View Full Version : Satanism vas Christianity.
Ausinus
12-24-2006, 06:00 PM
Lets see some of the differences.
Sex
Christianity: Homosexual, Extramarital and non procreative sex is a sin.
vs.
Satanism: Satanism encourages any fom of sexual expression you may desire, as long as it hurts no one else.
Afterlife
Christianity: You should do what god tells you to get into heaven. This life means nothing.
vs.
Satanism: There is no afterlife, this life must be valued very highly.
God
Christianity: There is only one true god, who created us all.
vs.
Satanism: Gods are a fabrication of mankind, created to explain what cannot be explained due to ignorance.
Sin
Christianity: The seven deadly sins are anathema to god. If you commit them, you must repent or be damned.
vs.
Satanism: The seven deadly sins are instict to man, they have been selected as sinful by christianity to create dependence on the church as no one can avoid them.
Nature of Mankind
Christianity: We are created perfect, god placed us here above all the animals.
vs.
Satanism: We are just animals, sometimes better, much of the time worse than the others.
You know, I would say satanism is in many cases more logical than christianity.
theicidal maniac
12-24-2006, 06:09 PM
actually, satanists are christians, too
The whole idea of that religion is an spinoff of christianity, if christianity didn't exist, neither would the christian idea of Satan, so neither would the religion
theicidal maniac
12-24-2006, 06:15 PM
do Satanists believe in Satan, then, cuz it sounds like they are just wrapping atheism in Dogma
Ausinus
12-24-2006, 06:36 PM
They believe satan is symbolic of psychological gratification, which they believe isnt wrong.
Basically they are taking atheism and putting it in a religious form.
who897
12-24-2006, 07:16 PM
I like the sexual conduct of satanism, except what if your a sadist or masicast and so was your partner...would hurting them be acceptable then?
theicidal maniac
12-24-2006, 07:24 PM
They believe satan is symbolic of psychological gratification, which they believe isnt wrong.
Basically they are taking atheism and putting it in a religious form.
Yeah but atheists don't necessarily support over indulgence as a general rule of conduct. They take it all to an unhealthy extreme...plus they are that kind of creepy that is just superlame
General Septem
12-24-2006, 11:40 PM
Lets see some of the differences.
Sex
Christianity: Homosexual, Extramarital and non procreative sex is a sin.
Sex doesn't have to be procreative. It has to be open to the possibility of life. Big difference there. If a woman has a hysterectomy due to cancer, you can still have sex, because it's not the sex that's wrong but the purposeful prevention of conception.
Satanism: Satanism encourages any fom of sexual expression you may desire, as long as it hurts no one else.
Translation: do whatever the fuck you want until your dick falls off. Ignore the fact that sexual immorality hurts society,
Afterlife
Christianity: You should do what god tells you to get into heaven. This life means nothing.
Correction: Live a life of love and charity, and you will go to Heaven. There are but three things that last: Faith, Hope, and Love. The greatest of these is Love. This life means everything, because we are still spiritual beings. Our suffering will be comforted someday, but that does not make this life meaningless or we would not have been put here.
vs.
Satanism: There is no afterlife, this life must be valued very highly.
Translation: Live for yourself, no matter who you have to stab in the back, because in the end, all that matters is how you lived because it's the only life you get. Screw everyone else.
God
Christianity: There is only one true god, who created us all.
vs.
And God is love.
Satanism: Gods are a fabrication of mankind, created to explain what cannot be explained due to ignorance.
Yet Satanists believe in a Satan.
This statement is a complete lie. In no way does religion prohibit one from learning everything that can be learned. Religious leaders have been a little crazy about some discoveries but they get over it. It is merely an instinct of man to question change.
Sin
Christianity: The seven deadly sins are anathema to god. If you commit them, you must repent or be damned.
vs.
Satanism: The seven deadly sins are instict to man, they have been selected as sinful by christianity to create dependence on the church as no one can avoid them.
Sin is something that is contrary to love, and detrimental to oneself and one's neighbor.
You realize that you've just said Satanism condones murder as merely an instinct to man and should not be considered sinful. Yeah, real fucking logical.
Nature of Mankind
Christianity: We are created perfect, god placed us here above all the animals.
vs.
Satanism: We are just animals, sometimes better, much of the time worse than the others.
If you want to believe yourself lower than dogs, go right ahead. Go and have yourself put down while you're at it. In the mean time, go ahead and keep ignoring the fact that computers, buildings, cars, and electricity were not invented by fucking blowfish.
You know, I would say satanism is in many cases more logical than christianity.
Merry fucking Christmas, you communist fuck. Go kill yourself.
Ausinus
12-25-2006, 12:20 AM
Translation: do whatever the fuck you want until your dick falls off. Ignore the fact that sexual immorality hurts society
It doesnt condone promiscuity, it condones personal freedom.
Correction: Live a life of love and charity, and you will go to Heaven. There are but three things that last: Faith, Hope, and Love. The greatest of these is Love. This life means everything, because we are still spiritual beings. Our suffering will be comforted someday, but that does not make this life meaningless or we would not have been put here.[/QUOTE[
Religion is a form of escapism, and i prefer people who do good for its own sake rather than for the sake of god.
[QUOTE]Translation: Live for yourself, no matter who you have to stab in the back, because in the end, all that matters is how you lived because it's the only life you get. Screw everyone else.
Translation: Do things that are meaningful and dont waste your time with frivolities such as religion.
And God is love.
If anything he is sadistic and egomaniacal.
Yet Satanists believe in a Satan.
No, they acknowledge that Satan is merely a symbol of man's carnal desires. They are atheistic.
This statement is a complete lie. In no way does religion prohibit one from learning everything that can be learned. Religious leaders have been a little crazy about some discoveries but they get over it. It is merely an instinct of man to question change.
THey only get over it after the majority of people accept it. The church has always been anathema to society progression.
Sin is something that is contrary to love, and detrimental to oneself and one's neighbor.
So gay sex is detrimental to your neighbour.
You realize that you've just said Satanism condones murder as merely an instinct to man and should not be considered sinful. Yeah, real fucking logical.
No, it permits you to do what you want as long as it doesnt detriment others.
If you want to believe yourself lower than dogs, go right ahead. Go and have yourself put down while you're at it. In the mean time, go ahead and keep ignoring the fact that computers, buildings, cars, and electricity were not invented by fucking blowfish.
In some cases we are worse than dogs. We invent horrible methods of killing each other, we wage war, we torture people. In soem cases we are good, in others we are better.
Merry fucking Christmas, you communist fuck. Go kill yourself.
Communist, hardly, I am just left wing. Idiot.
Ausinus
12-25-2006, 12:28 AM
I like the sexual conduct of satanism, except what if your a sadist or masicast and so was your partner...would hurting them be acceptable then?
They say non consentual damage because of sex is bad. They permist BDSM.:D
who897
12-25-2006, 03:19 PM
They say non consentual damage because of sex is bad. They permist BDSM.:D
Word, where do you sign up. :D
theicidal maniac
12-25-2006, 04:13 PM
Sex doesn't have to be procreative. It has to be open to the possibility of life. Big difference there. If a woman has a hysterectomy due to cancer, you can still have sex, because it's not the sex that's wrong but the purposeful prevention of conception.
Even if that means AIDS will destroy the entire continent of Africa.
Translation: do whatever the fuck you want until your dick falls off. Ignore the fact that sexual immorality hurts society,
So does sexual repression and trying to make sex into this naughty sin. Making people think they need to hide something that is part of nature can cause some serious psychological problems, and even lead to sexual dysfunction and deviance
Correction: Live a life of love and charity, and you will go to Heaven.
Oh yeah...and you HAVE TO believe in Jesus...you left that out. So you can only be saved by recognizing christianity. There's that exclusivity claim that causes so much strife in this world.
Translation: Live for yourself, no matter who you have to stab in the back, because in the end, all that matters is how you lived because it's the only life you get. Screw everyone else.
I love how Christians have to dehumanize anything they don't understand, very respectable trait.
And God is love.
Prove this statement.
This statement is a complete lie. In no way does religion prohibit one from learning everything that can be learned. Religious leaders have been a little crazy about some discoveries but they get over it. It is merely an instinct of man to question change.
Except for in the examples that we discussed the other day, where deuteronomy prohibits curiosty, right?
I'm a stupid baby.
Well, you have a point there
Sin is something that is contrary to love, and detrimental to oneself and one's neighbor.
really...like the FIRST COMMANDMENT?...sin is an imaginary concept. END OF STORY.
If you want to believe yourself lower than dogs, go right ahead. Go and have yourself put down while you're at it. In the mean time, go ahead and keep ignoring the fact that computers, buildings, cars, and electricity were not invented by fucking blowfish.
Hey...look at my thumb.....
GEE YOUR DUMB
Merry fucking Christmas, you communist fuck. Go kill yourself. Wow...God IS love!
General Septem
12-25-2006, 07:26 PM
It doesnt condone promiscuity, it condones personal freedom.
I'm all for freedom, but that doesn't mean certain things aren't still wrong.
Religion is a form of escapism, and i prefer people who do good for its own sake rather than for the sake of god.
Doing good for good's sake is the exact same thing as doing good for God's sake. Whatever you do for the good, you do for God. I do right because I believe it is right.
Translation: Do things that are meaningful and dont waste your time with frivolities such as religion.
Religion is hardly a waste of time. It's meaningful to me. In fact my life would be meaningless without it. If it's not meaninful to you, get bent. I never asked you how I should run my own life.
If anything he is sadistic and egomaniacal.
Only what you think "God" is. God is not what you believe Him to be.
THey only get over it after the majority of people accept it. The church has always been anathema to society progression.
They've always been a little resistant to change, but that does not make them anathema to progression. It just makes them a little scatterbrained when a new idea comes up. They're better with that now.
So gay sex is detrimental to your neighbour.
I've already explained why this is the case.
No, it permits you to do what you want as long as it doesnt detriment others.
There is no sin that is not detrimental to others. Absolutely none whatsoever. All sin is detrimental to others. What Satanism teaches is that certain things that are detrimental to others really aren't, when in reality they are only not directly detrimental.
In some cases we are worse than dogs. We invent horrible methods of killing each other, we wage war, we torture people. In soem cases we are good, in others we are better.
The fact that we are capable of such atrocities makes us better than dogs, who are only as "good" as they are because they're too stupid to know how to hang, draw, and quarter someone. We are also capable of good. Whether or not we are "better" than dogs, we are higher than dogs.
Communist, hardly, I am just left wing. Idiot.
Communism is left wing, dipshit.
General Septem
12-25-2006, 07:53 PM
Even if that means AIDS will destroy the entire continent of Africa.
That has nothing to do with sex for procreation. See, we are against condoms but we're also against the promiscuity that is prevalent in Africa. You can't blame us for that. If they followed our doctrine completely they still wouldn't have AIDS. As it is they only follow half of it, and not because it's our doctrine. By the way, unless the AIDS virus can eat through solid rock at an exponential rate, I don't see it destroying an entire continent, especially a big one like Africa.
So does sexual repression and trying to make sex into this naughty sin. Making people think they need to hide something that is part of nature can cause some serious psychological problems, and even lead to sexual dysfunction and deviance
At no time has anyone ever said that sex is something that is very bad and that its existence is to be ignored, and if they did, they are wrong. If anyone is depreciating and cheapening sex it is you. We do not believe sex is naughty but rather that it is a highly sacred, beautiful, amazing thing. Quite the opposite from sin, actually.
Oh yeah...and you HAVE TO believe in Jesus...you left that out. So you can only be saved by recognizing christianity. There's that exclusivity claim that causes so much strife in this world.
We'd all be held accountable for our sins if Jesus had not died for us. As such it is only natural that one has to accept this forgiveness. But this does not mean non-Christians cannot get into Heaven.
I love how Christians have to dehumanize anything they don't understand, very respectable trait.
Fact of the matter is, if you do good you are serving God. By serving Satan, just by principle you are stabbing people in the back, all for the sake of your own personal enjoyment.
Prove this statement.
There is nothing to prove. God is love like love is love. If someone does something unloving, they are not doing it for the sake of the God I worship. I know the Bible says somewhere that you can never go wrong if you live a life of love.
Except for in the examples that we discussed the other day, where deuteronomy prohibits curiosty, right?
Um, no, it doesn't. Let me say that again in case you're an ignorant fuckhead: there is nothing wrong with curiosity.
Well, you have a point there
Intelligent people don't pull quotes out of their ass.
really...like the FIRST COMMANDMENT?...sin is an imaginary concept. END OF STORY.
The first commandment: I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no gods before me.
Since God is love (among other things), placing anything before God means placing anything before love itself.
To reference a non-Christian example, the fall of Anakin Skywalker (it's a work of fiction, but it's still literature. Bear with me). He put his wife before anything, even to the point of being willing to fall to the Dark Side to save her, and it destroyed him. Had he kept love, charity, goodwill, justice, and peace at the top of his list, he would have let Padme go, even though it would be difficult, and not fallen to the Dark Side. And ironically she wouldn't have died. Now God doesn't exist in the Christian sense in the Star Wars universe, but He still exists as what we call love, goodwill, etc.
Hey...look at my thumb.....
GEE YOUR DUMB
Just goes to prove that I'm right, or right enough that you have to resort to name calling instead of addressing the point I make. I'm not the one who's dumb if you think there have been any non-human inventors or that non-humans have contributed to modern society other than as pets or workers.
Wow...God IS love!
I guess you don't get sarcasm.
theicidal maniac
12-25-2006, 10:03 PM
That has nothing to do with sex for procreation. See, we are against condoms but we're also against the promiscuity that is prevalent in Africa. You can't blame us for that. If they followed our doctrine completely they still wouldn't have AIDS. As it is they only follow half of it, and not because it's our doctrine. By the way, unless the AIDS virus can eat through solid rock at an exponential rate, I don't see it destroying an entire continent, especially a big one like Africa.
Yes, they would, because it is inheritable, so even if they only fuck for procreation, they still pass their AIDS on to their children, ad infinitum.
At no time has anyone ever said that sex is something that is very bad and that its existence is to be ignored, and if they did, they are wrong. If anyone is depreciating and cheapening sex it is you. We do not believe sex is naughty but rather that it is a highly sacred, beautiful, amazing thing. Quite the opposite from sin, actually.
ahem...bullshit. That's what you SAY you believe, but respecting a woman and understanding her needs are not really catholic values when you talk about DEEDS.
We'd all be held accountable for our sins if Jesus had not died for us. As such it is only natural that one has to accept this forgiveness. But this does not mean non-Christians cannot get into Heaven.
Yes, it would mean that if it were true, if you deny that then you are just stupid! But fortunately you are just delusional, because nobody died with your salvation in mind. EVER.
Fact of the matter is, if you do good you are serving God. By serving Satan, just by principle you are stabbing people in the back, all for the sake of your own personal enjoyment.
There is no such thing as "doing good", and "doing bad." There is no clear cut black and white issue where you can draw that distinction. PERIOD.
There is nothing to prove. God is love like love is love. If someone does something unloving, they are not doing it for the sake of the God I worship. I know the Bible says somewhere that you can never go wrong if you live a life of love.
But when I do nice things, be assured that I am NOT doing them "for the sake of the God [you] worship."
Um, no, it doesn't. Let me say that again in case you're an ignorant fuckhead: there is nothing wrong with curiosity.
Um yes it does, we already no that you ARE "an ignorant fuckhead." The only way you can say that this verse and others like it say that there is nothing wrong with curiosity is if you also say that there is nothing wrong with being killed for your curiosity.
Intelligent people don't pull quotes out of their ass.
what about ideas that were pulled out of the asses of nomadic goat farmers...ideas that have no base in reality? What do intelligent people do with those?
The first commandment: I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no gods before me. Since God is love (among other things), placing anything before God means placing anything before love itself.
Wow ...your logic truly is dizzying...idiot. You argument here is just word play and my point is that breaking THAT "commandment" HURTS NO ONE!
To reference a non-Christian example, the fall of Anakin Skywalker (it's a work of fiction, but it's still literature. Bear with me). He put his wife before anything, even to the point of being willing to fall to the Dark Side to save her, and it destroyed him. Had he kept love, charity, goodwill, justice, and peace at the top of his list, he would have let Padme go, even though it would be difficult, and not fallen to the Dark Side. And ironically she wouldn't have died. Now God doesn't exist in the Christian sense in the Star Wars universe, but He still exists as what we call love, goodwill, etc.
NO. that's incorrect. And you seriously need to get out of the house, but anyway, there are actions of "love" and goodwill (actions which do not always have what you would call "good" outcomes) etc, and you want to put those things in the domain of your sky-god. It's like me saying that Ra is the sun, so the fact that the sun exists PROVES that Raa exists.
Just goes to prove that I'm right, or right enough that you have to resort to name calling instead of addressing the point I make. I'm not the one who's dumb if you think there have been any non-human inventors or that non-humans have contributed to modern society other than as pets or workers.
I say! Stellar logic, man...yes MY VERBAGE does VINDICATE YOUR GARBAGE IDEAS!
I guess you don't get sarcasm.
well...at least I get orgasm...
General Septem
12-25-2006, 10:37 PM
ahem...bullshit. That's what you SAY you believe, but respecting a woman and understanding her needs are not really catholic values when you talk about DEEDS.
That's your opinion, fueled by your fuck-knows-why hatred of Catholics.
There is no such thing as "doing good", and "doing bad." There is no clear cut black and white issue where you can draw that distinction. PERIOD.
Murder anyone?
But when I do nice things, be assured that I am NOT doing them "for the sake of the God [you] worship."
If your deeds are truely good, then rest assured the God I worship is pleased by them.
Um yes it does, we already no that you ARE "an ignorant fuckhead."
Oh, you no that do you.
The only way you can say that this verse and others like it say that there is nothing wrong with curiosity is if you also say that there is nothing wrong with being killed for your curiosity.
The verses don't even touch upon curiosity. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "ignore the man behind the curtain".
what about ideas that were pulled out of the asses of nomadic goat farmers...ideas that have no base in reality? What do intelligent people do with those?
I was merely referring to your style of rhetoric. Quoting someone as saying something they did not is poor style and not a sign of intelligence.
Wow ...your logic truly is dizzying...idiot. You argument here is just word play and my point is that breaking THAT "commandment" HURTS NO ONE!
Yes, it hurts people, because the very meaning of the Commandment is that you should never put oneself before love and charity.
NO. that's incorrect. And you seriously need to get out of the house, but anyway, there are actions of "love" and goodwill (actions which do not always have what you would call "good" outcomes) etc, and you want to put those things in the domain of your sky-god. It's like me saying that Ra is the sun, so the fact that the sun exists PROVES that Raa exists.
If "Raa" is the name you give to what we know to be the Sun, then it does exist because they are one and the same.
I say! Stellar logic, man...yes MY VERBAGE does VINDICATE YOUR GARBAGE IDEAS!
Shut your mouth with great alacrity, you vicariously and violently vicious violation of volition and visage of the vox populi. I'd turn your "you need to get out of the house" quote around back to you, but I can quote that entire line myself. I'd be a hypocrite. :D
theicidal maniac
12-25-2006, 10:47 PM
Murder anyone?
self defense anyone? a little gray there huh?
as for all your other retorts...sounds like I've got you on the ropes, fool.
I win
who897
12-25-2006, 11:32 PM
When the clown know's that he is defeated. Will he sulk in the corners or entertain the children. That is the true prowness to the clowns great glory. Even in a honky nose horn, there is honor.
General Septem
12-26-2006, 12:32 PM
self defense anyone? a little gray there huh?
That's not murder. Murder and killing are not the same thing. It isn't murder if you're defending the innocent from an unjust attacker.
as for all your other retorts...sounds like I've got you on the ropes, fool.
I didn't even respond to half of your last post because you're an unreasonable psychopath.
theicidal maniac
12-26-2006, 02:31 PM
That's not murder. Murder and killing are not the same thing. It isn't murder if you're defending the innocent from an unjust attacker.
UNJUST is subjective, so by your own definition here this is not a black and white issue...the end result is that someone dies...there is an endless number of what-if's that we can throw in, like self-defense, or preemption or insanity or ignorance or accident or whatever, but it all comes down to a person killing another person. The commandment in the Tanakh says "thou shall not kill," not don't kill if you can help it...it tries to make a gray issue black and white and it fails.
I didn't even respond to half of your last post because you're an unreasonable psychopath.
because i don't believe in your god, I assume
General Septem
12-26-2006, 04:12 PM
UNJUST is subjective, so by your own definition here this is not a black and white issue...
Justice is not subjective. Actions either benefit society or detract from it. If a man is trying to attack you in some form or another, deliberately posing a threat to you, he is an unjust attacker.
the end result is that someone dies...there is an endless number of what-if's that we can throw in, like self-defense, or preemption or insanity or ignorance or accident or whatever, but it all comes down to a person killing another person.
That is when it becomes not murder. If it's by accident, or self defense, or the defense of the innocent.
The commandment in the Tanakh says "thou shall not kill," not don't kill if you can help it...it tries to make a gray issue black and white and it fails.
The Bible says "thou shall not murder", not "thou shall not kill". Let's go back to your original quote. You said: "There is no such thing as 'doing good', and 'doing bad.' There is no clear cut black and white issue where you can draw that distinction. PERIOD." to which I replied: "Murder anyone?". Murder is always wrong. Killing someone else is not always wrong (and I never said that it was) because of the reasons stated, but murder is always wrong. Therefore your assertion that there is no "doing good or bad" is wrong.
because i don't believe in your god, I assume
More like because I say 2+2=4, and you reply by saying that I said 2+2=5 and that 2+2 really = 6.
theicidal maniac
12-26-2006, 04:26 PM
Justice is not subjective. Actions either benefit society or detract from it. If a man is trying to attack you in some form or another, deliberately posing a threat to you, he is an unjust attacker.
only if you assume that you yourself are in the right. Which is an attitude that religion promotes, so religion excuses murder if you are on God's side (which you already believe because it goes without saying that everyone who is religious believes their god is the right god)...hence religion justifies, even promotes warfare
That is when it becomes not murder. If it's by accident, or self defense, or the defense of the innocent.
but all of those claims have to be taken on a persons word.
The Bible says "thou shall not murder", not "thou shall not kill". Let's go back to your original quote. You said: "There is no such thing as 'doing good', and 'doing bad.' There is no clear cut black and white issue where you can draw that distinction. PERIOD." to which I replied: "Murder anyone?". Murder is always wrong. Killing someone else is not always wrong (and I never said that it was) because of the reasons stated, but murder is always wrong. Therefore your assertion that there is no "doing good or bad" is wrong.
It says thou shall not KILL...it doesn't say ANYTHING ABOUT THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES or MURDER VERSUS SELF-DEFENSE. You really have no comprehension skills.
More like because I say 2+2=4, and you reply by saying that I said 2+2=5 and that 2+2 really = 6.
WTF?!
Again, you really have no comprehension skills.
General Septem
12-26-2006, 05:03 PM
only if you assume that you yourself are in the right. Which is an attitude that religion promotes, so religion excuses murder if you are on God's side (which you already believe because it goes without saying that everyone who is religious believes their god is the right god)...hence religion justifies, even promotes warfare
War is not always wrong. Sometimes it is necessary.
What "unjust attacker" normally refers to is SOMEONE TRYING TO RAPE YOUR ASS IN A DARK FUCKING ALLEY.
but all of those claims have to be taken on a persons word.
That's why we are in no position to judge.
It says thou shall not KILL...it doesn't say ANYTHING ABOUT THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES or MURDER VERSUS SELF-DEFENSE. You really have no comprehension skills.
The correct translation is thou shall not commit murder, and anyone interested in facts and not just being an asshole will agree with this. Even secular Bible scholars agree.
Chigun
12-26-2006, 05:59 PM
The whole seven deadly sins thing is Catholic, not all of Christianity...
Yes, Satanism is more logical. Why? Because most of America practices it already. Ironically people don't really know this and they condone Satanism anyway. Also it fits in about evolution that we're just fuck-loving organizms.
Honestly though, I don't see how you all could choose Satanism as the logical choice, even if the rest of the fold is going that way.
theicidal maniac
12-26-2006, 06:28 PM
War is not always wrong. Sometimes it is necessary.
What "unjust attacker" normally refers to is SOMEONE TRYING TO RAPE YOUR ASS IN A DARK FUCKING ALLEY.
But what if I had raped him previously...what if he was high on peyote and thought I was a consenting woman? Or sleepwalking! Yes..these are rediculous scenarios, but so is the one you threw out there...plus you are saying that it's ok to kill even if your life isn't in danger...so that isn't really self-defense that fits the attack.
That's why we are in no position to judge.
Everyone makes judgements all day every day. We have to. It's what our brains do. It's hard wired into us. Plus, you are judging that homosexuals are committing a sin.
The correct translation is thou shall not commit murder, and anyone interested in facts and not just being an asshole will agree with this. Even secular Bible scholars agree.
Oh so you speak Hebrew all of a sudden? The CORRECT TRANSLATION is not applicable because that is a SEMITIC language...there is no clean translation to an Indo-European Language, that's why there are so many versions of the Bible.
General Septem
12-26-2006, 07:13 PM
But what if I had raped him previously...what if he was high on peyote and thought I was a consenting woman? Or sleepwalking! Yes..these are rediculous scenarios, but so is the one you threw out there...plus you are saying that it's ok to kill even if your life isn't in danger...so that isn't really self-defense that fits the attack.
I said an "unjust attacker". Rape is an unjust attack. Even if he was high, it would be a violation and I would be justified in fighting back. If you don't have to kill him to neutralize the threat, then don't.
Everyone makes judgements all day every day. We have to. It's what our brains do. It's hard wired into us. Plus, you are judging that homosexuals are committing a sin.
Judging the distance between the hood of your car and the rear bumper of the car infront of you is not the same as judging that someone is going to go to Hell because of something they did, particularly when you don't even know they did it.
Fucking another man in the ass is wrong. That's not a judgment. Saying a gay man is going to go to Hell is a judgment.
Oh so you speak Hebrew all of a sudden? The CORRECT TRANSLATION is not applicable because that is a SEMITIC language...there is no clean translation to an Indo-European Language, that's why there are so many versions of the Bible.
The correct translation is whatever the word would've implied to whomever read it at the time, and that is murder. If all killing was wrong, Jesus would have told the soldiers and the centurion to stop killing people, not to stop extorting people.
theicidal maniac
12-26-2006, 08:00 PM
I said an "unjust attacker". Rape is an unjust attack. Even if he was high, it would be a violation and I would be justified in fighting back. If you don't have to kill him to neutralize the threat, then don't.
you are justified to fight back any time you are threatened I think, but that doesn't mean that anyone is in the right or anyone else is in the wrong. Whatever a person does, there is a cause for the action. If a guy robs you at gunpoint, YOU think he is unjust, but when his family gets to eat that night they think he is the greatest. Rape, well nobody wants to ever say that rape is ok, but hell, priests do it! And they are "guided by the holy ghost" or some shit like that. And what if you are a child molester and some other freak wants to give you a taste of your own medicine...is he unjust, still? to the rapee, probably yes, to the rapER probably not. It's all relative to the situation.
Judging the distance between the hood of your car and the rear bumper of the car infront of you is not the same as judging that someone is going to go to Hell because of something they did, particularly when you don't even know they did it.
Fucking another man in the ass is wrong. That's not a judgment. Saying a gay man is going to go to Hell is a judgment.
Exactly, and thank you for arguing my point...you can measure your car in clear measurements that others can duplicate. The results are verifiable. When you start talking about God and afterlife you are talking about fantasy, because the only places where evidence of God exists are entirely confined in the human mind. These are not verifiable things, and so, to condemn someone in any way based on those beliefs makes YOU an unjust attacker. There is nothing inherently wrong with one man fucking another mans ass...assuming they are consenting, it doesn't hurt humanity.
The correct translation is whatever the word would've implied to whomever read it at the time, and that is murder. If all killing was wrong, Jesus would have told the soldiers and the centurion to stop killing people, not to stop extorting people.
Well you are so very VERY wrong. There is the idea in your head, then there are the words you speak to convey that idea, then there is a person who is an individual who must decipher your code and pull meaning from your words. We have to trust our mutual understanding of the word that conveys the meaning. Then you put a language barrier in between, not just a little one, either, but a SEMITIC to INDO-EUROPEAN barrier...it's HUGE. Then seperate those languages by about, oh 3 thousand years or so, so that the original language had time to evolve and change into something new and completely different and then TRY TO TRANSLATE IT!! Maybe you don't know a lot about language but that's quite a daunting task. The book doesn't say murder, at least not in the most widely used translations, and certainly no one can say beyond doubt what exactly the author meant.
Also when you say "The correct translation is whatever the word would've implied to whomever read it at the time, and that is murder you have no way to know what any given reader would have interpreted that as. You are really grasping now.
theicidal maniac
12-26-2006, 10:46 PM
first off Septic...you should enter "was added centuries after Jesus's time" just for shits and giggles to see all the crap your church has added in Here's an extremely small sample:
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=668
"A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible.
From what this author has discovered, the earliest manuscript known doesn't even have this quote. Jesus never said this in the most earliest manuscripts we have. The author used to be a born again christian and took it so seriously that he set out to learn more about the original biblical manuscripts, and from what he had learned through this research was there are some bits here and there in todays modern biblical texts that simply DO NOT exist in the ancient text's. We don't have the original manuscripts, the earliest manuscript that we have is written centuries after 'jesus' had died. In the .mp3 interview, he even mentions to different version's of 'jesus's' ressurection, in one version the women tell people, in the other version, they don't. Which version is true? Are today's biblical text's more true with all their additions and ommisions of the original text's? Are you really even following the word of christ? "
http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=668
"As to the "he who is without sin" passage, while it is possibly the most popular Jesus fable, historians have found that (and I realize none of it really happened anyway) it never happened, and was actually added to the Bible long after the original text."
Also see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001756_pf.html
beelzebub
12-26-2006, 10:58 PM
Judging the distance between the hood of your car and the rear bumper of the car infront of you is not the same as judging that someone is going to go to Hell because of something they did, particularly when you don't even know they did it.
Fucking another man in the ass is wrong. That's not a judgment. Saying a gay man is going to go to Hell is a judgment.
Here you go again parsing words. YOU ARE JUDGING OTHERS when you say something they do is right or wrong. You just don't get it! I am starting to think you are hopeless.
General Septem
12-27-2006, 11:23 AM
Here you go again parsing words. YOU ARE JUDGING OTHERS when you say something they do is right or wrong. You just don't get it! I am starting to think you are hopeless.
No. I don't judge you for engaging in acts that are wrong, just like I wouldn't judge a murderer. I wish you well. But just because I wish you well doesn't mean I approve or disprove of what you do. I don't care what you do. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm saying certain acts are right or wrong.
theicidal maniac
12-27-2006, 01:20 PM
No. I don't judge you for engaging in acts that are wrong, just like I wouldn't judge a murderer. I wish you well. But just because I wish you well doesn't mean I approve or disprove of what you do. I don't care what you do. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm saying certain acts are right or wrong.
To quote Richard Dawkins..."THAT is the mother of all cop-outs"
General Septem
12-27-2006, 02:17 PM
To quote Richard Dawkins..."THAT is the mother of all cop-outs"
Nobody asked you.
theicidal maniac
12-27-2006, 03:10 PM
Nobody asked you.
Good one...
theicidal maniac
12-27-2006, 10:45 PM
So I remember when you said;
Intelligent people don't pull quotes out of their ass.
Then later,
I was merely referring to your style of rhetoric. Quoting someone as saying something they did not is poor style and not a sign of intelligence.
THEN LATER...
"Friederich Nietzche is dead." - God
hmmmmmmmm............
That wasn't pulling a quote out of his butt, that was just simply taking an earlier quote and using said quote to prove a point. Point being that no matter how much a person doesn't believe in God and all that goes with Him, that person still has to eventually meet his maker regardless.
theicidal maniac
12-27-2006, 11:08 PM
That wasn't pulling a quote out of his butt, that was just simply taking an earlier quote and using said quote to prove a point. Point being that no matter how much a person doesn't believe in God and all that goes with Him, that person still has to eventually meet his maker regardless.
So you are saying that we can quote God, then? God actually spoke "Nietzche is dead" ? Is that what you are saying? I know you are stupid as hell but, is that seriously what you are saying?
I'm not literally saying God said that at all. Obviously he can't we all know that much. What I'm saying is General was using that to prove a point (which I already mentioned above).
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:13 PM
Meet my maker! Wow, I've never met evolution before!
I'm gonna agree with the nihilists on this one and say there is no moral consequence, that being the reason why we need the law.
Meet my maker! Wow, I've never met evolution before!
You can joke now, but at the end there will be no joking for any of us.
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:16 PM
Evolution was my maker, mate. You can believe you were found in the cabbage patch or whatever.
Anyway what did I just say; I agree with the nihilists.
Evolution was my maker, mate. You can believe you were found in the cabbage patch or whatever.
Anyway what did I just say; I agree with the nihilists.
Fine if you want to reject the truth be my guest. You'll regret it one day I can assure you.
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:20 PM
Assure me? Why, because some almost 2000 year old book says so? Pfft. I swear if everyone was like you we would be back in the Dark Ages. And I mean the Western European ones.
Actually if everyone believed what I do, this world would be a lot better off in my estimation.
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:26 PM
There was a time when everyone actually did believe what you do; again, the Western European dark ages.
There was a time when everyone actually did believe what you do; again, the Western European dark ages.
I still stand by what I said.
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:28 PM
Ok, you must have some form of mental retardation if you honestly believe we were better off back then.
Well obviously certain things would be different now then they were then. But the main belief would still be the same.
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:32 PM
Ok, now it was only when the church started getting pushed to the sidelines that we started advancing in terms of technology and society. Look at the rights we have now. Freedom of religion, speech, etc.
Technology maybe, society not so much really in ways. We have more freedom then we ever had, but it's more of a curse then a blessing.
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:37 PM
Without them we would turn into a tyrannical religious dictatorship like Iran.
I'm not saying that the fact that we have freedom is bad. Don't get me wrong it's good that women can do more then they ever had before. It's good that we have the technology we have. But at the same time, I think we have so much freedom, that we don't know what to do with it all. You know the saying: "Too many cooks spoils the soup"? (or words to that effect anyhow). The same could be said of too much freedom.
Ausinus
12-27-2006, 11:41 PM
I dont see how any of our freedoms (except guns) has actually hurt anybody.
theicidal maniac
12-27-2006, 11:46 PM
I'm not literally saying God said that at all. Obviously he can't we all know that much. What I'm saying is General was using that to prove a point (which I already mentioned above).
you don't understand shit, man. He said that it is unintelligent to use a made up quote, something someone never said, then he used a made up quote.
theicidal maniac
12-27-2006, 11:50 PM
Assure me? Why, because some almost 2000 year old book says so? Pfft. I swear if everyone was like you we would be back in the Dark Ages. And I mean the Western European ones.
Actually if I may correct, (no offense) it's almost 4000 years old. A wheelbarrow would have been an unimaginable feat of magic to the people who wrote it. But we trust there ideas about the origins of the universe...they thought EARTH WAS the universe!
theicidal maniac
12-27-2006, 11:55 PM
We have more freedom then we ever had, but it's more of a curse then a blessing.
then later you said
I'm not saying that the fact that we have freedom is bad.
You are an idiot. Not just for this. Every post you make confirms it more completely.
I dont see how any of our freedoms (except guns) has actually hurt anybody.
Of course you wouldn't, but some still do. To expand on my point, the reason why I think having too much freedom hurts us, is because eventually you get to a point where people start doing whatever they want to whomever they want not thinking about how their actions hurt them or others around them. All this is done in the name of freedom.
you don't understand shit, man. He said that it is unintelligent to use a made up quote, something someone never said, then he used a made up quote.
Yes but in your case you made up a quote completely, whereas he didn't make up a quote at all. Rather he took an existing quote and twisted it around to prove a point.
then later you said
You are an idiot. Not just for this. Every post you make confirms it more completely.
I never said that the freedom we have now is bad. What I meant by that first comment was that while some of the freedom we have is good, a lot of the freedom isn't so good, hence why it's more a curse then a blessing.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 12:18 AM
Of course you wouldn't,
Excuse me?
Excuse me?
I said that because I feel you're so blinded to your own beliefs, that you can't see anything beyond that. Hence why you don't think the freedom we have hurts others, even if it's obvious that it can and does.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 12:43 AM
If anything you are the blind one mate.
If anything you are the blind one mate.
Somehow I knew you'd reply that way as usual, nary a clue to what the real truth is.
General Septem
12-28-2006, 09:04 PM
So I remember when you said;
Then later,
THEN LATER...
hmmmmmmmm............
It's called satire, something you obviously don't know anything about.
who897
12-28-2006, 09:28 PM
Somehow I knew you'd reply that way as usual, nary a clue to what the real truth is.
Because your so fucking enlightened. Go part the sea Mose's, or go find the burning bush and have a sit down with the thing. Tell me how that works out for you Profit. Your wisdom is all encompassing, I mean, damn you have all the answers, are you sure you aren't god....How bout it everyone, lets worship him as a god. Silly little child, wake up, this isn't never never land.
theicidal maniac
12-28-2006, 09:52 PM
Yes but in your case you made up a quote completely, whereas he didn't make up a quote at all. Rather he took an existing quote and twisted it around to prove a point.
An EXISTING QUOTE....!?!?
FROM GOD?
The quote is supposed to be FROM GOD.
Sometimes I wonder if you can read.
An EXISTING QUOTE....!?!?
FROM GOD?
The quote is supposed to be FROM GOD.
Sometimes I wonder if you can read.
You know damn well what I meant. He took an existing quote from another poster. Geez and you call me dumb.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 10:15 PM
Lets take an existing quote and twist it around.
"A witch shall not suffer a man to live."
Hm? See how idiotic that is?
Lets take an existing quote and twist it around.
"A witch shall not suffer a man to live."
Hm? See how idiotic that is?
This is completely different. He used it to make a point, and a damn good one at that.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 10:22 PM
What point? Its just a bit of a funny twist. Yes I do think its funny, I 'm not completely devoid of humour:D
Ok, when Nietzche said that he was referring to how the church's power over politics had waned. The age of christian control over everything was over - that was Fred's point.
theicidal maniac
12-28-2006, 10:24 PM
You know damn well what I meant. He took an existing quote from another poster. Geez and you call me dumb.
no he didn't. He made that up. And most of the time NOBODY knows what you are talking about! And yes I DO call you dumb!
no he didn't. He made that up. And most of the time NOBODY knows what you are talking about! And yes I DO call you dumb!
No he didn't, he simply took a quote that was there and made it into something else, once again making a good point about our lives in general as I stated before.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 10:39 PM
What point?
That we all have to meet our maker whether we believe in Him or not.
theicidal maniac
12-28-2006, 10:44 PM
That we all have to meet our maker whether we believe in Him or not.
that's not a point...it's a superstition
that's not a point...it's a superstition
To you maybe, but it doesn't really matter what you think. Either way in the end you will meet Him for better or for worse.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 10:55 PM
So far I havent had evidence for this. I will put my trust in the contrary.
So far I havent had evidence for this. I will put my trust in the contrary.
Ok then, I hope you're happy in Hell then. Cause if you keep rejecting that's where you will be.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 11:04 PM
Id rather be in hell. Once again, all the interesting people will be there. Princess Diana, Bill Gates, Socrates etc.
Uh huh. You just keep telling yourself that. But when you're actually there, I can guarantee you you will be sorry for not listening to what I have said.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 11:16 PM
Fuck you bitch.
Sorry I didnt mean that. What I really meant was STFU ASSHOLE. I dont believe in hell.
Fuck you bitch.
Sorry I didnt mean that. What I really meant was STFU ASSHOLE. I dont believe in hell.
As I said you keep telling yourself that, you will be sorry.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 11:20 PM
WTF happened to "love thy neighbour"?
Christianity is doing a bad job of being a forgiving religion.
WTF happened to "love thy neighbour"?
Christianity is doing a bad job of being a forgiving religion.
I love you as a person, and as such am trying to warn you of where you may be going if you don't accept the truth. You think I want you to be in Hell? No way, I'm trying to save you from it. In fact if you won't accept it, I'll be praying that you one day do.
Ausinus
12-28-2006, 11:53 PM
Not bloody likely.
theicidal maniac
12-29-2006, 02:30 PM
Ok then, I hope you're happy in Hell then. Cause if you keep rejecting that's where you will be.
I love how proud you are to be arrogant and ignorant. According to your theology, Gandhi couldn't get in to heaven cause he didn't believe in Jesus. Christian morals are completely ASS BACKWARDS. You can spread peace to the entire planet and it doesn't mean SHIT unless you believe that Jesus is the Son of God. AND ...even worse, you can cause world war three, you can do irreparable harm to humanity and to the planet, and as long as you confess you can be saved...no matter what the level of suffering you brought into the world. Confessing doesn't make the problems that you caused go away, but somehow you it gets you into heaven? Unless of course, your name is Eve, then your sin carries on throughout the ages. EVERYBODY ELSE gets forgiven except her, and you people like to say that your religion isn't sexist! What a load of shit. I can't believe there are people who think that religion is a good thing. Look at the fucked up morals it stresses.
[ Look at the fucked up morals it stresses.
But also look at what happens without it.
theicidal maniac
12-29-2006, 03:23 PM
But also look at what happens without it.
Well, the northern Europe has a pretty high percentage of atheists and is a secular society, and they are mostly NEUTRAL COUNTRIES...so I'd say it seems to help bring peace when you get rid of the idea of an angry, war-mongering sky God
AND SERIOUSLY...THAT'S ALL YOU CAN SAY IN DEFENSE OF YOUR RELIGION!?! ha!! Your phrasing admits the things I said. "BUT also look what happens....." Oh man, why do you still cling to that security blanket, man. You're like a little baby sucking it's thumb.
AND SERIOUSLY...THAT'S ALL YOU CAN SAY IN DEFENSE OF YOUR RELIGION!?! ha!! Your phrasing admits the things I said. "BUT also look what happens....." Oh man, why do you still cling to that security blanket, man. You're like a little baby sucking it's thumb.
I've said plenty, if you just bothered to listen.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 03:35 PM
Societal Regression? Hardly, we've grown if anything.
Societal Regression? Hardly, we've grown if anything.
In ways yes, but in other ways no.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 03:39 PM
Ajk, I really dont value your opinion on society due to your statement that the Dark Age society was better.
Ajk, I really dont value your opinion on society due to your statement that the Dark Age society was better.
I'm not saying it was better then per se, some things are better now. But not all. When we start to believe that killing babies is ok for any reason, then something is seriously wrong.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 03:45 PM
Most pro choicers believe she should have a choice whether or not to be pregnant (hence the name). That shows how far we have come as a society, that we have personal control over our bodies.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 03:46 PM
I swear some religious people take their own misery out on others. They want this power because they aren't happy themself. There is a big difference between being a religious person who just preaches their scripture and another who goes nuts about every freedom we have because they need something to bitch about.
Most pro choicers believe she should have a choice whether or not to be pregnant (hence the name). That shows how far we have come as a society, that we have personal control over our bodies.
But again it's not their body, it's the body of another. Pro choice is so misleading, you're not pro choice at all. You're either pro life or pro death, simple as that.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 03:57 PM
But again it's not their body.
It's not? Their own body is not their body? I guess you assume it's yours then :p Crazy ass sexist freak
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:00 PM
But again it's not their body, it's the body of another. Pro choice is so misleading, you're not pro choice at all. You're either pro life or pro death, simple as that.
Im not pro death you fuckwit. Im pro choice. I support abortion because I want women to have a choice.
It is control over their bodies, its control over whether they are pregnant or not.
It's not? Their own body is not their body?
You know what I meant. They have no right to take the life of another, which is what they are doing. They aren't controlling their body, but controlling another body.
Im not pro death you fuckwit. Im pro choice. I support abortion because I want women to have a choice.
But in doing so you support the killing of another being. Therefore, you are pro death, since you believe that is ok.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:04 PM
But in doing so you support the killing of another being. Therefore, you are pro death, since you believe that is ok.
Im not pro death asshole. If anything you are pro control, you are trying to control a womans body. Sexist asshole.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:04 PM
You know what I meant.
Yeah I know what you meant. You clearly said a Woman does not have "property" of herself. Words of an evil sexist.
Yeah I know what you meant. You clearly said a Woman does not have property of herself. Words of an evil sexist.
She has property of herself, but not the property of another human being.
Im not pro death asshole. If anything you are pro control, you are trying to control a womans body. Sexist asshole.
You can deny it all you want, but you still are pro death no matter how you spin it. And no I am not trying to control a woman's body. She can do what she wants with it as long as it doesn't get in the way of the life of another. Once it does she should have no control over what happens then.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:08 PM
She has property of herself, but not the property of another human being.
Okay lets say the baby is not formed and it's still broken down into similar organisms or what not that reside in the body.
Now lets see she gets has bacteria or viruses or the such. It's a living thing - so I guess if we go by your methods, we shouldn't use medicine either - because we don't have control of it since it's another living thing.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:09 PM
You can deny it all you want, but you still are pro death no matter how you spin it.
Pro Choice is not pro death you douchebag. Learn the definitions you fool.
Pro Choice = 2 Options (Keep or Destroy)
Pro Life = Restricted to 1 (Keep)
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:09 PM
Ok, let me tell you something you little bugger, all I want is for women to choose, get that through what semblance of a brain you have.
You are still pro control, you are trying to deny her the right to personal control.
Ok, let me tell you something you little bugger, all I want is for women to choose, get that through what semblance of a brain you have.
You are still pro control, you are trying to deny her the right to personal control.
No I don't, she can have all the control she wants as long as it doesn't involve murdering another life.
Ok, let me tell you something you little bugger, all I want is for women to choose, get that through what semblance of a brain you have.
But again in doing that, you believe murder is ok. Therefore pro death.
Okay lets say the baby is not formed and it's still broken down into similar organisms or what not that reside in the body.
Now lets see she gets has bacteria or viruses or the such. It's a living thing - so I guess if we go by your methods, we shouldn't use medicine either - because we don't have control of it since it's another living thing.
That's different because some things aren't good for the body, such as those. A human being is a whole other matter.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:13 PM
No asshole, pro death would be "everyone should have an abortion". Pro choice is "women should be able to choose; keep or destroy".
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:14 PM
No I don't, she can have all the control she wants as long as it doesn't involve murdering another life.
she..she...she...sh...sh..s...sexist!
Destroying an uncreated fetus, and using condoms is all murder to you. :rolleyes:
No asshole, pro death would be "everyone should have an abortion". Pro choice is "women should be able to choose; keep or destroy".
Not neccessarily. Even if you allow the woman the option to keep the baby, you still condone the murder of them as well.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:15 PM
That's different because some things aren't good for the body, such as those. A human being is a whole other matter.
Not necessarily, a baby could pose risks to the mother. That isn't good for the body now is it? Or are you gonna have some more excuses?
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:15 PM
I personally say in some cases it would be better, but thats just my opinion. Im not forcing women to have an abortion, I am just advocating their freedom of choice.
Not necessarily, a baby could pose risks to the mother.
But it is for the greater good though here. Nothing good can come from an illness.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:16 PM
But it is for the greater good though here. Nothing good can come from an illness.
Yeah so lets say if she dies, that's greater good eh?
I personally say in some cases it would be better, but thats just my opinion. Im not forcing women to have an abortion, I am just advocating their freedom of choice.
As well as advocating death.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:17 PM
But it is for the greater good though here. Nothing good can come from an illness.
Good can come from an illness. Resistance to it and similar strains, look at the smallpox case.
Greater good bullshit. Equal dispensation, we'ed have to kill the father should the mother die.
Yeah so lets say if she dies, that's greater good eh?
Yes it is, because though it's unfortunate that she died, another life was brought into the world at the same time.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:17 PM
Yes it is, because though it's unfortunate that she died, another life was brought into the world at the same time.
What if she didn't want to be forced to take that risk? And you forced her to her death bed!
Doesn't that make you pro death?
You fucking hypocrite!
What if she didn't want to be forced to take that risk? And you forced her to her death bed!
Doesn't that make you pro death?
You fucking hypocrite!
No because she lived her life, whereas the baby has not. It's not as if the woman hasn't had a chance to see the world. But the baby hasn't had that chance yet, therefore it's life trumps the mother's.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:19 PM
As well as advocating death.
You advocate control and possible death. I advocate choice. Idiot.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:19 PM
No because she lived her life, whereas the baby has not. It's not as if the woman hasn't had a chance to see the world. But the baby hasn't had that chance yet, therefore it's life trumps the mother's.
No she didn't - you forced her to her death bed you stupid fuck.
Where in the hell do you get off saying something like that - you don't judge that scale sonny. Go back to church and get fucked by a priest you scumball.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:20 PM
No because she lived her life, whereas the baby has not. It's not as if the woman hasn't had a chance to see the world. But the baby hasn't had that chance yet, therefore it's life trumps the mother's.
So save a potential life at the expense of an existing one? B U L L S H I T!
Youre such a hypocrite.
theicidal maniac
12-29-2006, 04:20 PM
let's look at pro-life vs pro-choice. If you are pro-choice you think people should be able to choose for themselves.
If you are pro-life, you want the state to step in and remove the choice. You want a government like what they have in the middle east, where they try to remove the temptation to lust by forcing women to cover themselves up, where they remove the chance for drunkenness by illegalizing alcohol (remember how well that worked HERE?). You want a government run by a religious zealot, but not just ANY religious zealot...one who holds the exact same values that YOU hold. you think everyone except you is wrong, and would force everyone to live by your own standards if you could. That's a little Orwellian, I think, a la 1984. By removing CHOICE you remove a freedom, and that just un-American.
I am pro-education. Give people the FACTS and most of them will do the right thing, but they have to hear the facts before they are indoctrinated with the propaganda. That's my stance on religion. We shouldn't be forcing religion down a childs throat, so that when they are old enough to choose, they've already been brainwashed. That's not right. That's not freedom. "That's not the America I know...That isn't even Mexico!" - Homer Simpson
You advocate control and possible death. I advocate choice. Idiot.
No you advocate death of the baby. We have no right to kill another life just because it inconveinces us for any reason.
That's a little Orwellian, I think, a la 1984. By removing CHOICE you remove a freedom, and that just un-American.
It's not a freedom. It's a license to kill. That's what it is.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:21 PM
No you advocate death of the baby. We have no right to kill another life just because it inconveinces us for any reason.
We have the right to kill in self defense.
And, if by your argument that it should be a forced consequence of sex, then why dont we kill the father too should the mother die?
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:22 PM
So sacrifice a potential life at the expense of an existing one? B U L L S H I T!
Youre such a hypocrite.
Don't forget, he's a sexist too. :p
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:22 PM
It's not a freedom. It's a license to kill. That's what it is.
Its freedom to control what state your body is in.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:23 PM
It's not a freedom. It's a license to kill. That's what it is.
You need to be bitch slapped. :D
Its freedom to control what state your body is in.
Wrong, it's a license to kill another being. Spin how you will, but it doesn't change the fact that that is what it is.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:24 PM
No, its freedom to control your body. We can always make more foeti, there will be no one as unique as the mother.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:24 PM
Wrong, it's a license to kill another being. Spin how you will, but it doesn't change the fact that that is what it is.
License to kill?
Yep so if you force a mother to die aka forced kill that's not a license to kill itself? You make a lot of sense.
Sexist Hypocrite
No, its freedom to control your body. We can always make more foeti, there will be no one as unique as the mother.
But there will be no one as unique as that child either. Same damn thing.
License to kill?
Yep so if you force a mother to die aka forced kill that's not a license to kill itself? You make a lot of sense.
Sexist Hypocrite
No it's not because again she's lived. The baby hasn't.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:26 PM
No it's not because again she's lived. The baby hasn't.
Doesn't matter - if you forcefully make someone end their life while they don't want to - it is killing you jackass.
Doesn't matter - if you forcefully make someone end their life while they don't want to - it is killing you jackass.
Yes it does matter, by killing one who hasn't yet lived just to save our own lives (which we have already had a chance to live to that point), we are being selfish.
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:29 PM
Yes it does matter, by killing one who hasn't yet lived just to save our own lives (which we have already had a chance to live to that point), we are being selfish.
See this is where your being a hypocrite.
You say we're pro-death, yet your pro-death really.
Selfish? Your the one who wants to control everybody. You are truly the selfish twit here.
theicidal maniac
12-29-2006, 04:30 PM
It's not a freedom. It's a license to kill. That's what it is.
We give people the choice about murder and shoplifting...and most of them do the right thing. We still have weapons, but we don't consider owning a gun a "license to kill" you idiot. We don't put open aisles in convenience stores as a "license to shoplift." People have the choice. That's the way it should be.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:31 PM
Yes it does matter, by killing one who hasn't yet lived just to save our own lives (which we have already had a chance to live to that point), we are being selfish.
We only have one life, and we should value it as much as possible. Not throw it away because some facsist pro lifers say so.
We still have weapons, but we don't consider owning a gun a "license to kill" you idiot. We don't put open aisles in convenience stores as a "license to shoplift." People have the choice. That's the way it should be.
There's a difference there though. Guns don't neccessarily kill, they can but they don't neccessarily. Abortion DOES kill.
theicidal maniac
12-29-2006, 04:32 PM
There's a difference there though. Guns don't neccessarily kill, they can but they don't neccessarily. Abortion DOES kill.
So does Lysol, so does life
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:33 PM
But women choose whether or not to have an abortion. There is no difference.
theicidal maniac
12-29-2006, 04:33 PM
let's look at pro-life vs pro-choice. If you are pro-choice you think people should be able to choose for themselves.
If you are pro-life, you want the state to step in and remove the choice. You want a government like what they have in the middle east, where they try to remove the temptation to lust by forcing women to cover themselves up, where they remove the chance for drunkenness by illegalizing alcohol (remember how well that worked HERE?). You want a government run by a religious zealot, but not just ANY religious zealot...one who holds the exact same values that YOU hold. you think everyone except you is wrong, and would force everyone to live by your own standards if you could. That's a little Orwellian, I think, a la 1984. By removing CHOICE you remove a freedom, and that just un-American.
I am pro-education. Give people the FACTS and most of them will do the right thing, but they have to hear the facts before they are indoctrinated with the propaganda. That's my stance on religion. We shouldn't be forcing religion down a childs throat, so that when they are old enough to choose, they've already been brainwashed. That's not right. That's not freedom. "That's not the America I know...That isn't even Mexico!" - Homer Simpson
ohreally
12-29-2006, 04:36 PM
Hey ajk, why don't you vote for one of the three candidates?
http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=644
If you dare! :p
I have done so. I'm sure my answer won't come as a surprise to anyone.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:48 PM
Your such a fascist.
who897
12-29-2006, 04:52 PM
I like abortion because I live near a clinic and the hunk of cells they remove, mighty tasty and tender, and cheap.
Ausinus
12-29-2006, 04:55 PM
Lets have less pro life and more stem cell research. I can be random too :D
MrBirdy
12-30-2006, 12:57 AM
Lets see some of the differences.
Sex
Christianity: Homosexual, Extramarital and non procreative sex is a sin.
vs.
Satanism: Satanism encourages any fom of sexual expression you may desire, as long as it hurts no one else.
Afterlife
Christianity: You should do what god tells you to get into heaven. This life means nothing.
vs.
Satanism: There is no afterlife, this life must be valued very highly.
God
Christianity: There is only one true god, who created us all.
vs.
Satanism: Gods are a fabrication of mankind, created to explain what cannot be explained due to ignorance.
Sin
Christianity: The seven deadly sins are anathema to god. If you commit them, you must repent or be damned.
vs.
Satanism: The seven deadly sins are instict to man, they have been selected as sinful by christianity to create dependence on the church as no one can avoid them.
Nature of Mankind
Christianity: We are created perfect, god placed us here above all the animals.
vs.
Satanism: We are just animals, sometimes better, much of the time worse than the others.
You know, I would say satanism is in many cases more logical than christianity.
nice dude, i especially like "Gods are a fabrication of mankind, created to explain what cannot be explained due to ignorance."
see that right there is the logic that made all previouse religions, or "mythology" obsolete, we'll see in 10,000 years, and find out if christianity becomes "mythology!!"
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.