Changing my view on abortion.

[Montanarchist]

I used to be a very strong proponent of abortion. Not only did I strongly believe that the pregnant mother's right stood over the unborn, I also completely disregarded the unborn's right to life due to lack of human intelligence, that I consistently claimed was rooted in the brain.

After some thinking I came to realization that this is not proven. We don't have a clue of what intelligence really is, where in the brain it starts, when, and even if it does start in the brain to begin with.

So I am fairly convinced that it is the safest assumption that life starts at gastrulation, after that it becomes a huge gray area.

Neither does the analogical argument "If your father was in desperate need of a kidney transplant, would anyone have the right to force you give up one of your kidneys?" convincie me anymore.
It's not a water-proof analogy since you didn't play any part in your fathers kidney disease.
With consensual, unprotected sex you knew what you were doing, so in that situation you are fucked and I don't see any way out of it.

As for the practicality of legal/illegal abortions, I'm not sure. Would the legal status make a difference? Are legal abortions perhaps preferable? What would be the laws regarding rape cases? etc.


So that's it people, I thought I share it with you since I've been quite an enthusiastic participant in the debate regarding this matter on the board.

And BTW, it' not much of the things I read here that convinced me, so don't try to steal any of the honor. :cool:

[LedZap]

Gee , another one woke up.

[MrJim]

As for the practicality of legal/illegal abortions, I'm not sure. Would the legal status make a difference? Are legal abortions perhaps preferable? What would be the laws regarding rape cases? etc.

The law is the law, and it's not changing. As it stands, murder is illegal, unless it's your unborn child. Doesn't make sense, but that's the case. If abortion was made illegal, people would still do it illegally (yet in smaller numbers); like the way people murder illegally now.

[freakazoid]

I used to be a very strong proponent of abortion. Not only did I strongly believe that the pregnant mother's right stood over the unborn, I also completely disregarded the unborn's right to life due to lack of human intelligence, that I consistently claimed was rooted in the brain.

After some thinking I came to realization that this is not proven. We don't have a clue of what intelligence really is, where in the brain it starts, when, and even if it does start in the brain to begin with.

So I am fairly convinced that it is the safest assumption that life starts at gastrulation, after that it becomes a huge gray area.

Neither does the analogical argument "If your father was in desperate need of a kidney transplant, would anyone have the right to force you give up one of your kidneys?" convincie me anymore.
It's not a water-proof analogy since you didn't play any part in your fathers kidney disease.
With consensual, unprotected sex you knew what you were doing, so in that situation you are fucked and I don't see any way out of it.

As for the practicality of legal/illegal abortions, I'm not sure. Would the legal status make a difference? Are legal abortions perhaps preferable? What would be the laws regarding rape cases? etc.


So that's it people, I thought I share it with you since I've been quite an enthusiastic participant in the debate regarding this matter on the board.

And BTW, it' not much of the things I read here that convinced me, so don't try to steal any of the honor. :cool:

RE: "So I am fairly convinced that it is the safest assumption that life starts at gastrulation, after that it becomes a huge gray area."

I totally agree, we DO NOT know when the first moment of life begins; so it is best to assume at the point of gastrulation, or for me, I believe in life at conception. Either way, anything less is, under the vast majority of circumstances, nothing but murder.

[ballzack]

RE: "So I am fairly convinced that it is the safest assumption that life starts at gastrulation, after that it becomes a huge gray area."

I totally agree, we DO NOT know when the first moment of life begins; so it is best to assume at the point of gastrulation, or for me, I believe in life at conception. Either way, anything less is, under the vast majority of circumstances, nothing but murder.

Agreed.

I just hope some day it is not accepted that life begins as sperm. If so, I am guilty of murdering billions of those little rascals! :eek:

[hitekredneck]

Agreed.

I just hope some day it is not accepted that life begins as sperm. If so, I am guilty of murdering billions of those little rascals! :eek:

along with every other male on the planet :D

[microman]

lol

But they really can't do that since ejaculation is a natural thing that can't be stopped whether you play with yourself or not.

[beelzebub]

I used to be a very strong proponent of abortion. Not only did I strongly believe that the pregnant mother's right stood over the unborn, I also completely disregarded the unborn's right to life due to lack of human intelligence, that I consistently claimed was rooted in the brain.
After some thinking I came to realization that this is not proven. We don't have a clue of what intelligence really is, where in the brain it starts, when, and even if it does start in the brain to begin with.
So I am fairly bla bla bla to steal any of the honor. :cool:

Ok so now you don't believe in abortion because your shotty, so called "theory" has fallen through. How about looking at another reason to keep abortion safe and legal: You cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body and we don't want government control over what a person can do with his or her body. You can still think that abortion is homicide, thats its wrong and not good and all that bull shit. But ... dont sit on a high horse like many of these ass holes in here and tell a woman what she can and cannot decide.

[hitekredneck]

Ok so now you don't believe in abortion because your shotty, so called "theory" has fallen through. How about looking at another reason to keep abortion safe and legal: You cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body and we don't want government control over what a person can do with his or her body. You can still think that abortion is homicide, thats its wrong and not good and all that bull shit. But ... dont sit on a high horse like many of these ass holes in here and tell a woman what she can and cannot decide.

to be fair, bub, monty didn't say whether abortion should be legal or not, he only said that his personal stance on abortion has changed...

[Montanarchist]

to be fair, bub, monty didn't say whether abortion should be legal or not, he only said that his personal stance on abortion has changed...

Exactly, I'm not convinced what the legal status of abortion should be.


You cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body

From a strictly moral perspective: I'm all for that, if you don't want no babies, don't have them, no one should ever be able to tell you anything else.
But life begins at gastrulation, so any decision you want to make regarding this has to be made before you fuck, after that the baby is present.

[freakazoid]

Ok so now you don't believe in abortion because your shotty, so called "theory" has fallen through. How about looking at another reason to keep abortion safe and legal: You cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body and we don't want government control over what a person can do with his or her body. You can still think that abortion is homicide, thats its wrong and not good and all that bull shit. But ... dont sit on a high horse like many of these ass holes in here and tell a woman what she can and cannot decide.

RE: " You cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body"

Yes you can, ignorant mensa boy. In fact, we already do in case you haven't noticed...

What a women cannot do with her body as ordered by law:

- Fill it full of illegal drugs,

- Fill it full of illegal drugs and drive a car,

- Fill it full of alcohol and drive a car,

- Use it to pick up a bat and kill a person walking down the street,

- Walk down the street and perform a strip show for kids in a park,

- Carry an illegal weapon hidden on her body concealed,

Get my point, beelzedumb? There are already reasonable laws in place that control what a women can do with her body. I wonder if you ever use your brain!

...remember, we are mensa...we're smarter than you!

[WhiteRaven]

- Fill it full of illegal drugs,


should be legal, because the government isn't there to protect people from their own idiocy.



- Fill it full of illegal drugs and drive a car,
- Fill it full of alcohol and drive a car,
- Use it to pick up a bat and kill a person walking down the street,

All these have more to do with what can be done with the bodies of other people.


- Walk down the street and perform a strip show for kids in a park,


How would it harm the kids really? unless she raped them.


- Carry an illegal weapon hidden on her body concealed,

As long as she's not using it to stab any innocent people, I don't see the problem.

[Carrot]

Ok so now you don't believe in abortion because your shotty, so called "theory" has fallen through. How about looking at another reason to keep abortion safe and legal: You cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body and we don't want government control over what a person can do with his or her body. You can still think that abortion is homicide, thats its wrong and not good and all that bull shit. But ... dont sit on a high horse like many of these ass holes in here and tell a woman what she can and cannot decide.


She can choose whether or not to have a baby, it's called a condom. There is also the pill aswell as other female contraceptives. 'oh but they aren't 100% effective', well show me a woman who got pregnant when on the pill and whose partner used a condom, it's blatently obvious enough people aren't bothering with either. We aren't exactly forcing her to get pregnant because we have a shortage of people.

However, the issue of rape is a trickyer one.

The goverment can tell you what to do with your body if it is going to harm someone else, and in this case, kill someone.

I think abortion is wrong, and ideally it shouldn't happen. However, the issue of outlawing it is an issue because retards will continue to get unplanned pregancies and insist that it's just not conveneint for them at this time/daddy won't like it. They'll then either have it done abroad/homemade abortions.

Also if cases were different for rapes this would lead to a whole load of women being allegedly 'raped'.

That said however, I wouldn't hold it against someone if they had had an abortion. They're having it drilled into them that if the don't then they are somehow succumbing to evil, evil men (and religions) who think they're only good for popping out babies and ironing. Just as long as the ydon't have an abortion when we're in a relationship. But I won't have that problem to begin with, because I won't get anyone pregnant until I want to.

[DressUpYourPet]

If life were a cake walk your advice is 100% true. Have you adopted any unwanted babies? If not, let the mother decide. The truth is life is mostly not pleasant. In fact, for 99.9% of us its a piece of shit and death is probably a deliverance.

Adopt somebody and try to make it better, or shut the Hell up.

[Carrot]

If life were a cake walk your advice is 100% true. Have you adopted any unwanted babies? If not, let the mother decide. The truth is life is mostly not pleasant. In fact, for 99.9% of us its a piece of shit and death is probably a deliverance.

Adopt somebody and try to make it better, or shut the Hell up.

So you're saying women have abortions because they're worried the child they don't want (and are going to prevent from being born) might have to wait a while before being adopted?

Bull shit.

[General Septem]

If life were a cake walk your advice is 100% true. Have you adopted any unwanted babies? If not, let the mother decide. The truth is life is mostly not pleasant. In fact, for 99.9% of us its a piece of shit and death is probably a deliverance.

Adopt somebody and try to make it better, or shut the Hell up.

Dude, seriously, this thread was five months dead. Knock it the fuck off. The only thing you ever contribute around here is creating unnecessary clutter by reviving dead threads that nobody has any more to say about now than they did when they didn't post in it five fucking months ago.

[DressUpYourPet]

So you're saying women have abortions because they're worried the child they don't want (and are going to prevent from being born) might have to wait a while before being adopted?

Bull shit.

Since you're a guy, take a good look at what it means for a woman to be pregnant and alone. All the social stigmas, the endless questions, the lost time from work, the paperwork and more questions from the medical system, the added expenses, and all the guilt.
Its a huge load not all women can or will handle. And it is their body anyway, not mine and not yours.

[MrJim]

Since you're a guy, take a good look at what it means for a woman to be pregnant and alone. All the social stigmas, the endless questions, the lost time from work, the paperwork and more questions from the medical system, the added expenses, and all the guilt.
Its a huge load not all women can or will handle. And it is their body anyway, not mine and not yours.

"Alone" is an assumption and doesn't cover most cases

No one with an ounce of self-respect gives a rat's ass about social stigmas and questions

Lost time from work is called 'maternity leave' and it's a benefit to pregnant women.

"Paperwork"?? Seriously?? This is a concern?? Not even worth a response.

"Questions from the medical system" ... break your leg, same situation.

"Added expenses"... if you can't afford the basic necessities, the government fills the gaps for you. As for other implied expenses, you should enjoy the enrichment of your child's life. If not (because you only think about yourself), then you're lower than a piece of cum hanging from a faggot's asshole.

"All the guilt"... spare me.

"Its a huge load not all women can or will handle."... and what did they do before abortions were invented? Dealt with it. Duh.

"And it is their body anyway, not mine and not yours." And who's body is the child's?

DressUpYourPet... I have a better idea. Dress up as a whore for Halloween and get gang raped. Much better. :mad:

[MrJim]

DressUpYourPet,

You have made numerous postings that seem to promote abortion as a better option than childbirth and promoted abortion for population control (a myth that even the most childish individual could debunk with a little research)...

So you know what, you need to take EVERY FUCKING THING that makes your life enjoyable: your computer, your television, your bed, car... EVERYTHING... and FUCKING DESTROY THEM.

Because guess what, douchebag, virtually EVERYONE who has been born to this date was an UNPLANNED fucking birth, including EVERYONE who has contributed to society with the very innovations that you use everyday.

As far as I'm concerned, you are one lifeless, rambling drone of a human being with hatred for life and hatred for yourself. I can't figure out how a person like yourself wakes up in the morning, looks into the mirror, and justifies their existence.

I can tolerate legitimate discussions with others on this subject, but your RELENTLESS PRO-ABORTION stance is shameful and deserves zero respect. You come off as an absolutely worthless human being who serves no purpose in life other than to breathe perfectly good air that someone else could be breathing.

So live with your fucking ignorance, after all, it's you're fucking nightmares to face. But do us all a favor and shut the hell up with this senseless pro-death rambling.

[Rise Up]

"Alone" is an assumption and doesn't cover most cases

No one with an ounce of self-respect gives a rat's ass about social stigmas and questions

Lost time from work is called 'maternity leave' and it's a benefit to pregnant women.

"Paperwork"?? Seriously?? This is a concern?? Not even worth a response.

"Questions from the medical system" ... break your leg, same situation.

"Added expenses"... if you can't afford the basic necessities, the government fills the gaps for you. As for other implied expenses, you should enjoy the enrichment of your child's life. If not (because you only think about yourself), then you're lower than a piece of cum hanging from a faggot's asshole.

"All the guilt"... spare me.

"Its a huge load not all women can or will handle."... and what did they do before abortions were invented? Dealt with it. Duh.

"And it is their body anyway, not mine and not yours." And who's body is the child's?

DressUpYourPet... I have a better idea. Dress up as a whore for Halloween and get gang raped. Much better. :mad:

OMG Jim. I can't breath. That faggot asshole thing was hilarious and completely befitting of DressUpYourPet. :D

[General Septem]

Jesus Jim, I think somebody has been possessed by the soul of theicidal maniac. :D

[beelzebub]

DressUpYourPet,

You have made numerous postings ....with this senseless pro-death rambling.

Geeze Louise Jim.... don't you think you are being a bit harsh? I mean,... seriously? These rantings of hate are over the top, man.

And I saw this quote:


"Added expenses"... if you can't afford the basic necessities, the government fills the gaps for you. As for other implied expenses, you should enjoy the enrichment of your child's life. If not (because you only think about yourself), then you're lower than a piece of cum hanging from a faggot's asshole.

I couldn't find the original but ... is this really yours and if so are you bigoted towards gay people? If true, I am caught by surprise. I didn't realize.

[Carrot]

Geeze Louise Jim.... don't you think you are being a bit harsh? I mean,... seriously? These rantings of hate are over the top man.

And I saw this quote:



I couldn't find the original but ... is this really yours and if so are you bigoted towards gay people? If true I am caught surprise. I didn't realize.


Saying nigger doesn't make you racist, saying faggot doesn't mean you're a bigot.

But most people find cum hanging off a guys asshole disgusting much like calling someone a piece of shit(especially other guys, which is what dresupyourpet is), so that man might as well be gay in the insult, don't you think?

[aslan]

Saying nigger and faggot show that you especially dislike that person, as oppose to saying african american and homosexual

[MrJim]

DressUpYourPet is a just a rambling troll that harvests hate for pretty much every living person. Maybe I am harsh, but the idiot really gets on my nerves.


So you know what, you need to take EVERY FUCKING THING that makes your life enjoyable: your computer, your television, your bed, car... EVERYTHING... and FUCKING DESTROY THEM.

Because guess what, douchebag, virtually EVERYONE who has been born to this date was an UNPLANNED fucking birth, including EVERYONE who has contributed to society with the very innovations that you use everyday.


I meant that in the nicest way possible. :D

[yee-haw]

DressUpYourPet is a just a rambling troll that harvests hate for pretty much every living person. Maybe I am harsh, but the idiot really gets on my nerves.

The necro bumping is what pisses me off... Floods the shit out of my Email
with old ass threads.:mad:

[MrJim]

Jesus Jim, I think somebody has been possessed by the soul of theicidal maniac. :D

Let's hope not. Not that TM would lay claim to having a "soul" anyway. :cool:

[MrJim]

I couldn't find the original but ... is this really yours and if so are you bigoted towards gay people? If true, I am caught by surprise. I didn't realize.

MM-kay... how about...

"...then you're lower than a piece of cum hanging from the asshole of a guy who was just raped in prison..."

Is that better?

[Carrot]

MM-kay... how about...

"...then you're lower than a piece of cum hanging from the asshole of a guy who was just raped in prison..."

Is that better?

Lower than a peice of cum hanging from the asshole of a straight women having consensual sex with her husband.

Don't kow quite what my point is on this one, if any.:)

[beelzebub]

MM-kay... how about...

"...then you're lower than a piece of cum hanging from the asshole of a guy who was just raped in prison..."

Is that better?


Much better :D. Just wondering about the "faggot" thingie No Problemo.. we all get passionate.

[Rise Up]

Saying nigger and faggot show that you especially dislike that person, as oppose to saying african american and homosexual

LIBERAL!!!!! *kicks*


THERE ARE NO HYPHENATED AMERICANS, ONLY AMERICANS.

When we all get that in our skulls that we are all of the same group then this racism and sexism shit will end. Until then, we're fucked.

Racism, the leading cause of gang violence in America!! :cool:

[aslan]

LIBERAL!!!!! *kicks*


THERE ARE NO HYPHENATED AMERICANS, ONLY AMERICANS.

When we all get that in our skulls that we are all of the same group then this racism and sexism shit will end. Until then, we're fucked.

Racism, the leading cause of gang violence in America!! :cool:

They need to be described somehow

Man: Ive just been mugged!

Policeman: Can you describe the attacker?

Man: He was 6'2" and American!

[Carrot]

They need to be described somehow

Man: Ive just been mugged!

Policeman: Can you describe the attacker?

Man: He was 6'2" and American!

Lol, from a person who was worried about being racist.

Oh the irony!


Anyway.
Black, white, hispanic etc.

[General Septem]

My stance on ethnic slurs is that they only have the meaning we give them. That is why a black person can call another black person "nigga" and not get his ass kicked.

To me, using ethnic slurs is only really wrong when you use these words to arbitrarily dismiss a person on the basis of their ethnicity or sexual preference. For instance, saying, "what do you know, you're just a nigger". But to say something like "I was robbed by a fucking nigger last night!" in my opinion is not racist at all because, by using that word, you actually refuse to call the mugger a black person and lump him in with every other black person. While at the same time, you are using a word that quite effectively describes key character traits the mugger possessed.

But, people wouldn't even listen when Chris Rock said the same thing, so I don't expect anyone to listen to some cracker-ass like me. :D

[yee-haw]

My stance on ethnic slurs is that they only have the meaning we give them. That is why a black person can call another black person "nigga" and not get his ass kicked.

To me, using ethnic slurs is only really wrong when you use these words to arbitrarily dismiss a person on the basis of their ethnicity or sexual preference. For instance, saying, "what do you know, you're just a nigger". But to say something like "I was robbed by a fucking nigger last night!" in my opinion is not racist at all because, by using that word, you actually refuse to call the mugger a black person and lump him in with every other black person. While at the same time, you are using a word that quite effectively describes key character traits the mugger possessed.

But, people wouldn't even listen when Chris Rock said the same thing, so I don't expect anyone to listen to some cracker-ass like me. :D

Nigga please... I feel ya.
lol

On a serious note you're absolutely right about that, It's all in the context in
which you use the word.

[MrJim]

My stance on ethnic slurs is that they only have the meaning we give them. That is why a black person can call another black person "nigga" and not get his ass kicked.

That one in particular gets on my nerves. Oh, but being called a 'cracker' or 'whitey' are perfectly acceptable if the guy calling you such is black .. :rolleyes:

[Carrot]

That one in particular gets on my nerves. Oh, but being called a 'cracker' or 'whitey' are perfectly acceptable if the guy calling you such is black .. :rolleyes:

Double standards, but I can't imagine anyone being offended by those words.

Also, nigger etc is linked with outdated views of blacks being less than human, dirty etc. So, calling someone a nigger with intent to insult them is far worse than cracker etc. IMO of course.

[MrJim]

Double standards, but I can't imagine anyone being offended by those words.

Also, nigger etc is linked with outdated views of blacks being less than human, dirty etc. So, calling someone a nigger with intent to insult them is far worse than cracker etc. IMO of course.

Sticks and stones. I live by the standard that anyone insulted deserves to be insulted. A black man who contributes positively to society doesn't deserve to be insulted. Stupid wannabe gangbangers living on welfare or in jail deserve the stereotype they get.

[LedZap]

Stupid wannabe gangbangers living on welfare or in jail deserve the stereotype they get.

Why.....everyone luvs them gangbangers...they be so sick.....

http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg345/LedZap/LedZapsBlackFriends.jpg

[Rise Up]

What the fuck is with showing your ass? Some people need to get a bunch of giant 24 inch dildos and when they see these people, ram them as hard as possible in their ass then run away screaming, "IT WAS VULNERABLE!!!!"

They'll buy belts faster than you can say 'fried chicken'!! :eek::eek:

[freakazoid]

Why.....everyone luvs them gangbangers...they be so sick.....

http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg345/LedZap/LedZapsBlackFriends.jpg

It's a proven fact that the lower you wear your pants on your ass in public, the lower your I.Q. and cultural breeding. I would put this asshole's I.Q. at about 17 and cultural awareness at the level of a jerbil...ummm, maybe lower.

[Rise Up]

It's finable around here. 50 bucks. They just wear long shirts to cover it up. :rolleyes:

[beelzebub]

I know this is off topic for this thread but since it was brought up:

Its just SO UNNECESSARY! What are they trying to prove? Spell "saggin" backwards!

Anyway here is a government proposal to ban it. ATLANTA (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294269,00.html)

I am torn with this a bit because it is a matter of freedom of expression and it is not indecent exposure (at least,... for most practice). I saw more ass when I was at the beach.

When we draw the line how far will the line go? I am opposed to laws that intrude into our daily lives.

This has come up with the with France's desire to ban the Burqa (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/french-wants-to-study-bur_n_218132.html). Same thing opposite end of the spectrum. If people want to wear it, can we ban it and still call ourselves a democracy?

[Limbo]

I know this is off topic for this thread but since it was brought up:

Its just SO UNNECESSARY! What are they trying to prove? Spell "saggin" backwards!

Anyway here is a government proposal to ban it. ATLANTA (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294269,00.html)

I am torn with this a bit because it is a matter of freedom of expression and it is not indecent exposure (at least,... for most practice). I saw more ass when I was at the beach.

When we draw the line how far will the line go? I am opposed to laws that intrude into our daily lives.

This has come up with the with France's desire to ban the Burqa (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/french-wants-to-study-bur_n_218132.html). Same thing opposite end of the spectrum. If people want to wear it, can we ban it and still call ourselves a democracy?

The burqa is more of an issue of freedom of religion, something the Europeans have sucked at.

Gang bangers wearing pants like that has nothing to do with their religion. Still though, I don't know if you can legislate against stupidity.

[Rise Up]

I know this is off topic for this thread but since it was brought up:

Its just SO UNNECESSARY! What are they trying to prove? Spell "saggin" backwards!

Anyway here is a government proposal to ban it. ATLANTA (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294269,00.html)

I am torn with this a bit because it is a matter of freedom of expression and it is not indecent exposure (at least,... for most practice). I saw more ass when I was at the beach.

When we draw the line how far will the line go? I am opposed to laws that intrude into our daily lives.

This has come up with the with France's desire to ban the Burqa (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/19/french-wants-to-study-bur_n_218132.html). Same thing opposite end of the spectrum. If people want to wear it, can we ban it and still call ourselves a democracy?

Wait until you happen to see a shit stain. Yes, a shit stain.

[beelzebub]

The burqa is more of an issue of freedom of religion, something the Europeans have sucked at.

Gang bangers wearing pants like that has nothing to do with their religion. Still though, I don't know if you can legislate against stupidity.

The Burqa is religious but also a religious statement. To allow people to wear them is not only to allow them to practice their religion but also to express it publicly. Saggin pants do not have a religous foundation but its still freedom of expression.

[Limbo]

The Burqa is religious but also a religious statement. To allow people to wear them is not only to allow them to practice their religion but also to express it publicly. Saggin pants do not have a religous foundation but its still freedom of expression.

What an embarrassment for France if they start jailing Muslims for what they wear as part of their religion. However, if a woman is being forced through coercion to wear it, then that is clearly wrong and should be stopped.

[Rise Up]

What an embarrassment for France if they start jailing Muslims for what they wear as part of their religion. However, if a woman is being forced through coercion to wear it, then that is clearly wrong and should be stopped.

*cough* Iran *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Islam in general *cough* :D

[beelzebub]

What an embarrassment for France if they start jailing Muslims for what they wear as part of their religion. However, if a woman is being forced through coercion to wear it, then that is clearly wrong and should be stopped.

No Doubt! It seems we have similar mind sets despite our affiliation with opposing political parties.

[MrJim]

No Doubt! It seems we have similar mind sets despite our affiliation with opposing political parties.

I agree with the both of you. It is a clear violation of civil rights.

[Rise Up]

I agree with the both of you. It is a clear violation of civil rights.

They should make it so that the women cannot be forced to wear a burqa unless it is her decision. Rather than just ban it, which will just lead to resentment and retaliation by Islamic Terror Groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

[MrJim]

They should make it so that the women cannot be forced to wear a burqa unless it is her decision. Rather than just ban it, which will just lead to resentment and retaliation by Islamic Terror Groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

Yes it will. European countries wear the same targets for terrorists that we do.

[Rise Up]

Yes it will. European countries wear the same targets for terrorists that we do.

And unfortunately, they make much easier targets than we do. This will not end well.

[Carrot]

Personally, I think France in general have the right general idea when it come to religion.

[yee-haw]

Personally, I think France in general have the right general idea when it come to religion.

Where do you get these thoughts mr. carrot?

[Carrot]

If a tribe turned up, and it was their belief that they had to be naked at all times how would that fare? Would laws concerning that etc be ignored? Would they have to be "discriminated against" when applying for work in a food packaging plant or something similar. Would restaurants have ot accept them as waiters else be branded discrimanotory?

No, these are the laws in place, you have to do what you do in accordance with them.

If a culture or cntry does not suit a religion, then you should go back to where you came from or find somewhere else. If my religion said I mustn't be in ear shot of music then I can't go round telling people to shut it off to respect my belief, I need to make it MY resposibility that i can't hear it, or go somewhere where there isn't any.

France refuses to acknowledge any religion when making religious policy. "This is how it is for everyone here, if certain issues don't fit your beleifs then we can't be forced to accomodate them".

[beelzebub]

If a tribe turned up, and it was their belief that they had to be naked at all times how would that fare? Would laws concerning that etc be ignored? Would they have to be "discriminated against" when applying for work in a food packaging plant or something similar. Would restaurants have ot accept them as waiters else be branded discrimanotory?

What a great example! It begs the question as to what is acceptable. Personally I feel that being naked or even barley clothed is totally unacceptable. It is not practiced as a religion anywhere on the planet so therefore it is a moot issue. Good food for thought though.


No, these are the laws in place, you have to do what you do in accordance with them.

I would agree with you except for the fact that in France, they are proposing a "new law" not enforcing one that is in place. According to my understanding, anyway.


If a culture or cntry does not suit a religion, then you should go back to where you came from or find somewhere else. If my religion said I mustn't be in ear shot of music then I can't go round telling people to shut it off to respect my belief, I need to make it MY resposibility that i can't hear it, or go somewhere where there isn't any.

Likewise those that wear Burqas should not have to conform to those that do not like them or even tolerate them. This stems back to your original point of tolerating nakedness. Interesting.


France refuses to acknowledge any religion when making religious policy. "This is how it is for everyone here, if certain issues don't fit your beleifs then we can't be forced to accomodate them".

But where will the government control stop? Do you really want a government edict that tells you what is appropriate to wear? I think overall that this issue stems to religion as Rise Up had mentioned in a prior post, However, I wonder where he and other stands when the "Naked Cult" you phropsized comes to fruition.

[Limbo]

There was a case in Florida I think where a woman showed up to get a drivers license and refused to take off her burqa so that she could be photographed. I think the authorities had every right to refuse to give her a license. As long as peoples religious practices don't cause some kind of safety or other such issue, I could care less if they wear a turban, yarmulke, crucifix or whatever. I think the French approach borders on belligerence, a forced secularization that infringes on the freedom or religion with no justification.

[beelzebub]

There was a case in Florida I think where a woman showed up to get a drivers license and refused to take off her burqa so that she could be photographed. I think the authorities had every right to refuse to give her a license. As long as peoples religious practices don't cause some kind of safety or other such issue, I could care less if they wear a turban, yarmulke, crucifix or whatever. I think the French approach borders on belligerence, a forced secularization that infringes on the freedom or religion with no justification.

Another great point that I totally agree with. There are consequences to your choices! She should have been denied! If you choose to do something that impedes local security practices. Do you think that they would have done the same for a naked person?

[Limbo]

Another great point that I totally agree with. There are consequences to your choices! She should have been denied! If you choose to do something that impedes local security practices. Do you think that they would have done the same for a naked person?

I kind of lost track. Was this about wearing a burqa to school in France? That could be a hindrance to a girl as she tries to learn obviously. Kind of hard to interact with your peers with something like that on. That may be justification to ban a burqa in school, but I hear the French gov't also wants to ban head scarfs and such in school. You can't really tell people, yeah you are welcome to come here, but you are not welcome to practice your religion in a reasonable fashion that doesn't adversely affect others.

[beelzebub]

I kind of lost track. Was this about wearing a burqa to school in France? That could be a hindrance to a girl as she tries to learn obviously. Kind of hard to interact with your peers with something like that on. That may be justification to ban a burqa in school, but I hear the French gov't also wants to ban head scarfs and such in school. You can't really tell people, yeah you are welcome to come here, but you are not welcome to practice your religion in a reasonable fashion that doesn't adversely affect others.

The burqua does not negatively impact anyone but those than to choose to wear it. Therefore you have no right to tell them what to wear. Simple.
On the other hand, Those that refuse medical attention: would you restrict their access to education because they chose not to wear glasses.

[Carrot]

I kind of lost track. Was this about wearing a burqa to school in France? That could be a hindrance to a girl as she tries to learn obviously. Kind of hard to interact with your peers with something like that on. That may be justification to ban a burqa in school, but I hear the French gov't also wants to ban head scarfs and such in school. You can't really tell people, yeah you are welcome to come here, but you are not welcome to practice your religion in a reasonable fashion that doesn't adversely affect others.

What they did do is brand the headscarf as a religious symbol, and said visible religious symbols are not allowed in school or the workplace. What happens now is they wear either hats or bandanas, which the french are fine with.

While it is peharps a little over the line. I think it's good to have drawn the line in the sand truely far from haing burqas in school, or for tat matter have them common. All they do is further isolate a minority and propogate the growth of completely seperate communities which do not inetegrate in the slightest.

I for one see less long term problems as it becomes less "us" and "them" over future generations.

[Carrot]

I would agree with you except for the fact that in France, they are proposing a "new law" not enforcing one that is in place. According to my understanding, anyway.

Yes there are new laws, but they recognised the fact that having people in burqas running around would severly limit the way society is run, and only widen divisions and alienate them.


Likewise those that wear Burqas should not have to conform to those that do not like them or even tolerate them. This stems back to your original point of tolerating nakedness. Interesting.

But where will the government control stop? Do you really want a government edict that tells you what is appropriate to wear? I think overall that this issue stems to religion as Rise Up had mentioned in a prior post, However, I wonder where he and other stands when the "Naked Cult" you phropsized comes to fruition.

All they are requiring is that where you aren't normally allowed to cover your face you dont, and that you don't advertise religion in schools or the workplace, just like you can't turn up to school in a KKK suit or a nazi uniform.

And I have to give them credit for the future social benefits, boundaries will become less defined.

I especially like the no nonsense stance of thiers with scientology.

[beelzebub]

Yes there are new laws, but they recognised the fact that having people in burqas running around would severly limit the way society is run, and only widen divisions and alienate them.

So you are saying that the government needs to make sure everyone conforms to their view of appropriate apparel and mandatory socialization. Alas for freedom of expression and the right to privacy.


All they are requiring is that where you aren't normally allowed to cover your face you dont, and that you don't advertise religion in schools or the workplace, just like you can't turn up to school in a KKK suit or a nazi uniform.

Natzi uniforms and KKK sheets represent violence. I think freedom to express oneself in that way is not respecting the larger social need. But you have a point - its something to consider about the burqua. If people were allowed to wear them it could cause a problem, like if a robber wore one to a bank with an oozie under it.


I especially like the no nonsense stance of thiers with scientology.

What's wrong with scientology? What is their policy?

[Carrot]

So you are saying that the government needs to make sure everyone conforms to their view of appropriate apparel and mandatory socialization. Alas for freedom of expression and the right to privacy.

No, but when you really look at the situation without all the human rights talk you can seewhere it's going. I realise that comment could open a can full of worms but it's the practicalities. As it went on it would only promote the segregation of the sexes, women would have to check women passports and photos or women security, traffic stops liscense tests etc etc.

Besides, Girls can't wear heels at school, and boys can't wear earings...aiee, freedom of expression!

And remember, when they in public places they can wear whatever they want.



Natzi uniforms and KKK sheets represent violence. I think freedom to express oneself in that way is not respecting the larger social need. But you have a point - its something to consider about the burqua. If people were allowed to wear them it could cause a problem, like if a robber wore one to a bank with an oozie under it.

True, I wouldn't be allowed into a school wearing a balaclava. If you did not know about burkas the logical and most natural thing to do would be to ask them to remove it or be denied entry.

Besides KKK doesn't neccesarily represent violence, just like burqas don't neccesaril represent oppression of women. I might just believe blacks are stupid and dirty, much like they might believe I'm an infidel and will burn in hell.




What's wrong with scientology? What is their policy?


Too much I can go into. But it's a business more than anything else. You are given a questionairre to asses how gullible you are, then pay vast sums of money to level up and extreme measure are taken against people trying to leave or investigate the "church".

[Rise Up]

You know, I just remembered a girl at school who wore a burqa. I don't think it covered her face entirely. I just remember staring for a few seconds before going back to whatever I was doing. Seems my school allows burqas.

[Carrot]

You know, I just remembered a girl at school who wore a burqa. I don't think it covered her face entirely. I just remember staring for a few seconds before going back to whatever I was doing. Seems my school allows burqas.

A burqa that dosn't cover her face entirely isn't a burqa.

[Rise Up]

A burqa that dosn't cover her face entirely isn't a burqa.

I thought a burqa was what they wore to cover the hair or face. It's only entirely for burqas?

[Carrot]

I thought a burqa was what they wore to cover the hair or face. It's only entirely for burqas?

Burqas only reveal the eyes and hands.

Some more info on different "levels". http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-burqa.htm

[General Septem]

The burqua does not negatively impact anyone but those than to choose to wear it. Therefore you have no right to tell them what to wear. Simple.
On the other hand, Those that refuse medical attention: would you restrict their access to education because they chose not to wear glasses.

Except that they choose to wear it because they are taught that women who don't are whores, and that only her husband (read: owner) is allowed to see any part of her.

I don't get the hostility toward Christianity while at the same time defending such a hateful and misogynist religion. I'm not saying Christianity didn't use to be hateful and misogynist, but Islam still is.

[Rise Up]

Except that they choose to wear it because they are taught that women who don't are whores, and that only her husband (read: owner) is allowed to see any part of her.

I don't get the hostility toward Christianity while at the same time defending such a hateful and misogynist religion. I'm not saying Christianity didn't use to be hateful and misogynist, but Islam still is.

They think we were the only ones that murdered whole cities during THE CRUSADES. Fuckers were the ones who instigated them by attacking the Byzantine Empire. We used to get along peacefully, everyone, Jew, Christian, and Muslim, but now we don't because the Turks(world's first Muslim terror soldiers) killed every Christian in any city with Muslim shrines, UNPROVOKED, then INVADED, a sovereign nation. Just because it's an empire doesn't make it sovereign.

[Carrot]

They think we were the only ones that murdered whole cities during THE CRUSADES. Fuckers were the ones who instigated them by attacking the Byzantine Empire. We used to get along peacefully, everyone, Jew, Christian, and Muslim, but now we don't because the Turks(world's first Muslim terror soldiers) killed every Christian in any city with Muslim shrines, UNPROVOKED, then INVADED, a sovereign nation. Just because it's an empire doesn't make it sovereign.

Christians on the way to fight muslims massacred Jews to pass the time as the passed through europe.

Those times were brutal.

[LedZap]

If I remember right I believe that the Crusades were triggered by the Moors (muslims) invasion of France after conquering Spain.

http://staff.esuhsd.org/balochie/studentprojects/moorchristian/index.html

[Rise Up]

Christians on the way to fight muslims massacred Jews to pass the time as the passed through europe.

Those times were brutal.

The Muslims were the ones to break any chance of peace.

Every group, except the Jews, was killing each other. BUT the Muslims were the first to provoke the Christians, and the Christians became caught up in the blood lust of war.

[Carrot]

The Muslims were the ones to break any chance of peace.

Every group, except the Jews, was killing each other. BUT the Muslims were the first to provoke the Christians, and the Christians became caught up in the blood lust of war.

Muslims kill Christians, Christians go to kill muslims, and fuck up every Jew on the way.

It's all fucked up.

In fact the Muslims actually fought alongside the Jews against the invading Franks.

[Rise Up]

Muslims kill Christians, Christians go to kill muslims, and fuck up every Jew on the way.

It's all fucked up.

In fact the Muslims actually fought alongside the Jews against the invading Franks.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that if the Turks had not invaded the Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Emperor would not have asked the Pope to declare a Crusade, thus the Crusades would never have happened.

[Carrot]

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that if the Turks had not invaded the Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Emperor would not have asked the Pope to declare a Crusade, thus the Crusades would never have happened.

In return, instead of just taking back turkey, they make it a primary objective to take and hold Jerusalem. In those times all armies massacred civilians in cities as a basic practice.

At the end of the day, each were basically as bad as each other.

When you look at the start of the second crusade, the trigger is the muslims taking back what use to be theirs, just like the christians taking back turkey.

Then, with the 3rd crusade it's purely a christian atempt to take back jerusalem. By which time the initial cause of the invasion of turkey is completely irrelevant.

[Hammerhead]

which crusade was William of Locksley involved in
and King Richard the Lionheart

[Rise Up]

which crusade was William of Locksley involved in
and King Richard the Lionheart

I think Richard was in the Third. He went up against Saladin so....that might be the one.

[LedZap]

To get back on topic...........

http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg345/LedZap/Abortionkeepitlegal.jpg

[yee-haw]

To get back on topic...........

http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg345/LedZap/Abortionkeepitlegal.jpg

I agree, I would love to make a comment but can't...:cool:

[conspiracy]

I used to be a very strong proponent of abortion. Not only did I strongly believe that the pregnant mother's right stood over the unborn, I also completely disregarded the unborn's right to life due to lack of human intelligence, that I consistently claimed was rooted in the brain.

After some thinking I came to realization that this is not proven. We don't have a clue of what intelligence really is, where in the brain it starts, when, and even if it does start in the brain to begin with.

So I am fairly convinced that it is the safest assumption that life starts at gastrulation, after that it becomes a huge gray area.

Neither does the analogical argument "If your father was in desperate need of a kidney transplant, would anyone have the right to force you give up one of your kidneys?" convincie me anymore.
It's not a water-proof analogy since you didn't play any part in your fathers kidney disease.
With consensual, unprotected sex you knew what you were doing, so in that situation you are fucked and I don't see any way out of it.

As for the practicality of legal/illegal abortions, I'm not sure. Would the legal status make a difference? Are legal abortions perhaps preferable? What would be the laws regarding rape cases? etc.


So that's it people, I thought I share it with you since I've been quite an enthusiastic participant in the debate regarding this matter on the board.

And BTW, it' not much of the things I read here that convinced me, so don't try to steal any of the honor. :cool:

Congrats on your awakening.
I've have always made a point on the double standard that exists with abortion too. A mother can kill her unborn child if she wishes and it isn't illegal but if someone was to murder that mother and her unborn fetus no matter in which stage it is in it is often considered a double homicide.....
Ahh liberals , always want it both ways.

[MrJim]

Congrats on your awakening.
I've have always made a point on the double standard that exists with abortion too. A mother can kill her unborn child if she wishes and it isn't illegal but if someone was to murder that mother and her unborn fetus no matter in which stage it is in it is often considered a double homicide.....
Ahh liberals , always want it both ways.

You said it, Mr. Conspiracy.

[yee-haw]

Ahh liberals , always want it both ways.


Aint that the absolute truth!!!

[beelzebub]

Except that they choose to wear it because they are taught that women who don't are whores, and that only her husband (read: owner) is allowed to see any part of her.

They choose to wear it. Whether it represents oppression or not is not the point. But I am vexed on this issue (due to other threads)...


I don't get the hostility toward Christianity while at the same time defending such a hateful and misogynist religion. I'm not saying Christianity didn't use to be hateful and misogynist, but Islam still is.

Christianity is STILL a misogynist religion. Central to the religion is that Eve ate from the fruit and God told Eve that she would be punished with painful bearing of children and also by being second to Adam, instead of being his equal. That's the book of Genisis for ya.

[Rise Up]

Christianity is STILL a misogynist religion. Central to the religion is that Eve ate from the fruit and God told Eve that she would be punished with painful bearing of children and also by being second to Adam, instead of being his equal. That's the book of Genisis for ya.

Does that mean that women should be treated differently? HELL NO. I would not treat a girlfriend or a wife like a servant. No honorable man would.

[beelzebub]

Does that mean that women should be treated differently? HELL NO. I would not treat a girlfriend or a wife like a servant. No honorable man would.

Well... if you are an christian who believes the bible LITERALLY you should not treat her as your equal. She caused the downfall of humanity according to god (and his bible).

[MrJim]

Well... if you are an christian who believes the bible LITERALLY you should not treat her as your equal. She caused the downfall of humanity according to god (and his bible).

I think it's taking it literally that causes you not to believe in a higher power... oh, and the gay thing, the book sort of frowns on that as well.

I consider myself a Christian simply because praying in his name has shown me too many blessings for me to believe they are coincidences, but I don't think the Bible is to be taken that literal at all. I'm going to post a new thread soon that should give a good idea as to what I believe and why I believe that way.

[beelzebub]

I think it's taking it literally that causes you not to believe in a higher power... oh, and the gay thing, the book sort of frowns on that as well.

Not at all Jim. I have many questions about the definition of "god" in addition to questions of sexuality. To be honest, I became an "atheist" long before I accepted my sexuality. In actuality my non-belief in a higer power came as a result of thinking analytically about the proposition of a "higher power" and its constructs (eg Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omnibelovencene to name a few). It has nothing to do with my sexuality.


I consider myself a Christian simply because praying in his name has shown me too many blessings for me to believe they are coincidences, but I don't think the Bible is to be taken that literal at all. I'm going to post a new thread soon that should give a good idea as to what I believe and why I believe that way.

Perhaps you put fourth action to your desires and they came to fruition instead of divine intervention acting on your behalf? What is the saying?: "God only helps those that help themselves."

I applaud your non-literal iinterpretation of the bible. It is congurent with the teaching of Jesus who spoke in parables. Being the "son" of god one would assume "like father like son". So many theists do not do this.

[MrJim]

Not at all Jim. I have many questions about the definition of "god" in addition to questions of sexuality. To be honest, I became an "atheist" long before I accepted my sexuality. In actuality my non-belief in a higer power came as a result of thinking analytically about the proposition of a "higher power" and its constructs (eg Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omnibelovencene to name a few). It has nothing to do with my sexuality.

What analysis yields that conclusion? Not a trick question BTW, it's just that from what I've noticed, many from a scientific background claim that the scientific method disproves God, afterlife, ghosts, and many other metaphysical ideals. In reality, the only solid evidence against any of the above could be witnessed (or not) in death, which is unhelpful for obvious reasons. ;) A common trait among those who deny such principles is a strong hatred for a particular religion and its teachings. Actually, I don't think religion holds many more answers than we can find using simple reasoning.


Perhaps you put fourth action to your desires and they came to fruition instead of divine intervention acting on your behalf? What is the saying?: "God only helps those that help themselves."

Nope. I sat on my ass while very improbable things happened. I can go into detail if need be.


I applaud your non-literal iinterpretation of the bible. It is congurent with the teaching of Jesus who spoke in parables. Bering the "son" of god one would assume "like father like son" but so many do not.

I often ask how anyone, even the most gullible of nature, can interpret the Bible literally. I think it makes more sense to believe in a creator when you convert the imagery into life lessons. Of course, most of us learn the same lessons through our human development, but talking 2,000 years ago (new testament alone), it was simpler times and we had such little understanding of the way things worked back then.

[beelzebub]

What analysis yields that conclusion?

Here is one that I can offer this evening. We can discuss more later.

You accept that god knows past, present and future (all knowing). You also accept that god is all good (Omnibelovencene) and all powerful (Omnipotence), you also believe that god created us all, and you believe in a hell. How then can a god knowingly allow a being to come into existence with the understanding that a non-believer will not accept god and burn in hell forever and still be an all good? It knows that the non-beliver will make the choices it does and will end up in hell. How can any compassionate god do such a thing?


I often ask how anyone, even the most gullible of nature, can interpret the Bible literally. I think it makes more sense to believe in a creator when you convert the imagery into life lessons. Of course, most of us learn the same lessons through our human development, but talking 2,000 years ago (new testament alone), it was simpler times and we had such little understanding of the way things worked back then.

I agree.

[MrJim]

You accept that god knows past, present and future (all knowing).

Maybe. Haven't asked him about it and don't want to know actually.


You also accept that god is all good (Omnibelovencene) and all powerful (Omnipotence), you also believe that god created us all, and you believe in a hell.

Close until that last part. I don't believe in hell, or at least the literal interpretation of hell. For starters, without a central nervous system, which is part of the physical body, you could pass through lava and not feel a thing. "Good"? I say cryptic. "Omnipotent"? I say you seek God, not the other way around, so he doesn't need to know everything that's going on at once. Even if he does, how many billion people have died since the dawn of time? Maybe he outsources human surveilence to India... :p


How then can a god knowingly allow a being to come into existence with the understanding that a non-believer will not accept god and burn in hell forever and still be an all good? It knows that the non-beliver will make the choices and will end up in hell. How can any compassionate god do such a thing?

Nothing new to read here, I've heard it from every atheist I've known. Might as well be the Atheist Anthem, so to speak. I don't believe in hell, so the concept doesn't apply. Dante's Inferno is more likely. Even likelier than that is a soul having a gravitational pull toward souls of its own type. In that case, it's a self-fullfilling prophecy... if you were an asshole to everyone your whole life, you would likely end up with people who are assholes right back at 'ya so to speak.

My view on religion and afterlife is quite complicated and constantly developing based on life experiences. I try to explore different possibilities and determine probability based on rationality. I can't conclusively prove deities exist nor any other metaphysical concept, but by combining circumstantial and tangible evidence for and against different concepts, I can draw my own conclusions. :)

[Limbo]

Well... if you are an christian who believes the bible LITERALLY you should not treat her as your equal. She caused the downfall of humanity according to god (and his bible).

Just a quick read of Genesis shows that both Adam and Eve took the rap for disobeying God with men facing endless toil to make a living from the land. I think most men can relate to that, basically "life's a bitch and then you die" to paraphrase



From Genesis 3

17 Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return." .

Actually Jesus showed no bias or favoritism either way in his dealings with anyone, women included.


Here is one that I can offer this evening. We can discuss more later.

You accept that god knows past, present and future (all knowing). You also accept that god is all good (Omnibelovencene) and all powerful (Omnipotence), you also believe that god created us all, and you believe in a hell. How then can a god knowingly allow a being to come into existence with the understanding that a non-believer will not accept god and burn in hell forever and still be an all good? It knows that the non-beliver will make the choices it does and will end up in hell. How can any compassionate god do such a thing?


I'm not sure why anyone would selectively say that when Jesus talked about hell as a burning pit that we should take that literally when virtually everything else he said made use of metaphor and allegory.

Having said that, it is also clear that there will be some separation of the "righteous" and the wicked. We see that with the story of Noah's ark where the wicked perished and other parables such as:


24Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field.

25"But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.

26"But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the weeds became evident also.

27"The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?'

28"And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'

29"But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them.

30'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

It's very unlikely that Jesus literally meant that hell is a place where souls will suffer endless painful burning, though it may suck in other ways, depending on your perspective. Being separated from God would suck in my opinion, and that seems to be what hell really is.

Also, just because God knows the future, that doesn't mean free will can't exist. You are assuming that our existence is purely deterministic and that our choices are inevitable.

You must have been raised a southern Baptist or something. They tend to see things in stark black and white terms.

[MrJim]

Where's the part about sticker-burrs... I hate those things...

[Rise Up]

Here is one that I can offer this evening. We can discuss more later.

You accept that god knows past, present and future (all knowing). You also accept that god is all good (Omnibelovencene) and all powerful (Omnipotence), you also believe that god created us all, and you believe in a hell. How then can a god knowingly allow a being to come into existence with the understanding that a non-believer will not accept god and burn in hell forever and still be an all good? It knows that the non-beliver will make the choices it does and will end up in hell. How can any compassionate god do such a thing?

My definition of God if it's possible to give Him one is that he does not want us to go to hell. He wants us to join him in Heaven where all our good deeds will be repaid. I think that all religions have the same God with different ways to celebrate Him. Islam has one God, is it not possible that all of our Gods are one and the same? That we will all, one day walk the same streets of Heaven? I don't scream for the death of Muslims for their beliefs but because most of their religion advocates killing non believers when we are all the believers of the same God. They worship differently from Christians and Jews worship differently than Christians but we all have the same God.

[beelzebub]

Just a quick read of Genesis shows that both Adam and Eve took the rap for disobeying God with men facing endless toil to make a living from the land.

I am aware that Adam got punished as well. You are missing my point: Christianity is still a misogynist religion. It says in the scripture of Genesis that Eve will NOT be Adams equal. This is coming from the first book of the bible and that attitude is the foundation of misogyny.



I'm not sure why anyone would selectively say that when Jesus talked about hell as a burning pit that we should take that literally when virtually everything else he said made use of metaphor and allegory.

Having said that, it is also clear that there will be some separation of the "righteous" and the wicked. We see that with the story of Noah's ark where the wicked perished and other parables such as:

It's very unlikely that Jesus literally meant that hell is a place where souls will suffer endless painful burning, though it may suck in other ways, depending on your perspective. Being separated from God would suck in my opinion, and that seems to be what hell really is.

Separation, burning forever ... whatever it is, it is still an eternal punishment for not following the rules the first few years of existence. Seems rather harsh don't you think? It’s not very omnibenevolent in my opinion.


Also, just because God knows the future, that doesn't mean free will can't exist. You are assuming that our existence is purely deterministic and that our choices are inevitable.

You are right but that’s not my point as well. I am saying that god (the judo-xtian version that is) knows the choices I am going to make before I even come into existence and knows that I will go to hell (whatever version you want). How can a good god purposefully create something to torture it forever? If god doesn't know the choices I make then god is not all knowing (Omniscience) which contradicts the popular version of god.


You must have been raised a southern Baptist or something. They tend to see things in stark black and white terms.

WOW - you hit that one right on the head!

[credulousDolt]

I'm an idiot!

[Flying16150]

Ok so now you don't believe in abortion because your shotty, so called "theory" has fallen through. How about looking at another reason to keep abortion safe and legal: You cannot tell a woman what she can do with her body and we don't want government control over what a person can do with his or her body. You can still think that abortion is homicide, thats its wrong and not good and all that bull shit. But ... dont sit on a high horse like many of these ass holes in here and tell a woman what she can and cannot decide.

So you think its ok to say you can play but not pay , its ok to create a life while in the pasion of good sex , because you can kill that baby that youve created. your as big of a moron as everyone else who believes the way you think , ask your self something moron why is suicide illeagle isnt that telling us what we can do with our own bodies, its not your body any longer when a child is inside , murder is murder reguardless how you and the people you think like cut it or polish it over . its still a life which derserves a life be it how ever long, just becuase its a inconvienance to carry it and have it becuase you decided to fuck someone with out protection please be real what the fuck planet are you liveing on, Its ok in your mind to play with out protection and create a life and suck it down some plastic tube , If all of humanity thought like you we would be a race well worth destroying. Your no more responsible for your own actions than those libral assholes which only makes decisions to benifit there selves. to bad someone didnt suck you down a tube wouldnt have been a big loss in humanity. The most convinceing aurgument for not legalizing abortion lays with in my little grandson eyes and smile, and when he says I love you Pa Pa maybe it is time for someone to sit on the High Horse as you put it and decide for all of those that cant, maybe someone needs to stop this sensless killings of these inocent babys just for the sake of makeing it ok to have a good time. and only someone like you could have the attitude about god as you to justify how you feel about every other thing out there . Hope it works for you. some one sure should have made that choice when you were inside her , bet you thank whom ever for her not believeing in abortion dont you .

[takeshi007]

In every problem that comes in your life don't give I know there's is a solution with those problem for example if you get pregnant accidentally because you are raped I guess there is an another way. Life is very important but of course I really understand why some of you are willing to have an abortion.