Reply With Quote
I value both New and Old Testaments equally... they both reveal the character of GOD. The Old Testament shows what GOD will do to wicked men when the time of the New Covenant in Christ, this current period of Grace, is over.
I think your not the one seeing logic. I know you believe more in the New Testament than the Old. But the Old Testament is part of the Christian beliefs and God shuns people who turn away from him. Not only does he shun them..he destroys them.
I think the Old and the New have very differing views on God and there is no way for anyone to believe which one is the true one.
If anything by reading the Old Testament...God is responsible for alot of bloodshed.
I value both New and Old Testaments equally... they both reveal the character of GOD. The Old Testament shows what GOD will do to wicked men when the time of the New Covenant in Christ, this current period of Grace, is over.
Short version: You're free to believe whatever you want! Of course, if you don't want to burn in for all eternity, you'll choose me. But you don't have to!
Wow! What an awesome, fair and just God that is!
Then again, he is a jealous God.
If God is omniscient, then hasn't he foreseen all this? And if he has foreseen it, why did he not make us without this capability for violence?
(Of course, the answer is that he DID make us without knowledge of good/evil, much like an animal, but somehow he didn't foresee the snake. Whoops!)
Not to mention he could just wipe any 'bad' humans in a blink of an eye, and replace them with the theologically upgraded 2.0 version. But I guess he's kind of a masochist and rather keep around the bad fellas that 'pain Him'.
If you really remove yourself from the gene pool and take a loooong look at God's Great Experiment, youll realize that if the Bible is wholly true, God is a sadist.
He created us full-well knowing we would descend into decadence, thus he warned against us doing such things as to incur his wrath.
BUT....he also knew we would eventually, and that he would have to come down from on high and slaughter the masses (lets not pretend what is and what is not the Biblical End...its slaughter...wholesale style).
So really, its like having a baby and knowing youre going to have to murder it at some point in its adult life because it went against your word, even though you knew without a shred of doubt it was going to happen.
Basically, you enjoy killing things you love. Or worse, you keep trying to make something work, that you know will fail to meet your standards, that youll have to destroy. Youre a sociopath...good luck with that.
...queue JJ...
You misunderstanding my point does not make me disingenuous or deceptive. You believe I am referring to those particular cases where a pregnancy poses an extraordinary danger to the host/mother (something which happens every day). I am not. It is my position that each and every pregnancy poses a danger to each and every host/mother, however statistically small. Forcing anyone to carry any fetus to term is dangerous to their health in any number of ways up to and including the act of childbirth itself. The law has no right to force one person to put their life in danger for another, no matter how low the odds. This is all presupposing a fetus should be considered a person, which I do not believe. While I am sure there are many pro-life advocates who logically support sex education, the fact is that the official positions of most churches and their lobbyists are largely against effective sexual education (hint: abstinence-only programs are not sex education). This same community is the one that has sought to deny funding to programs that distribute condoms to the people who need them most. To deny this simply makes you uninformed. (Side note: Sarah Palin, the current poster girl of pro-life is both pro-life and against sex education.) This is a morality argument that cannot be logically defended. The pro-life "a fetus is a life" argument only holds up if your treat every host/mother and embryo/fetus the same. Otherwise you are back to making exceptions and picking and choosing. What you are saying with this line is that society should have a right to punish a woman and her body for not being responsible with birth control. That view is both antiquated and misogynistic. Again, the abstinence-only programs that have been forced on schools are to blame here. Even though they should be advocates of masturbation, they often discourage, or fail to mention it at all. That's your friends on the religious right again. It is a private industry enjoyed by private citizens. I'm not sure what could be more private. I don't think anyone debates what should happen in an ideal world. I didn't raise this point, you did. By ignoring it I meant I wasn't going to rise to the bait. That is neither Obama's stand, nor something I have expressed opinion about. It is currently the law that a doctor must act reasonably to preserve the life of a "born" fetus if there is a reasonable likelihood of survival. The bill that Obama voted present on (not against, and not for) was an overreaching publicity stunt which attempted to use the red herring of laws already in existence to further the pro-life cause. The bill was opposed by the Illinois medical community because it attempted to interfere with the patient/doctor relationship and increased liability for medical professionals. You might want to note that this bill the anti-Obama sect bases all this hooey on was so badly worded that even its Republican sponsor admitted it was overreaching and that those who opposed it were not favoring infanticide. (http://therecord.barackobama.com/?p=2671). If you actually want me to venture an opinion on something, I'm afraid I'll need one based on reality and not the make-believe world of the anti-Obama demagogues.
Can someone mention that just because we don't believe in god, doesn't mean we want to keep other people from believing in him or following his rules. The fact that most Christians want to make their religious views into law, or effect law, for the rest of us is what gets us into a ruckus.
I'm not for abortion but I don't have a vagina, so ultimately its not my choice. I think you should be responsible for your actions, across the board. Unless you’re the person with the fetus, then you shouldn’t be involved.
Anybody who is really a Christian would know that being involved in government and politics is the last thing Jesus would want his followers to be doing. A strong "Christian" political candidate is getting involved in something Jesus explicitly stated not to get involved in.
I couldn't agree more with you Mono.
Personally for me the biggest problem I have with so called Christians and their Christianity is that none of them follow anything about the Bible. I know there are some devout Christians just like there are pious and devout Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and all that.
I personally think that if you call yourself one of these terms then you have to follow everything literally and at 100 percent. Not because I believe in the sayings of scripture, but because Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, didn't say to follow them sometimes or half the time...they said to follow them all the time.
In not so many words..I always ask people who are self professed Christians "It may not be wrong for you to get drunk or it doesn't explicity say it in the Bible or whatever, but do you really think Jesus/God will like what you do?"
I think for me the biggest change in my view about Christianity was when I read the Divine Comedy. It got me to thinking so much about my family and their Catholic beliefs as well as the entire Christian view point.
For one I never really thought about Catholicism much anymore but being that I was raised a Catholic it will always have something towards me. I'm not one now nor do I ever think I was one. But when one my cousins husband hung himself, I got to thinking deeply about the beliefs that my family had. I even asked my mom a few months after where she thought he was now that he was dead. Her answer was probably the epitome of what I think is wrong with so called Christians or any religion.
She confessed that she thought he was in heaven right now and it absolutely floored me. I asked her how can you think that? You know in your heart he's not there. So why do you say that? In fact you're absolutely instructed by the Catholic teachings to know he's not there. He's not in Heaven with God, he's in ...burning for taking his own life.
Not only did that change my view on the afterlife but it also changed my view on how much of a premium do we really put on life and sin. I think religion is dangerous because it tears so many things up inside of us.
My shining example has always been that I've always agreed with the sayings of all the "prophets" that kindness and forgiveness is the way to go. I know they all said that in all religions. But it tears open any human up inside when they stop and think about it. For me it's always been that I don't know how I can accept the fact that I am not a bad person...I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I'm a vegetarian. I plan to live a life of altruism as much as I can so I can help the less fortunate. Yet its devestating to know that according to most religions, I will spend the "afterlife" burning in because I chose not to believe.
Likewise when I wonder about these evil people that kill their babies, murder people, or do horrendous things, how can I ever be expected to believe in the teachings? Is there really a if God is all forgiving like it says in the Koran? Or in the Bible? If there isn't then why should I worry about not believing when all I've done is not believe, yet these people are muderers and rapists. But it also kills a person inside because it makes you wonder how you're supposed to think about these people, you want them in ? Or do you want them in Heaven?
Does it take away from heaven if even a person who raped and killed in their life is able to get in it? What is the price of redemption? I mean the real price. How much does it take?
...............Holy this is long...(That's what she said)
Indeed. I believe it was Jesus who said to pray in private.
How outrageously selfish of people that think that way, the vast majority of pregnancies result in no long term health problems for the "host". My mother had 5 and is in very good health, my wife had 5 and is in very good health, my sisters have had a total of 6 and are both in very good health, in fact, among my many aquaintances, I'm not aware of even one that suffers any health problem as a result of being pregnant (I'm sure they are out there, but on a very small scale)
Discarding unborn children every 20 seconds, as if they were no more than a pieces of trash, screams of decadence, and is a true indicator of a moribund society.
Whatever eases you conscience MaryAnn.This is all presupposing a fetus should be considered a person, which I do not believe.
Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, the unborn child feels pain at 20 weeks;
Does The Fetus Feel Pain?
Summary of a presentation given by Dr. Paul Ranalli.
The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
There are three different indicators providing evidence that the fetus feels pain.
Anatomical
- pain receptors spread over the body in stages: 8-16 weeks
- pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain's reception center): 7-20 weeks (summarized by Anand, K.J.S., Atlanta)
Physiological/Hormonal
- fetuses withdraw from painful stimulation
- two types of stress hormones, normally released by adults subjected to pain, are released by adults subjected to pain, are releases in massive amounts by the fetus subjected to a needle puncture to draw a blood sample:
(a) from 19 weeks onward (N. Fisk; London, England)
(b) from 16 weeks onward (J. Partch; Kiel, Germany)
Behavioral
- withdraw from pain
- change in vital signs
A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.
http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html
But to with the babies pain, because you don't consider it a person.
If you weren't aware of this, then the following opinion is not for you, if you were, it is for you and all others that don't give two whoops about the unborn.
I would classify as heartless and soulless those that are aware of the information above, along with the physical development, who still think it's fine and dandy to abort the baby.
Here's a 5 month old fetus. It's legal to abort this baby. In fact, this baby can develope for 2 more weeks after this and still be aborted...
MaryAnn? Anyone?
If you have proof that "most" churches are largely against sex education, provide the proof of that. (Clue for you: abstinence works 100% of the time, if followed it's fool-proof, and therefore it should be stressed as a part of every sex education program)While I am sure there are many pro-life advocates who logically support sex education, the fact is that the official positions of most churches and their lobbyists are largely against effective sexual education (hint: abstinence-only programs are not sex education).
[
.This is a morality argument that cannot be logically defended
In light of the carnage taking place in the womb every 20 seconds, which you apporve of, you really aren't the ideal person to be preaching about morality.
Your argument fosters in people, both a lack of responsibility and a lack of accountability, it's not the Governments job to make sure that every couple that wants to bang does so while using some form of birth control. What percenatage of people having sex don't know that it can possibly result in a pregnancy? That being said, free condoms and/or birth control are available free to those that can't afford them.
Blaming this lack of being responsible and accountable for those that have an unwanted pregnancy on those that are opposed to carnage in the womb is unconcionable.
Without proof, I refuse to believe that the majority of Americans view a baby boy or girl as "punishment" that ought to be dealt with via abortion.The pro-life "a fetus is a life" argument only holds up if your treat every host/mother and embryo/fetus the same. Otherwise you are back to making exceptions and picking and choosing. What you are saying with this line is that society should have a right to punish a woman and her body for not being responsible with birth control.
Antiquated is subjective and even if it were, that doens't meant that it's irrelevant.That view is both antiquated and misogynistic.
Additionally, it's narrow-minded of you to levy a charge of being misogynistic against those that believe the life of a baby is sacrosanct.
Masturbation happens without any advocating from my friends on that love God, or from my friends that don't believe in God.Even though they should be advocates of masturbation, they often discourage, or fail to mention it at all. That's your friends on the religious right again.
This private industry can be accessed at will by typing in a few words on a keyboard. I'm not sure if it could be any less private MaryAnn.It is a private industry enjoyed by private citizens. I'm not sure what could be more private.
I'll agree that I raised my points, if you'll agree that you raised yours.I didn't raise this point, you did.
(that was intended as humor, posted to lighten you up in case your a bit riled up)
Would this be the same Jesus that prayed in front of the 5,000 that God would multiply the loaves and the fish?
Go away.
Edit: j/k DR
Last edited by jochhejaam; 10-27-2008 at 08:10 PM.
Yes, but you're not Jesus. Study your bible harder.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 10-27-2008 at 07:58 PM.
So, we know that he prayed in front of crowds, and that he also prayed alone. We are also told to pray without ceasing. What can we derive from all of this? That their is a time for public prayer, and also a time for private prayer.
Glad to see that your into the Scripture Pix, and telling me to study my Bible harder is good advice, I'll do just that.
You can add me to your heartless and soulless list...I would classify as heartless and soulless those that are aware of the information above, along with the physical development, who still think it's fine and dandy to abort the baby.
Here's a 5 month old fetus. It's legal to abort this baby. In fact, this baby can develope for 2 more weeks after this and still be aborted...
MaryAnn? Anyone?
I already stated I don't personally like abortion except on the cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother. But in those cases, I don't give a how many nice pictures you post, if the mother decides to axe the fetus, I'm 100% behind her decision.
No one is proposing that the life of the mother should be sacrificed for the life of the child, and you certainly didn't get that from anything I've posted.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 10-27-2008 at 08:40 PM.
Here is what I dont get.....why are people waiting that long to have an abortion?
That makes no sense to me and it never will (outisde health problems, mind you). Ive seen the videos of a mid-term abortion. If youre human, it bothers you.
My personal abortion take...I would never condone one, my wife will never have one, nor would my girlfriend before I was married.
I had that scare. It was obvious what her and I were going to do if she was indeed pregnant (shes my wife now, btw).
Abortion never entered the conversation. I just have a problem with morality legislation, which is what abortion is. On principle, I cant support anti-abortion crowds.
I agree. And I had personally never had to go through it with girlfriends. And if it would have happened, I'm sure I would have accepted responsibility for fathering the child.
But I have no doubt whatsoever if my wife's life is on the line what decision I'm going to ask her to take. It's not an easy decision, but it's a decision you should be allowed to make.
My other beef is with restricting sex education to abstinence. It's just re ed. It really is.
This is why people cannot have rational discussions on this topic. You're not discussing, but passing judgement. You want to wrap yourself in the emotion of the issue as if your humanity is better than mine. That's fine. But I am not advocating my personal belief or choices I would personally make so much as I am explaining that from a legal and moral standpoint I do not presume to criminalize or hold myself superior to anyone else. The pro-choice position is very much about maintaining that no one gets to decide they have permission over the body of another. I'm glad that none of the women in your family encountered any serious complications from pregnancy. The women in my family are not quite so lucky as yours.
This sort of histrionics is exactly why the pro-life movement discredits itself. The more you make the issue play like a penny dreadful and paint perfectly average Americans as villains, the more you ensure that you are alienating the center.
My conscience doesn't need easing.
No scientific evidence has proved conclusively that a fetus "feels" pain in the way you characterize it.
See above re: histrionics. I personally think it's indefensible that some people who hold personal beliefs based on things they cannot prove presume to hold power and judgement over their fellows on the basis of anecdotal and inconclusive evidence that does not meet the burden of proof set by our scientific and legal communities. I further find it hypocritical that such people do so despite the teachings of their own self-subscribed dogma.
But what you and I think of one another based on a few volleys on a message board is hardly worth discussing. If you're just here to pass judgement, then the conversation isn't worth continuing.
I'm sorry, was there a question, or were you just hoping for some contrite repentance after posting of an image intended to shock people into an emotional reaction?
My links would be to sites like planned parenthood and such sources and you would disqualify them. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/iss...nence-6236.htm) There may well be a census of church positions on social issues, but I'm not going to spend any time having foreplay with Google trying to find it. Revoking sex education from schools and revoking contraception materials from outreach programs has been a big focus of the far-right. But then I'm sure your next questions would be to prove that most powerful religious groups and churches overwhelmingly support the far-right.
Abstinence may be a 100% effective form of contraception and I have no problem with it being included in every sex education class. Abstinence-only programs, however, are massively ineffective.
.
I would never presume to preach to anyone about morality or any other topic. I was simply pointing out that holding hypocritical viewpoints doesn't help make a case for those who are trying to preach morality to others.
My argument fosters the belief that preventing unwanted pregnancy and disease benefits our entire society. People are going to "bang" and it is in my best interest that they do so as safely as possible. So, yes, I am happy to toss a little of my tax money to help educate, empower, and equip them to do so, especially when large numbers of those people are too young to fully understand the ramifications of personal responsibility due to the fact that their sex organs have developed to maturity long before their brains.
I would refuse to believe that as well -- which is probably why I never said any such thing.
It's misogynistic to think you have a right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. That you don't like the word make it no less true. Part of misogyny is the mistrust of women. What could me more misogynistic than not trusting a woman to do what she wishes with her own body?
Except that chruches have traditionally held that it is a sin and therefore made it taboo. If you make self-stimulation just as "shameful" as sex with a partner, you are equating them by action and consequence. Masterbation (solitary and mutual) is also a 100% effective means of contraception. If you believe abstinence should be stressed, shouldn't masterbation also be stressed?
That's twice now that people have accused me of being riled up while I've posted calm, rational responses. I think it's quaint that women with strong liberal opinions and the ability to reason them out at length should strike you as being riled up.
Perhaps I should have taken the advice of those who posted previously. You don't appear to have any intention or desire to have a rational exchange on the topic. Ah well, live and learn.
Last edited by MaryAnnKilledGinger; 10-28-2008 at 12:50 AM.
You mean what can you derive from it. Like I've said a million times..every person interprets/feels/hears something different when they read. I don't really interpret it that way.
I mean how would you interpret the Sermon on The Mount?
Is my stepdad an adulterer for marrying my mom?
Am I condemned to because I didn't chop off my arm when I stole as a child?
And before you say it..you're right...they very well could be allegories. Then how do you interpret what is and isn't an allegory?
Praying in private an allegory?
Son of man an allegory?
Kingdom of Heaven inside you an allegory?
Yes...and no. I think it's whatever you make of it. I know you may feel the same way but my point is that people like Angel and the likes don't.
This is a question I couldn't fathom for a long time myself. I think most Americans have a deep sense of personal responsibility. On one level we balk at anyone being irresponsible enough to allow themselves to get to this position. I think the late-term abortion compromise is a bridge between the two sides for that reason. And, honestly, I don't have a great deal of problem with it.
There are a number of factors that lead to this place. Some are accidental. Not all women exhibit obvious signs of pregnancy in the early stages and still others have such irregular cycles and issues that it's hard to say. Still others are obviously personal responsibility issues that stem from basic denial to social fear, etc. These are the types of factors that we, hopefully, can address through education and prevention along with a reverse stigmatizing of sex (and the role women play in society) in general.
However, it should also be noted that one sneaky element of the right-wing anti-abortion agenda has been the underhanded methods that try to cir vent the attempt to ban abortion by simply tricking women into carrying to term too late to do anything. The most overt tactic is the false abortion clinic. These types of centers, which have been popping up in the last several years, advertise and claim to be abortion clinics. When women go in, they are inundated with one-sided medical advice and literature, all aimed at adoption. If this strong-arm tactic doesn't work, in some extreme cases these "clinics" have pretended to set and cancel and re-schedule procedure dates (for procedures they have no intention of carrying out) until such time as the woman is beyond the legal stage to have an abortion. Before some people in this thread start drooling and ranting about this being just a few cases, I will reiterate that this isn't a huge phenomenon. But it does happen, has been happening more and more in the last 8 years, and should be noted.
The less overt action, of course, is by cutting the funding for low-income clinics that depend on partial funding from the government. Poor clinics can't perform abortions, the cost of abortion goes up and it's harder for low-income persons to get abortions in the early stages since they have to save money for the procedure.
A final element that should not be overlooked is the individual coming to terms with their own personal beliefs. Most people think of abortion in abstract terms, but they don't really know for sure what they believe for themselves until they sit down and face it themselves. I don't think any of us argue that it's a decission that no one should take lightly and should take their time coming to terms with. Often just a couple weeks isn't enough time for individuals. I know this is another personal responsibility issue, but it is a significant enough one to stand on its own in my opinion.
I think this issue, however, is really only relevant as a means to target the need for prevention and education. Otherwise you get into the dangerous waters of "you get what you deserve."
Last edited by MaryAnnKilledGinger; 10-28-2008 at 12:57 AM.
I could offer a biblical explanation... but:
1) You all really don't care to actually listen... I mean... I would be kidding myself if I thought you all were in a thread led "Issues of Faith" for the sake of learning about a scriptural view of GOD.
2) You all are just going to brush it off with some other wise crack...
3) Even if I used the Bible to reveal GOD's character to you all... you all would probably just skim over it, reject it, and refuse to even admit it into the discussion... I mean, to you all the bible is a bunch of bunk anyways...
It's a no-win scenario...
Yeah, I'm not perfect; never claimed to be. At my relatively young age I have lived a life where I tried my best to help others, tended to the needs of underpriviledged families, orphans, donating of my time, and resources. Trying to reflect GOD's love on them... All while trying to to be a productive member of society... knowing fully well that none of those actions will ultimately get me into heaven... only the fact that I've decided to place my faith in Christ as LORD of my life...
So what if I'm wrong... eh....??? Nothing will happen. I'll just return to the earth as 'worm food,' but will have still made an impact on others.
What if you all are wrong?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-27-2008 at 10:46 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
