The essence of our evil lies not only of the crimes we commit and facilitate but also the crimes we would commit and facilitate if we had the power to make them happen.

A murderer who kills and repents may indeed be less evil then a man who denies God and lives an outwardly unassuming life. We do not know the secret hearts of men God does.

Here is a story about a man who has killed 1,200 of his fellow human beings. You will be hard pressed to find someone who has taken more lives. He now clearly regrets his actions and is doing what he can to make amends.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/former-abortionist-i-regret-performing-abortions

Who do you suppose God would be unable to admit into an afterlife this killer of 1,200 who has clearly changed and regrets his actions or a man that has murderered no one but continually wishes for greater power so he can finally actualize his frustrated ambition to torture and murder?

At the end of the day who we are is more important then what we have done. Who we are is determined by our core beliefs.

We have it on good authority that the most important core beliefs are 1) Love God and 2) Love you neighbor as yourself.

Your claim that babies are not human is laughable and not supportable on any biological or scientific grounds.

Little dolphins or baby elephants are not fully grown either but pointing to a baby elephant and insisting it’s not an elephant is idiocy.

The only reason to play such word games is if one has an agenda. Human beings always attempt to define some other group of humans as sub human or not human as a way to ease our conscience before we get on with the extermination/genocide/murder we want to commit at the moment.

We do not need a new word for human beings under the age of one because we already have a fully functional one. We call them babies. Babies are human beings.

I have no idea what your personal proclivities towards murder are and they are irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong in saying that human infants are more like animals than human adults. That is simple observation. However you said something very different.

Your claim is:

What is not human is not entitled to human rights by definition.

Whether you personally want to kill babies under one year of age is irrelevant. If people of your ideology are allowed to obtain power they will be missing the necessary moral check that makes it inconceivable to strip away the rights of the weak and vulnerable.

You are confused. You have mistaken right from wrong and up from down. Your confusion if allowed to spread and grow unopposed would someday allow people to lawfully murder babies under the age of one. Many people are confused like you are and as a result New York now allows fully developed and viable babies to be murdered up to the day of delivery if the mother can find an abortion doctor willing to claim that the babies continued life harms her mental health.  

Your willingness to classify a population of your fellow human beings as Untermensch "inferior people" who are undeserving of the inherrent right to live.

The fact that you choose a different population of humans to apply your beliefs to is irrelevant. Some one else may decide it's the old and mentally incompetent who should be euthanized for the greater good or the young children with severe debilitating disabilities.

It's the same moral error wrapped up in different policy goals.

I don't expect an immenent pump. I suspect Bitcoin is probably going down more. It will be a fantastic buying opportunity.

Nothing has changed in the fundamentals. Bitcoin remains a revolutionary technology that allows ownership of wealth and transfer of value without intermediaries. There is no comparison or real alternative out there for those looking for what it offers. The nations of the world continue to debase their currencies at an unprecedented rate. Socialism is rising everywhere and with it increasing wealth confiscation. That will sooner or later turn ever larger numbers of people to Bitcoin It's just a matter of time.

Bitcoin simply climbed too high too fast on the wild dreams of those who wanted to get rich quick without working and almost all of the forks and altcoins were worthless from the moment of inception and the market is slowly figuring that out. All that is lost for the moment is the get rich quick vibe. The value investor is and will step in at this and lower prices. Bitcoin's long term potential remains quite compelling.

Sounds like your heart is in the right place but why do you feel the Bible is not clear on the topic? Both the Old Testament "Thou shalt not murder." and the New Testament "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." are very easy to apply to the situation.

Your free will argument is flawed. We do indeed have free will but that right stops when it infringes on the rights of others. Your right to life supersedes my right to kill you because you inconvenience me. The fact that you may be elderly and weak or disabled and disadvantaged or even a newborn and utterly helpless changes nothing in the moral calculus.

Abortion is not a "health outcome" it is the powerful and fully grown exercising power to snuff out the life of the helpless because that life is young, weak and dependent.

It is an act of barbarism that differs from the barbarism of earlier eras when helpless children were left to die because they were not born perfect or sacrificed to pagan idols only in manifestation not essence.

Moral truth is absolute and objective. The application of that truth to specific circumstance is varied and colored by the imperfect perspective of the actor.

Take af_newbies challenge for example.


He is of course correct that there are psychopaths and narcissists. However, if you look at their behavior they are not actually following a "do as you would be done by" code.

If you have ever seen someone of that temperament outsmarted or outmaneuvered their response almost always highlights their true philosophy. You do not see a calm acceptance of defeat at the hands of the more skilled or cleaver. Instead you see rage, anger, desire for revenge and power. The psychopaths wants to be free of constraint but they do not want to be the victims of their own philosophy. They want morality for sheep they can pray upon with only themselves exempt. It is a philosophy of power.

Those are really the only two alternatives a belief in objective morality or a philosophy of power. Everything else eventually finds it's way into one of those two camps. This hypothetical debate between Kant and Nietzsche highlights the contrasting views.

Kant vs Nietzsche
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHJFWJgXuXg

In the video Nietzsche accuses Kant of being a slave to reasons while Kant in turn calls Nietzsche a slave to passion.

You note that you are ok if others presumably government take parts of what is your's for the needs of others. You also note that some people do not consider it ok and ask who is correct. You are essentially asking if it ok to steal when it is necessary to achieve a greater good.

The answer is that it is never ok to steal, however, sometimes it may be necessary to prevent an even greater evil. Thus we steal from the population as a whole to fund the military and prevent the greater evil of conquest and murder against us by outsiders. The error arises in those who think that via preventing the greater evil the lesser evil becomes somehow good. It does not. It is choosing bad to avoid worse and acceptable only until we can figure out a way to avoid worse by choosing good.

The people who feel that the theft is not ok are correct but the fact that the theft is not ok does not mean we are currently powerful or wise enough to abolish it at this moment in history.      

Immanuel Kant
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Jesus
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Hillel the Elder
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Slightly varying accents all describing the same foundational absolute.

See: A Discussion on Superrationality

I would suggest instead that you consider admitting that morality is absolute and eternal.

Sin ultimately is just error. We often forget this and get confused by our own emotions and feelings about particular errors that upset us more then others or from having a strong desire for error.

This is certainly true.

C.S. Lewis described the process in detail and taken to its logical conclusion in his Abolition of Man.

Here is a video on his thesis that is very much worth watching. It describes the natural arc and end of man's "triumph" over nature.

The Abolition of Man
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=idgYLTnSzxI&list=PL9boiLqIabFh94-pJbd8RH2f2YXQwmOGD


I used to be skeptical of "specific plan" hypothesis favoring Hanlon's razor as the most probable explanation for such things.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

That said as the years go by I increasingly feel that the difference between untruth, stupidity, and malice is mostly cosmetic. It all seems to eventually end in the same place. I am sure you remember this story that was never debunked but just faded away remarkably uncovered and with a very unconvincing denial.

WHO and UNICEF Secretly Sterilizing Women in Poor Nations?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901791.msg9911254#msg9911254

Most of the people who administered those "fertility vaccines" to the unsuspecting were probably employees who thought they were giving a routine vaccination. Most of the scientist who developed it probably thought they were working on a form of voluntary birth control. Those who funded and deployed it probably honestly thought they were doing so in a spirit of altruism. As the old saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Anyone who does not support the right to refuse vaccinations does not understand the power they are giving away. They are like the anti second amendment crowd who thinks disarming the population is the "smart" thing to do. Future drones announcing their willingness to be conditioned and controlled by the strong hand of "elect" human conditioners.

Yet could this not also be translated as follows?

For in six ages the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh age. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath age and made it holy.

Is such a translation impossible given what we know of the Hebrew word Yom? Clearly evening and morning must mean something other the earthly mornings and evenings if our sun was not made until the forth day/age.

Perhaps the third night for example is referring to something like this?

Life under the Ice – Life on Rogue Planets
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7CkdB5z9PY

If life did thrive in the early universe and period of universal warmth and habitability then what seems likely to have followed would be a period of ice and darkness.

Are the erroneous hypotheses and interpretations of modern scientists who might be misinterpreting nature the only error we must consider? What about the hypotheses and interpretations of modern theologians who might be misunderstanding scripture?  

Plants that lived for millenniums before there were sun, moon, and stars is actually more possible then is commonly believed. However, our understanding of the early period remains quite limited.

Did the genesis of life occur just after the Big Bang, almost 14 billion years ago?
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176106-did-the-genesis-of-life-occur-just-after-the-big-bang-almost-14-billion-years-ago

The Bible is record but its purpose is to save our souls not provide us with unnecessary details of creation that we can eventually figure out on our own. The reason to question the 24 hour narrative is that our science increasingly calls that interpretation into question and other interpretations are possible.  

God can of course do anything but the question is what exactly did he do not what can he do. It is my opinion that the wisest course is to maintain an open mind on the exact timeframe of creation and the exact origins of life.

 

Prove it.

If the best you can come up with is the opinion of a bunch of atheist scholars who presuppose that Moses must have been mythical because of their atheist assumptions and the general paucity of ancient records 3000+ years ago  then of course I am going to reject your statement out of hand.

I would instead happily refer you to any group of observant Jews who would patiently explain the historical fact that they have accurately transmitted their holy texts without error across millennium.

Nothing at all but did God really say day? The Hebrew word for day is Yom and it has other meanings then a 24 hour period.

See:
http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

I take the position that when multiple meanings can be assigned to a single word the onus is on us using our reason to determine which interpretation is the correct one to the best of our ability.

It is in my opinion error to overly focus on one specific interpretation of fact when other possible interpretations of that fact could be true.

When we insist that our faith demands a specific fact when such an assertion is not actually necessary it we ground ourselves on an unstable foundation. If we error in such a false assertion we are forced to ignore ever mounting evidence that our interpretation does not in fact conform to reality. We turn into our famous resident flat earth advocate who must entertain ever more elaborate conspiracy theories to maintain his disbelief in reality.

For example take Genesis 1. It is often asserted as a foundation for young earth creationism. I personally think that this view may be an error.

Below is my personal take on Genesis one. I make no claims it is absolutely truth. However, in does my opinion restore harmony between the Biblical account and current scientific understanding.

Ages of Creation in Genesis

Day 1:  “Let there be light,”  = Big Bang
 "He separated the light from the darkness".  = Photon decoupling thought to occur at about 378,000 years after the Big Bang

Day 2:
“Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” = Between about 10 and 17 million years the universe's average temperature was suitable for liquid water (273 – 373K). It is possible that rocky planets or indeed life could have arisen briefly, since statistically a tiny part of the universe could have had different conditions from the rest, and gained warmth from the universe as a whole.

The habitable epoch of the early Universe
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/habitable.pdf

Day 3
"Let the land produce vegetation.” = Life did indeed form and thrive during this early habitable epoch.

Day 4

"And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years"" = First stars formed around 400 to 700 million years after the Big Bang.

"God made two great lights—the greater light to governthe day and the lesser light to governthe night." = Earth and moon formed approximately  4.54 billion years ago.

Day 5

"God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it." = Life created on earth perhaps first in deep sea vents on the floor of the ocean and then rapidly spreading throughout the ocean in various forms.

Day 6

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds... Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” = God created land animals probably via spread out of the oceans and God created humans the creation which via our knowledge holds dominion over all other creatures in our corner of the universe.

Now I don't claim with certainty that this harmonization is in fact entirely correct, However, it is seems logically sound enough to me so I hold to it at the moment. The exact ordering of creation has no relevance to the foundation of my faith so I am perfectly willing to improve my understanding if in the future I become convinced that my understanding is in error.

A child born and raised in prison may never have seen the world outside the four walls of his cage.  Nevertheless he can still correctly imagine some aspects of that world based on what it is not. It's not a prison.

J.R.R. Tolkien discussed this with C.S. Lewis back when Lewis was an atheist. I found the account of that exchange fascinating.

C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on the power of Fiction
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAE15gtEzg

Stalin's Birthday Celebrations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_cult_of_personality

Yes that is an interesting point.
He is essentially arguing that we are mismanaging vaccinations much like we are mismanaging antibiotics.

Few people know just how horribly we mismanage antibiotics. 80% of antibiotics are used on farms and normally not even on animals that are actually sick. Farm animals are fed antibiotics round the clock every day so they can survive high density unsanitary and low cost conditions they are kept in.

This is a setup for the development of multi drug resistant bacteria which is what we get. We as a society have chosen to trade away our best antibiotics for low cost burgers and bacon. The result is the growing danger of superbugs resistant to all antibiotics or all accept the latest and most expensive ones.

Antibiotic Use for Farm Animals
https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Antibiotic_Use_for_Farm_Animals

However, this outcome does not mean antibiotics are bad. They are a useful tool. It is the misusing that tool blindly and without wisdom that leads to bad outcomes over time. The same holds true for vaccines.

As I said I sympathize with the anti vaccination crowd. Their rebellion will in the end force the system to become more transparent and to improve.

The long term answer to the problem, however, lies not in stopping all vaccinations any more then the answer to bacterial resistance lies in abandonment of antibiotics. The only long term answer will be found in a return to truth in the science around the issue and the use of vaccination in an intelligent and goal directed manner with a focus on long term aims. It is worth remembering that if we kill the disease then there is no longer any dependency on the vaccine.

These are very complex issues so I will do my best to unpack them to the best of my ability.

The facts presented are by and large factual but a least one of his assumptions is dubious. Overall it was a very interesting video.

To address the points he raises we must first understand herd immunity. Herd immunity is the general resistance to a pathogen that exists in a population because members of that population have been exposed to a disease in the past. It manafests in two ways.

A) In the natural immunity of individuals who can no longer contract the disease because they have already been infected in the past and fought the disease off.

B) In a secondary form passed from mother to child via antibodies in breast milk. A mother with natural immunity can transfer antibodies and temporary protection to a newborn.

It is important to note that this second group infants are not truly immune to the disease. Their protection lasts only as long as they are breastfeed and once they are weaned they have no residual immunity and are 100% vulnerable to the disease. Immunity transferred by the mother is a temporary protection only who's purpose is to protect a newborn until it reaches any age when it's immune system is more developed and better equipped to survive.

Now with that said Dr. Wakefield makes several arguments regarding herd immunity.

1. That our vaccines do not result in as strong of an immunity as natural infection so the transferred protection via breast milk to newborns is weaker. Thus newborns are more at risk if they are exposed to the target disease then they would be if their mother had natural immunity.

This is true. However, it must be noted that under the natural immunity scenario the infant also loses all immunity when he is weaned around age 1. The potential window of heightened vulnerability exists but it lasts only from birth until or the date of weaning or vaccination whichever comes first. After weaning the unvaccinated child has no protection from the disease the vaccinated child does.

2. That mortality rates from measles  was falling already before vaccination so maybe that process alone (better supportive care, health, and nutrition would continue to reduce the fatality rate to zero.

This was the only point he made that is highly speculative and extremely unlikely to be true. Measles is not going to just turn into the common cold because we have good nutrition and are healthy. Unless there is some scientific breakthrough that cures the virus it will always be a very serious potentially fatal illness.

3. That our vaccine policy create a dependency on vaccinations. That there is a possibility that these diseases could mutate around our vaccines or vaccines could suddenly be withdrawn and if that occurs the population could be worse off then if it had maintained its natural immunity to the disease.

This was by far the most interesting of his arguments. Here he presents a powerful argument. This argument can be best understood by looking at antibiotics.

Say you had an individual sick with a deadly bacteria. It would be highly unwise have that individual take just enough antibiotics to keep the disease from killing him but not enough to cure the infection. He becomes dependent on the antibiotic and eventually the bacteria might mutate and your drug won't work anymore. Dr. Wakefield is essentially saying we are doing this with our vaccination policy when we releasing vaccines like the mumps vaccine that are not capable of actually exterminating the disease.

I am sympathetic to this last point. However, it is not an argument against vaccination but against foolish and unwise vaccination.

A vaccination campaign should be a declaration of war against a pathogen an all out attempt to kill a disease worldwide like smallpox was killed. That kind of campaign is akin to giving a big dose of antibiotic (a poison) who's use kills the disease and thus cures the patient. This type of campaign is wholly justified scientifically and morally and we have seen it done in the case of smallpox.

Once you transition from that to a management strategy where you only suppress the disease but allow it to fester and smolder on in the periphery or when you introduce vaccines that are incapable of actually exterminating the disease then you indeed must question what the long term ends of your effort is.

However, all of this does not mean we should not vaccinate, any more then the risks of antibiotic resistance means we should stop using antibiotics. However, it may mean that our current approach is... lacking.

There are other threads better suited to debating religion and the problem of evil.

If your question is serious and not simply an attempt to derail this thread away from its intended topic repost it somewhere better suited to such a discussion send me a PM and I will respond with my thoughts.