Indiana GOP Senate Candidate's Mind-blowing Comment

[Cackalacky]

Omnipotent = all powerful; omniscient = all knowing. Free will cannot exist in either case. By default this is a logical fallacy.

God cannot be both. That is for sure If he is omnipotent and omnisicient then he does not have the power to change what he knows will already happen. Vice versa, if he changes something, then he is not omniscent because why whould you change something you already knew to happen. Free will cannot exist in either case. god cannot say "this will happen" yet you are free to choose otherwise.

If I choose to run my car off a bridge, that is my choice, but if god is omnicient, he caused you to drive off the bridge and it was not a choice by you as he already knew you would do that. Additionally If he was all powerful and you made that choice, then he was powerless to stop you...

So back to my earlier question... was Mary raped? I ask becasue it pretty much makes this guy (Mourdoch) an idiot or absolutely correct.

Irish houstonian...are you saying it was in vitro fertilization? Magic?

 

[IrishLax]

I thought it was a legit quote. Seems to clear to me that he believes in playing the cards youre dealt.

I personally don't think you should have to play the cards if the cards are forced in your hand.

I agree that if two people have consensual sex and accidentally conceive a child, they should be responsible and make the best out of the situation.

If you are raped, that is definitely not part of God's plan.

See, his whole point is that the "cards" are a life... and that no matter the circumstance, he doesn't feel OK with ending a life. That's the meat of his statement. The religious angle is just window dressing on it all. It'd be the same statement if he said "I don't believe in God, but I put myself in the unborn baby's shoes and don't think it's right to terminate a life."

The most ironic thing to me in the whole abortion debate is that a large portion of the GOP these days tends to support the "f*ck it, let 'em die... survival of the fittest" end of the spectrum when it comes to healthcare debate... but also have a large portion of the "unborn babies are people too and it's murder to have an abortion" people. Dems have a large portion of "healthcare is and life is a fundamental right to all humans!" camp... that also believes "meh, I should have the right to choose whether I bring this baby into the world or terminate the pregnancy."

When you pause for a second, there are a lot of levels where those two trains of thought are really logically contradictory. And that's what I despise about politics.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Omnipotent = all powerful; omniscient = all knowing. Free will cannot exist in either case. By default this is a logical fallacy.

God cannot be both. That is for sure If he is omnipotent and omnisicient then he does not have the power to change what he knows will already happen. Vice versa, if he changes something, then he is not omniscent because why whould you change something you already knew to happen. Free will cannot exist in either case. god cannot say "this will happen" yet you are free to choose otherwise.

If I choose to run my car off a bridge, that is my choice, but if god is omnicient, he caused you to drive off the bridge and it was not a choice by you as he already knew you would do that. Additionally If he was all powerful and you made that choice, then he was powerless to stop you...

So back to my earlier question... was Mary raped? I ask becasue it pretty much makes this guy (Mourdoch) an idiot or absolutely correct.

Irish houstonian...are you saying it was in vitro fertilization? Magic?

Omnipotent only refers to ability. You mean "omnipresent", which refers to actively controlling everything. Again, I tend to agree that "free will" and God's omnipotence and omnipresence are opposing concepts.

A diety can be both omniscient and omnipotent -- you just know everything that you're doing and that you're going to do. Just because you see it coming doesn't mean you aren't going to be the one to cause that event.

In fact, it's actually the opposite -- how could a god be all controlling if it's not all knowing? How can you control something if you don't know of its existence, or how to control it? Not only is omniscience compatible with omnipotence and omnipresence, it's a prerequisite.

Re: Mary, I'm a bit suprised at the lack of Christian understanding, but I supposed that most Christians believe that Mary became pregnant by "magic" (as you call it).

I don't think they would use that word, because it sounds a bit pejorative when used that way, but I think you're both saying the same thing.

 

[Cackalacky]

Omnipotent only refers to ability. You mean "omnipresent", which refers to actively controlling everything. Again, I tend to agree that "free will" and God's omnipotence and omnipresence are opposing concepts.

A diety can be both omniscient and omnipotent -- you just know everything that you're doing and that you're going to do. Just because you see it coming doesn't mean you aren't going to be the one to cause that event.

In fact, it's actually the opposite -- how could a god be all controlling if it's not all knowing? How can you control something if you don't know of its existence, or how to control it? Not only is omniscience compatible with omnipotence and omnipresence, it's a prerequisite.

Re: Mary, I'm a bit suprised at the lack of Christian understanding, but I supposed that most Christians believe that Mary became pregnant by "magic" (as you call it).

I don't think they would use that word, because it sounds a bit pejorative when used that way, but I think you're both saying the same thing.

OK. Either you are deliberately being obtuse or just can't see the fallacy. I will leave this alone. BTW it is not a lack of "Christian understanding" as you put it. But outside the real of reality, it must be "magic."

 

[Cackalacky]

See, his whole point is that the "cards" are a life... and that no matter the circumstance, he doesn't feel OK with ending a life. That's the meat of his statement. The religious angle is just window dressing on it all. It'd be the same statement if he said "I don't believe in God, but I put myself in the unborn baby's shoes and don't think it's right to terminate a life."

The most ironic thing to me in the whole abortion debate is that a large portion of the GOP these days tends to support the "f*ck it, let 'em die... survival of the fittest" end of the spectrum when it comes to healthcare debate... but also have a large portion of the "unborn babies are people too and it's murder to have an abortion" people. Dems have a large portion of "healthcare is and life is a fundamental right to all humans!" camp... that also believes "meh, I should have the right to choose whether I bring this baby into the world or terminate the pregnancy."

When you pause for a second, there are a lot of levels where those two trains of thought are really logically contradictory. And that's what I despise about politics.

I would rep but the CPU wont let me. This is a very central concept in why American politics are f'ed up.

 

[irishpat183]

I defer all religious questions to the Rev...

The Reverend Preaches About Girls - Coming to America (4/10) Movie CLIP (1988) HD - YouTube

 

[Domina Nostra]

Omnipotent = all powerful; omniscient = all knowing. Free will cannot exist in either case. By default this is a logical fallacy.

God cannot be both. That is for sure If he is omnipotent and omnisicient then he does not have the power to change what he knows will already happen. Vice versa, if he changes something, then he is not omniscent because why whould you change something you already knew to happen. Free will cannot exist in either case. god cannot say "this will happen" yet you are free to choose otherwise.

If I choose to run my car off a bridge, that is my choice, but if god is omnicient, he caused you to drive off the bridge and it was not a choice by you as he already knew you would do that. Additionally If he was all powerful and you made that choice, then he was powerless to stop you...

So back to my earlier question... was Mary raped? I ask becasue it pretty much makes this guy (Mourdoch) an idiot or absolutely correct.

Irish houstonian...are you saying it was in vitro fertilization? Magic?

I am very suprised you are repeating such an insanely disrespectful question so brazenly. It goes without saying that many of us don't see Mary as a myth, but as our mother (Notre Dame!). Whatever happend to at least being culturally sensitive? But I am going to answer you as if you are asking seriously, because I really don't want to believe that you are as big a jerk as you coming off.

No, Mary was not raped. If you take the Chirsitain story seriously, (a) she did not have physical relations, and (b) as soon as it was announced that she was chosen to bear the Messiah, she said "be it to me according to your word." No physical act, plus willing consent to be made pregnant. You are not even in the world of rape. On the other hand, if you don't take the story seriously, then we have no idea whatsoever about any of it, but the simplest alternative explantation would obvioiusly be that her fiance was the father.

As far as omniscient v. omnipotent, I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself. Whether or not you believe in God, the system is premised on the idea that God is completely outside of time, i.e., eternal. If God willed X and not Y to happen, and X and not Y, in fact, happens as He knew it would, then both his omnipotence and omniscence are intact. If you came before Him before X happend and said, "But ha! You can't make Y happen!" He would just reply, "I knew you would ask me that, but I don't want Y to happen, I want X to happen, and it will." Not sure how you beat him there.

As far as free will v. omnipotence there is a difference between active and permissive will. I can let something happen without desiring that it happen. I let my kids fight a little bit so they can learn patience and self-control, but I don't want them fighting. God can be all powerful and permit us to make choices. His omniscience is also not threatened because He is outside of time and does not experience our choices sequentially but rather knows all things at once, not because he forces us to do it, but because he does not have to wait around and see what we will do.

His goodness is not threatened by creating beings with free will because he did not create evil, but something good with a free will. His goodness is also not threatened by their remaining in existence because, like a parent--he can bring something better out of the evil that is chosen. That is the hope anyway, but there is no reason to reject it as illogical, its not. Its moe like complex physics: all the math works out if you make certain assumptions at the begining (like multiple dimensions), quite apart from whether those dimensions actually exist.

 

[Domina Nostra]

...

 

[irishog77]

I am very suprised you are repeating such an insanely disrespectful question so brazenly. It goes without saying that many of us don't see Mary as a myth, but as our mother (Notre Dame!). Whatever happend to at least being culturally sensitive? But I am going to answer you as if you are asking seriously, because I really don't want to believe that you are as big a jerk as you coming off.

No, Mary was not raped. If you take the Chirsitain story seriously, (a) she did not have physical relations, and (b) as soon as it was announced that she was chosen to bear the Messiah, she said "be it to me according to your word." No physical act, plus willing consent to be made pregnant. You are not even in the world of rape. On the other hand, if you don't take the story seriously, then we have no idea whatsoever about any of it, but the simplest alternative explantation would obvioiusly be that her fiance was the father.

As far as omniscient v. omnipotent, I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself. Whether or not you believe in God, the system is premised on the idea that God is completely outside of time, i.e., eternal. If God willed X and not Y to happen, and X and not Y, in fact, happens as He knew it would, then both his omnipotence and omniscence are intact. If you came before Him before X happend and said, "But ha! You can't make Y happen!" He would just reply, "I knew you would ask me that, but I don't want Y to happen, I want X to happen, and it will." Not sure how you beat him there.

As far as free will v. omnipotence there is a difference between active and permissive will. I can let something happen without desiring that it happen. I let my kids fight a little bit so they can learn patience and self-control, but I don't want them fighting. God can be all powerful and permit us to make choices. His omniscience is also not threatened because He is outside of time and does not experience our choices sequentially but rather knows all things at once, not because he forces us to do it, but because he does not have to wait around and see what we will do.

His goodness is not threatened by creating beings with free will because he did not create evil, but something good with a free will. His goodness is also not threatened by their remaining in existence because, like a parent--he can bring something better out of the evil that is chosen. That is the hope anyway, but there is no reason to reject it as illogical, its not. Its moe like complex physics: all the math works out if you make certain assumptions at the begining (like multiple dimensions), quite apart from whether those dimensions actually exist.

Reps, man!

 

[rikkitikki08]

I live in Indianapolis and im voting for the most part republican. I consider myself a soft republican and Mitt Romney has my vote. But i can tell you right now, no way in hell im voting for murdock

 

[Cackalacky]

I am very suprised you are repeating such an insanely disrespectful question so brazenly. It goes without saying that many of us don't see Mary as a myth, but as our mother (Notre Dame!). Whatever happend to at least being culturally sensitive? But I am going to answer you as if you are asking seriously, because I really don't want to believe that you are as big a jerk as you coming off.

No, Mary was not raped. If you take the Chirsitain story seriously, (a) she did not have physical relations, and (b) as soon as it was announced that she was chosen to bear the Messiah, she said "be it to me according to your word." No physical act, plus willing consent to be made pregnant. You are not even in the world of rape. On the other hand, if you don't take the story seriously, then we have no idea whatsoever about any of it, but the simplest alternative explantation would obvioiusly be that her fiance was the father.

As far as omniscient v. omnipotent, I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself. Whether or not you believe in God, the system is premised on the idea that God is completely outside of time, i.e., eternal. If God willed X and not Y to happen, and X and not Y, in fact, happens as He knew it would, then both his omnipotence and omniscence are intact. If you came before Him before X happend and said, "But ha! You can't make Y happen!" He would just reply, "I knew you would ask me that, but I don't want Y to happen, I want X to happen, and it will." Not sure how you beat him there.

As far as free will v. omnipotence there is a difference between active and permissive will. I can let something happen without desiring that it happen. I let my kids fight a little bit so they can learn patience and self-control, but I don't want them fighting. God can be all powerful and permit us to make choices. His omniscience is also not threatened because He is outside of time and does not experience our choices sequentially but rather knows all things at once, not because he forces us to do it, but because he does not have to wait around and see what we will do.

His goodness is not threatened by creating beings with free will because he did not create evil, but something good with a free will. His goodness is also not threatened by their remaining in existence because, like a parent--he can bring something better out of the evil that is chosen. That is the hope anyway, but there is no reason to reject it as illogical, its not. Its moe like complex physics: all the math works out if you make certain assumptions at the begining (like multiple dimensions), quite apart from whether those dimensions actually exist.

its hard to argue against something that has no boundaries and to also place truth into it. You yourself are making some quite extraordinary assumptions. I am not being a jerk and that is not my intention.

 

[PLACforever]

Where are the PR people.

Trying to remember their password for CareerBuilder.com

Are people this freakin dumb?

Yes, loads. The scary thing is when someone with enough clout to run for public office is.

 

[Canton_Irish]

This is a left wing desperation story to try to stop Romney's momentum... the guy didnt phrase what he said well, but his view is certainly in line with traditional Christianity and specifically Catholicism. Two wrongs never make a right, whether its kids on a playground or having an abortion after a horrific act like a rape. Unless the child is guilty of the wrong committed, it is illogical to hold s/he responsible. Our Lord preached that we do the most for those that have least. The innocent child deserves advocation since they cant defend themselves and have no voice.

 

[Domina Nostra]

its hard to argue against something that has no boundaries and to also place truth into it. You yourself are making some quite extraordinary assumptions. I am not being a jerk and that is not my intention.

It's a metaphysical argument about the nature God--not a recipe for rye bread--the claims are going to be extraordinary. You can't just jump into a metaphysical argument at the center of Western Civilization, assume that you are smarter than Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, etc., and deconstruct their argument in a few sentences. And you can't expect a full reply in a few sentences.

Repeatedly asking whether Mary was raped to a Catholic is about as offensive as you can possibly be. If you really didn't know that you should feel fortunate that you found out on a non-hostile website.

 

[BGIF]

It's a metaphysical argument about the nature God--not a recipe for rye bread--the claims are going to be extraordinary. You can't just jump into a metaphysical argument at the center of Western Civilization, assume that you are smarter than Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, etc., and deconstruct their argument in a few sentences. And you can't expect a full reply in a few sentences.

Repeatedly asking whether Mary was raped to a Catholic is about as offensive as you can possibly be. If you really didn't know that you should feel fortunate that you found out on a non-hostile website.

Really? When I first heard that subject raised it was in religion class in my Catholic high school. Rather than respond with a smug line like "because Aristotle said so" the brother encouraged discussion.

Every day people on this board jump into argument and are smarter than Kelly, Stoops, Meyer, Obama, and Romney, why should Aristotle and friends be immune to similar discussion?

Rape was the original title of this thread. Exercise of free will and consent in initiating a pregnancy and continuing it or not under those conditions and who makes that determination be it woman, man, or politician, devout or not, is relevant. As is Cackalacky's poignant example.

Had Mary said no way and chosen the bible's morning after pill, a concoction to expel unwanted seed made from the scrapings off the temple floor, would Western Civilization be known as Middle Eastern Civilization? Would we all be writing from right to left?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

The Blessed Virgin Mary should not be part of the conversation.

 

[DSully1995]

Really? When I first heard that subject raised it was in religion class in my Catholic high school. Rather than respond with a smug line like "because Aristotle said so" the brother encouraged discussion.

Every day people on this board jump into argument and are smarter than Kelly, Stoops, Meyer, Obama, and Romney, why should Aristotle and friends be immune to similar discussion?

Rape was the original title of this thread. Exercise of free will and consent in initiating a pregnancy and continuing it or not under those conditions and who makes that determination be it woman, man, or politician, devout or not, is relevant. As is Cackalacky's poignant example.

Had Mary said no way and chosen the bible's morning after pill, a concoction to expel unwanted seed made from the scrapings off the temple floor, would Western Civilization be known as Middle Eastern Civilization? Would we all be writing from right to left?

Nice points, fun nugget about your bolded statement, Arab influence is already huge in western civilization, in the dark days of the christianity, the Arab world was leading the way in math,science, etc. Your probly all know this but hence the terms Arabic numerals, Algebra, algorithme. My daily rant of uneeded info.

 

[BGIF]

Nice points, fun nugget about your bolded statement, Arab influence is already huge in western civilization, in the dark days of the christianity, the Arab world was leading the way in math,science, etc. Your probly all know this but hence the terms Arabic numerals, Algebra, algorithme. My daily rant of uneeded info.

Actually I was thinking Hebrew.


BTW, I believe "Arabic numerals" originated in India by local mathematicians and were subsequently adopted by pre-Islamic Arab mathematicians. Europeans mislabeled it "Arabic numerals" around the year 1000 when they picked them up from Arabs. There is a different set of numerals unique to the Arab world which is appropriately called, "Arabic numerals".

 

[phork]

Trying to remember their password for CareerBuilder.com



Yes, loads. The scary thing is when someone with enough clout to run for public office is.

I bet their actual password is "password". Or 12345.

 

[phork]

The Blessed Virgin Mary should not be part of the conversation.

I think its a valid argument, just for debates sake.

 

[Cackalacky]

Really? When I first heard that subject raised it was in religion class in my Catholic high school. Rather than respond with a smug line like "because Aristotle said so" the brother encouraged discussion.

Every day people on this board jump into argument and are smarter than Kelly, Stoops, Meyer, Obama, and Romney, why should Aristotle and friends be immune to similar discussion?

Rape was the original title of this thread. Exercise of free will and consent in initiating a pregnancy and continuing it or not under those conditions and who makes that determination be it woman, man, or politician, devout or not, is relevant. As is Cackalacky's poignant example.

Had Mary said no way and chosen the bible's morning after pill, a concoction to expel unwanted seed made from the scrapings off the temple floor, would Western Civilization be known as Middle Eastern Civilization? Would we all be writing from right to left?

My intent was not to be controversial nor insulting, but to ask a blunt question with regards to the topic at hand. If the question offended some of you I apologize, it was a rational question to me among others of which I will now hold onto. As one raised Catholic this also is not the first time I have encountered the difficult questions one chooses to see for themselves. I thought it might raise some interesting social and political discussions.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

To summarize: God is right at all times.

 

[Cackalacky]

I bet their actual password is "password". Or 12345.

I have the same password for my luggage.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I have the same password for my luggage.

I always love a good Spaceballs quote.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

This is a left wing desperation story to try to stop Romney's momentum... the guy didnt phrase what he said well, but his view is certainly in line with traditional Christianity and specifically Catholicism. Two wrongs never make a right, whether its kids on a playground or having an abortion after a horrific act like a rape. Unless the child is guilty of the wrong committed, it is illogical to hold s/he responsible. Our Lord preached that we do the most for those that have least. The innocent child deserves advocation since they cant defend themselves and have no voice.

Don't remember the part in the Bible where God says "I intended this violent rape to produce an off-spring." Is that Leviticus or 2 Kings? Also Romney lost momentum when he lost the last 2 debates.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Really? When I first heard that subject raised it was in religion class in my Catholic high school. Rather than respond with a smug line like "because Aristotle said so" the brother encouraged discussion.

Every day people on this board jump into argument and are smarter than Kelly, Stoops, Meyer, Obama, and Romney, why should Aristotle and friends be immune to similar discussion?

Rape was the original title of this thread. Exercise of free will and consent in initiating a pregnancy and continuing it or not under those conditions and who makes that determination be it woman, man, or politician, devout or not, is relevant. As is Cackalacky's poignant example.

Had Mary said no way and chosen the bible's morning after pill, a concoction to expel unwanted seed made from the scrapings off the temple floor, would Western Civilization be known as Middle Eastern Civilization? Would we all be writing from right to left?

Islam would not exist without Christianity. Islam is basically just an extension on Christianity & Judaism. Qu'ran is just basically a replacement on the stuff that comes after the Gospels. It accomplishes the same goal (here are the laws that God and the prophets wanted you to follow). Without the proselytizing nature of Judeo-Christian religions (Judaism would have been stomped out by the Roman Empire when the Jews had beef and tried to bring the ruckus shortly after Jesus's death), there probably wouldn't be a dominant religion and each region would have their own paganism basically. That's an interesting topic that I'm sure people who are 10000000000 times more qualified than me could write books on.

 

[pkt77242]

I am very suprised you are repeating such an insanely disrespectful question so brazenly. It goes without saying that many of us don't see Mary as a myth, but as our mother (Notre Dame!). Whatever happend to at least being culturally sensitive? But I am going to answer you as if you are asking seriously, because I really don't want to believe that you are as big a jerk as you coming off.

No, Mary was not raped. If you take the Chirsitain story seriously, (a) she did not have physical relations, and (b) as soon as it was announced that she was chosen to bear the Messiah, she said "be it to me according to your word." No physical act, plus willing consent to be made pregnant. You are not even in the world of rape. On the other hand, if you don't take the story seriously, then we have no idea whatsoever about any of it, but the simplest alternative explantation would obvioiusly be that her fiance was the father.

As far as omniscient v. omnipotent, I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself. Whether or not you believe in God, the system is premised on the idea that God is completely outside of time, i.e., eternal. If God willed X and not Y to happen, and X and not Y, in fact, happens as He knew it would, then both his omnipotence and omniscence are intact. If you came before Him before X happend and said, "But ha! You can't make Y happen!" He would just reply, "I knew you would ask me that, but I don't want Y to happen, I want X to happen, and it will." Not sure how you beat him there.

As far as free will v. omnipotence there is a difference between active and permissive will. I can let something happen without desiring that it happen. I let my kids fight a little bit so they can learn patience and self-control, but I don't want them fighting. God can be all powerful and permit us to make choices. His omniscience is also not threatened because He is outside of time and does not experience our choices sequentially but rather knows all things at once, not because he forces us to do it, but because he does not have to wait around and see what we will do.

His goodness is not threatened by creating beings with free will because he did not create evil, but something good with a free will. His goodness is also not threatened by their remaining in existence because, like a parent--he can bring something better out of the evil that is chosen. That is the hope anyway, but there is no reason to reject it as illogical, its not. Its moe like complex physics: all the math works out if you make certain assumptions at the begining (like multiple dimensions), quite apart from whether those dimensions actually exist.

I don't mean this the wrong way, but so after she was chosen she said it was ok. Wouldn't that be similar to a woman being raped and then saying that since it is God's will I am going to carry the baby?

I am not saying that I believe that but your arguement is leaving something to be desired. You are trying to argue a point but more or less making your opponents point.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't mean this the wrong way, but so after she was chosen she said it was ok. Wouldn't that be similar to a woman being raped and then saying that since it is God's will I am going to carry the baby?

I am not saying that I believe that but your arguement is leaving something to be desired. You are trying to argue a point but more or less making your opponents point.

I was thinking the same thing but I am not going to proceed any further. Hence.... why if that was ok, then this Mourdock guy has a point.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I don't mean this the wrong way, but so after she was chosen she said it was ok. Wouldn't that be similar to a woman being raped and then saying that since it is God's will I am going to carry the baby?

I am not saying that I believe that but your arguement is leaving something to be desired. You are trying to argue a point but more or less making your opponents point.

Nope. The announcenemnt was that she had been chosen, not that she was pregnant. The conception did not occur until after her knowing consent was given.

In either event, even if you don't believe in God, the story still assumes an all-knowing God. Within the story's internal framework, God would know with absolute certainty what she wanted before it happened. He was not coming in blind, he chose her, of all people, specifically because of her faith. That is the point of the story. So while he did wait for her exterior consent, I am not sure it makes a difference (who is going to judge God?).

Remember, these people (in the story at least) were waiting for the Messiah. This was not a courtship resulting in some random child. This was God announcing to a faithful Jew that she would be the mother of the Savior of the world. It is the honor of honors.

Luke 1

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.

And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, nd he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."

And Marysaid to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible."

And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

....

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.
For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.

My point with appealing to Aquinas and Aristotle was made by whoever said that we second-guess Kelly all the time and there is nothing wrong with that. While Kelly is not to football what Aristottle is to Philosophy (that would be Knute), I would say that if you don't pause to consider the fact that you are critiquing an incredibly successful footall coach, then you should. Kelly is not infallible, but he has earned a lot more deference and respect than we have.

 

[Cackalacky]

This is a left wing desperation story to try to stop Romney's momentum... the guy didnt phrase what he said well, but his view is certainly in line with traditional Christianity and specifically Catholicism. Two wrongs never make a right, whether its kids on a playground or having an abortion after a horrific act like a rape. Unless the child is guilty of the wrong committed, it is illogical to hold s/he responsible. Our Lord preached that we do the most for those that have least. The innocent child deserves advocation since they cant defend themselves and have no voice.

Isn't every human being guilty due to original sin? Isn't that the basis of Judeo Christian/Islam texts?

That would mean all zygotes/blastocytes/1st, 2nd and 3rd trimester children are guilty. If you want to take it literally in his view and it is as God intended, at the point of conception two humans have created a guilty zygote. You say his views are in line with Christianity and Catholicism, yet you claim babies are immune to original sin up until when? I am confused by your claim/statement.