The Bible was written by men,”
Men as they were inspired by God. It is a matter of faith to believe that, but not blind faith.
“… but it should not be your only source”
What other source then? I’ve demonstrated how logic is not a reliable guide. Neither is consensus. Harm is also not definable in a strict fashion. And what about harm for society vs. harm for the individual, which takes precedence? Without an objective source, morals are only opinions. There is really no way to get around that. For example, when you site studies (or allude to studies) that say that gay parenting might be better than straight parenting, what standards did they use to judge better? Is more excepting of homosexuals part of that?
to be continued…
November 7, 2013 at 12:49pm
“ If man truly has free will, this has to be true.”
If man has free will then it is equally true that they could have written exactly as they were inspired. I would also argue that those who wrote it, because of the inspiration were not likely to mess with the message. If God said to you that you should tell someone something, would you change the message? Unlikely due to the power God would express in inspiring you. It’s not like I told you to write it and you decide, whatever, I’ll write what I want. We are talking about the holy, omnipotent God here.
“I happen to like the overall message of love and helping your fellow man.”
That’s not the overall message. It’s in there, but that’s not the main point the Bible is trying to make.
“the Bible does not give enough direction on modern issues either”
Well first of all, that’s not its purpose. Its purpose is to explain God’s plan of salvation. Part of the issue with interpretation is when people try to apply its principles where they never were intended to be applied. For example, people use the “give to the poor” message to justify government redistribution of wealth. That wasn’t the point. The point was that YOU should give to the poor. Not that you should take money from others and give that to the poor. If you push that off on the government you’re actually ignore the admonition to you personally. It makes it someone else’s job. to be continued…
November 6, 2013 at 7:00pm
I would agree that non-religious people have morals, but as I said, without a objective source for your morals, they are really no more than opinion (even if I do agree with them).
And again, it is your opinion that the Bible was written by fallible men. Man can have free will and the Bible can be God’s Word. The two aren’t mutually exclusive (at least I don’t see a reason for them to be).
As to beard trimming, I’d be happy to discuss the finer points of theology with you (or anyone really, I do enjoy it) however this forum doesn’t really allow for the space necessary, nor is this the subject of this particular thread. I’m not sure if the Blaze’s forum allows for private messages but if it does you could send me a message and I’d be happy to trade emails with you. I’m not too thrilled at the prospect of trading them out in the open (I’m sure you’d agree that may not be wise). I will say that things like beard trimming aren’t really difficult to understand when you look at the Bible as if it is God’s word and not as though it’s a collection of things written by different people.
November 6, 2013 at 1:42pm
For example, personally I am not bothered by homosexual behavior. I’m not interested in it, but it doesn’t make me uncomfortable, or change my opinion of a person. I’ve always had gay friends (for well over 20 years). My brother is gay. Personally it’s a non-issue for me. However I do recognize that God calls it sin. My opinion doesn’t change that. My opinion doesn’t change the fact that God calls lying sin. They both are regardless of how I feel about them. If God calls it sin, then it’s wrong. That doesn’t mean that I think this country should legislate against it though (no bans on it). Gay marriage is different in that it is, at least from what I’ve seen, is more a matter of social acceptance than actual rights. I’m ok with everyone having the same rights. I just don’t want people to legislate acceptance of any behavior, and that’s what a large part of “the homosexual agenda” is about (again from what I’ve read).
November 6, 2013 at 1:41pm
I agree that if your main goal in following any set of morals or rules is to avoid punishment then yes you’re not doing it for the right reason. In Christianity that’s generally referred to as legalism and is not a genuine path.
You are also correct when you say that religion (or religious texts) have been misused to do harm to people. But if God is the source of what is and what isn’t moral then our response to Him should be to at least figure out what He wants. If He is our source we owe Him that. Our own logic is not capable of figuring it out. This is because people, all people, will justify things they like as not immoral. For example if you asked a racist if racism is wrong he would obviously not think so. People tend to draw their own moral lines where they are comfortable and then deciding that is what God is ok with. That in reality is idolatry. Once a person starts trying to decide what’s right and wrong based on their own comfort level they’ve created a god to suite themselves rather than the true God. It’s about them not him.
November 6, 2013 at 11:39am
I’m sorry I was not trying to say that Atheists can’t be moral or aren’t moral. I tend, particularly in this format, to focus on the minutia of an argument rather than the big picture. Atheists, generally speaking, certainly are moral. They help in their communities, love their families, don’t steal or murder. And they believe those things are wrong. My point was that in an atheistic worldview there is really no reason for them to hold those positions. Their morals are inconsistent with their worldview.
Logic or consensus don’t fit the bill as far as morals are concerned because they have, over the years, lead to things which we would both agree are not moral. Not to mention the fact that if morals are just rules that the society agrees on, then they really are not a moral standard but rather convention. And we certainly would have no right to say what another society decided was moral was immoral. Syria using chemical weapons on its own people is not immoral, it is just something we don’t like. Neither is Saudi Arabia oppressing women, or Hitler killing Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc., or Russia having strict anti-homosexual laws. I could go on for a while but I think you get the point.
You have to have a universal, objective standard before something can be called immoral or moral. Without that it’s reduced to opinion.
November 5, 2013 at 8:53pm
“I have arrived at through logic and reasoning.”
Most of the world’s genocides were arrived at using logic.
“Not harming others”
What if harming one is helpful to others?
“As to who dictates what is harm, … (scientists) should give a consensus.”
So morality would be up for a vote and if scientists reasoned out that, say, group A needs to be eliminated (be that based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) that is moral?
“Do any of you believe that an Atheist cannot be moral?”
That actually isn’t the issue, the issue is why would an atheist believe in such things. All that counts to an atheist (or all that should). is survival value not how he/she interacts with others. If being nice increases your survivability than be nice. If killing others does, then kill. It’s not immoral for one animal to kill another for dominance of its group. If we are just animals there is no morality.
“I know that the book was written by man, and is not the infallible word of God.”
You believe this, you do not know it.
“I base my morality on something beyond this book”
You base it on your opinion. You have set yourself up as the arbitrator
Don’t take this as an attack, I’m just presenting a different perspective to you. Clearly I am not saying any specific person is immoral, only that morality only exists as it relates to some objective source. Without the objective source morality is opinion, and if al
November 5, 2013 at 5:37pm
Being legal or illegal is not the same as being moral or immoral. For example, until recently there was a law in Texas that said sodomy was illegal. Did that law make it immoral? No, the law is a reflection of a morality.
As far as your “things moral in the Bible are immoral in our society” thing, first of all, that’s irrelevant. If the Bible says that something is immoral (or moral) a person who believes the Bible would reject the society’s morals. As to some of the specifics, I’ll deal with the first one. The same author (Moses) who said that Abraham married his half sister also said that siblings shouldn’t marry. Either he believed two things were correct or reported something that happened without rendering a moral judgement or something that was once ok was now forbidden. The problem here isn’t the book itself, just the fact that you don’t want to understand it (and I can’t properly explain it given the confines of this forum). If you did those things wouldn’t be confusing to you.
But the facts still remains that moral is not the same as legal (as I’m sure you would agree). So what makes something moral? Who defines what is good and bad without religion? Again, not legal or illegal, but moral and immoral.
November 5, 2013 at 2:20pm
Who decides what is harm and what isn’t? Many insist that sex between adult men and young boys does no harm at all to the children. So, what is harm? How do we objectively decide that? Why is doing harm immoral? To a child a series of injections, or perhaps some other medical treatment is harm, but to the parent they might see it as necessary. Who decides? Harm can’t strictly be pain, because sometimes pain in necessary. But again, in brief, who decides what is harm and why is harm immoral?
November 5, 2013 at 11:56am
Can you give me one non-religious reason why anything is wrong? Not illegal, but morally wrong. For something to be morally wrong there has to be a moral standard on which to base that on. Without an objective standard it simply becomes opinion.
September 10, 2013 at 4:23pm
KANG: If that’s true why didn’t they arrest GZ? If he was beating his father in law wouldn’t there have been evidence that would have caused them to hold GZ? I think you spend too much time listening to left wing bloggers. According to CNN she called because he threatened her and her father. Not that he beat either one of them.
August 29, 2013 at 11:32am
Clearly you think it’s still relevant. But you can’t demonstrate it is. You can’t even demonstrate that your spin on it was Atwater’s intent. As far as Matthews’ point, he has none. It’s all innuendo and projection. He says to oppose him you must be racist but never gives any real tangible reasons. Essentially you must prove your reasons aren’t based on race, his default assumption is that they are. Like the birther thing. I don’t think Mitt or Ted Cruz ever made any sort of suggestion that the President is an illegal alien (I don’t even think birthers make that claim). His arguments only pass muster if you agree with them before he says them.