Religion and anarchism.

[ImagesandWords]

@Eric080

Good grief, John. If that is your measurement for endowing a person with respect, then I don’t necessarily care for your endowment. I induced that you and I probably have different definitions of what it means to be human based on your statement that a blastocyst is a human being. I have taken your position into account (derived from that statement) and estimated that, if you were to formalize what you think of a human being as being, I would probably disagree with it. That’s an absolutely justified line of reasoning.

Also, please don’t say that I am close minded about what being a human being would constitute. That’s not the discussion you are criticizing me over. I’d be willing to talk about that, but you are calling me close-minded because I made an assessment that we may differ on the definition, a simple statement in the context of that larger discussion. I even put the quantifier “probably” in front of it.

I was half-joking. I would like to come back to the subject at a later time though. Right now I have too much reading to do. Thanks.

[ImagesandWords]

@Eric080

Good grief, John. If that is your measurement for endowing a person with respect, then I don’t necessarily care for your endowment. I induced that you and I probably have different definitions of what it means to be human based on your statement that a blastocyst is a human being. I have taken your position into account (derived from that statement) and estimated that, if you were to formalize what you think of a human being as being, I would probably disagree with it. That’s an absolutely justified line of reasoning.

Would you agree that it is a fair statement that one must be a human being before one can derive human stem-cells from the source?

[Eric080]

No, unless you’re willing to say this is a cow:

Mmmmm, Steak!

All I can gather from that statement is that one must be a human blastocyst before one can derive stem cells that are applicable to human beings.

[Ned_Netterville]

Has anyone hear ever tried to argue from a biblical property rights perspective in an attempt to convice christians to become ancaps? just curious about their responses.

I have, in a sense. What I argue here is that:

1. Contrary to what many Christians have been taught by Church and political leaders, Jesus did not endorse taxation nor (human) government when he said “give Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Quite the ccontrary, since his very next words were: “But give God what is God’s,” and because Jesus unquestionably concured with a statement found repeatedly in OT scripture, “The earth and everything in it belong to God,” what Jesus obviously said was: “Give Caesar what remains, that is to say, nothing.”

2. Jesus taught and lived by principles diametrically opposed to government and taxes. If that is true, then those who would live their lives according to the principles Jesus taught will neither collect, receive, nor voluntarily pay taxes, nor be involved with the state in any way that can possibly be avoided.

3. It is entirely logical to believe that the Roman procurator of taxes, Pontius Pilate, crucified Jesus for ìforbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar and teaching his disciples that taxation is condemned by Godís commandment, Thou shall not steal.

Other have argued similarly:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html