Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1061

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
Question: Why do many christians divorce and remarry,when it is clearly forbidden in the new testament?
There are several passages to prove this,but here is one from Jesus himself

Matthew 5:31-32King James Version (KJV)

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery

And we know that know adulterer can enter heaven. Will the sex drive put many divorced and remarried Christians in hell? [/quote]

Christians divorce and remarry in as much as anybody else does. Divorce whether Christians do it or not, is a societal scourge, a cancer. And to that end I mean, look at what it does to families and individuals. It wrecks lives. Of course, not all divorce is unjustified, and even in the Gospels there is a good justification for it. The case of sexual immorality; which usually is associated with infidelity of some kind is a scripturally sound reason. There is too much divorce among Christians, there is too much in general.

This again is a very legalistic view point. While legalism has it’s place, it’s not the core of the faith. It’s not just about following a bunch of rules.
[/quote]

In essence,we can’t take the words of the bible at face value…we have to filter it thru our own reasoning…which leads to…pretty much anything. Which in practice is the very situational morality SM and a few others were arguing against in anither thread I get what you’re saying Pat, I get a good vibe off you also. I just feel this is what has happened to the christian church,not you necessarily. And is pretty much my whole point in bringing up the topic.
[/quote]

But that’s not correct either. The Bible is a big book. But more importantly is a collection of books, each with their own point, plot, purpose, target audience, theological importance, etc. There is no ‘one way’ to ‘take’ the Bible. Somethings you can take at face value. Other things take understanding, reflection, research, time prayer, etc. People have been studying the scriptures for centuries and no one yet has ‘gotten it’ fully. We have accomplished a lot, there are a lot of things we do know. Yet there are still things we don’t.

1062

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Earlier in the thread I asked the OP if he acknowledged the overpopulation problem and if he had any thoughts about it. I was immediately accused of advocating a “holocaust” of babies or something. Of course, I was suggesting nothing of the sort.

I believe it’s undeniable that we’re facing serious overpopulation problems and the trends show just how serious:

http://www.news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2014/09/140918-population-global-united-nations-2100-boom-africa/

I know most conservatives deny this but I’m an independent thinker and don’t just open wide and swallow every aspect of the conservative agenda.

One thing I’ve suggested in the past is tax breaks for having more children. Why more? Because a big part of the problem is the disparity between wealthy, productive fertility rates and poor, unproductive fertility rates. Wealthy, intelligent people are having less children and the poor are the ones fueling the boom. But that won’t solve the problem of course. It’s a very difficult issue. China actually punishes people for having more children with tax increases. Not an ideal scenario by any means but we may need to seriously consider something along those lines.

But my point here, is that pro-lifers really need to think about this and come up with some suggestions if they want to be taken seriously.[/quote]

People have been crying about overpopulation being the end of the world as we know it for… I don’t know, at least 400 something years now, right?

I’m not particularly worried about it. [/quote]

If you look at the trends and peak oil and so on, you can’t help but be worried. And yes, in the past the predictions never came to pass because of new agricultural techniques and technology, but that can only go so far. We’re now reaching the point where we’re not going to be able to manage the population increases.

1063

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And yes, in the past the predictions never came to pass because of new agricultural techniques and technology, but that can only go so far. We’re now reaching the point where we’re not going to be able to manage the population increases.[/quote]

right. I have more faith in our ability to adapt I guess.

I’m also more pro-freedom than to agree to population control measures. If it’s a problem, it’s one we have to face, but not by limiting freedom to that degree.

1064

1250×794 114 KB

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And yes, in the past the predictions never came to pass because of new agricultural techniques and technology, but that can only go so far. We’re now reaching the point where we’re not going to be able to manage the population increases.[/quote]

right. I have more faith in our ability to adapt I guess.

I’m also more pro-freedom than to agree to population control measures. If it’s a problem, it’s one we have to face, but not by limiting freedom to that degree. [/quote]

My advice is to look into it yourself with an open mind and not just accept it because it’s conservative scripture. See attached graph. In the past the population growth rate that we had to adapt to was minuscule compared to today. Remember, population growth is exponential. Look at the numbers. Do the maths. Peak oil. Fresh water.

1065

[quote]confusion wrote:
…
Have you read the actual whole Bible?

Are you picking these verses and subsequent criticisms from some Atheist propaganda website?
You sound a lot like this:
http://www.evilbible.com/christians_are_hypocrites.htm

I’ve actually not looked at that website. I’ve not read every word of the old testament because that’s more for the jews. I have read the NT several times. Every word. ,these are some ideas I’ve had.along the way. My basis for claiming knowledge of christians in general comes from many christains I have talked to and what is taught in several churches ive attended. I think you will find this a diverse selection:Catholic,1st baptist,southern baptist,united church of christ,assemblies of god,church of god,church of christ(they don’t play pianos,organs or any instruments when singing),new mennonite,a few services while visiting the hutterite brethren for a week,non denominational fundamentalist christian,and a number of charismatic and “spirit filled” churches. I might have missed some. FWIW. Confusion

Edit: I forgot church of the Nazarene
[/quote]
Well, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but I think there is a difference between trying to understand and passing judgement. There is a difference between asking questions and condemning 2.1 billion or so people of being inconsistent with the Bible.
There is a whole rainbow of ‘type’ of Christian. And there are Christians who are flat wrong. There are Christians who claim to be acting on behalf of their belief and doing all kinds of wrong. There are also Christians who do get it, who understand their faith, understand the scriptures, try their best to live it and are profoundly good people.
There are Christians who are jerks whose actions reflect badly on all of us, but they are not us.
So when you say ‘Christians don’t act according to the Bible and I can prove it.’, eh, not so much. That’s a broad statement and that’s pretty much impossible to prove. You can prove a particular Christian believes and behaves unscripturally, but all or most or even a good bit? Even if you were right about that, you couldn’t prove it.

EDIT: Fixed quotes

1066

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is abortion focused on more than say gang murders or domestic violence related murders?

Why if original sin is real is the death of undeveloped foetus’s more worthy of condemnation than say crip on crip violence in LA?

Somehow I think it is rather cowardly to stand outside abortion clinics and heckle women that turn up in compton and heckle grape street crip members.

It is easy to heap shit on emotional and scared girls, not as easy to aggressively go after people who will come right back at you.

[/quote]

Bullshit assumption. The reason we focus on abortion is the sheer numbers of them. 1.2 million a year is a lot of dead bodies. If there were 1.2 million gang murders a year we would be up in arms about it. Numbers do matter. 10 people killed is worse that 1. 100 is worse than 10, etc.
And the point of the thread is to prove that abortion kills human beings, a point you’ve already conceded.

1067

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also, we do focus on gang violence. We just call it murder and put people in prison when they commit it. [/quote]

And killing pregnant women often gets you a double homicide conviction as in the case of Scott Peterson.

1068

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also, we do focus on gang violence. We just call it murder and put people in prison when they commit it. [/quote]

This lol.

What a dumb fucking argument: “You don’t protest da gangz.”

Jesus Christ, what a limp noodle. [/quote]

lol!
Yeah, that’s pretty weak … and desperate.

1069

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And yes, in the past the predictions never came to pass because of new agricultural techniques and technology, but that can only go so far. We’re now reaching the point where we’re not going to be able to manage the population increases.[/quote]

right. I have more faith in our ability to adapt I guess.

I’m also more pro-freedom than to agree to population control measures. If it’s a problem, it’s one we have to face, but not by limiting freedom to that degree. [/quote]

Agree with you Beans. Also,I recall other things being touted as dire emergencies over the years including clean drinking water. I was supposed to have run out long ago.

1070

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
…
Have you read the actual whole Bible?

Are you picking these verses and subsequent criticisms from some Atheist propaganda website?
You sound a lot like this:
http://www.evilbible.com/christians_are_hypocrites.htm

I’ve actually not looked at that website. I’ve not read every word of the old testament because that’s more for the jews. I have read the NT several times. Every word. ,these are some ideas I’ve had.along the way. My basis for claiming knowledge of christians in general comes from many christains I have talked to and what is taught in several churches ive attended. I think you will find this a diverse selection:Catholic,1st baptist,southern baptist,united church of christ,assemblies of god,church of god,church of christ(they don’t play pianos,organs or any instruments when singing),new mennonite,a few services while visiting the hutterite brethren for a week,non denominational fundamentalist christian,and a number of charismatic and “spirit filled” churches. I might have missed some. FWIW. Confusion

Edit: I forgot church of the Nazarene
[/quote]
Well, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but I think there is a difference between trying to understand and passing judgement. There is a difference between asking questions and condemning 2.1 billion or so people of being inconsistent with the Bible.
There is a whole rainbow of ‘type’ of Christian. And there are Christians who are flat wrong. There are Christians who claim to be acting on behalf of their belief and doing all kinds of wrong. There are also Christians who do get it, who understand their faith, understand the scriptures, try their best to live it and are profoundly good people.
There are Christians who are jerks whose actions reflect badly on all of us, but they are not us.
So when you say ‘Christians don’t act according to the Bible and I can prove it.’, eh, not so much. That’s a broad statement and that’s pretty much impossible to prove. You can prove a particular Christian believes and behaves unscripturally, but all or most or even a good bit? Even if you were right about that, you couldn’t prove it.

EDIT: Fixed quotes[/quote]

I cannot prove it. I over estimated myself perhaps,or peoples willingness to accept the scripture at face value. Anyone can say the Bible does not mean what the words say. Many do. Also,anyone can deny anything. For example,if I say" a christian who has faith in a personal god,who is always with them, doesn’t need to use violence ever! Their god will protect them",someone such as yourself(or anyone else),can easily say,that’s not what the bible teaches,you don’t understand,your idea doesn’t make sense,most christians don’t believe that etc…I will say this emphatically and without apology,as an example of what I have been trying to do here, a christian that thinks they need a gun to protect themself,needs to have more faith in god! He is always right there to help you and have angels protect you ! not try to find reasons to explain why it normal to feel that way etc…now,if we are talking about an impersonal god,that’s another thing.

1071

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And yes, in the past the predictions never came to pass because of new agricultural techniques and technology, but that can only go so far. We’re now reaching the point where we’re not going to be able to manage the population increases.[/quote]

right. I have more faith in our ability to adapt I guess.

I’m also more pro-freedom than to agree to population control measures. If it’s a problem, it’s one we have to face, but not by limiting freedom to that degree. [/quote]

My advice is to look into it yourself with an open mind and not just accept it because it’s conservative scripture. See attached graph. In the past the population growth rate that we had to adapt to was minuscule compared to today. Remember, population growth is exponential. Look at the numbers. Do the maths. Peak oil. Fresh water. [/quote]

End of the day, the only “cure” for this that doesn’t involve destroying freedom is

a) Incentives through taxation - well given our dire straits, I don’t see that being enough.

b) Technology - Seeing as I hold more computing power in the palm of my hand than they had when they first landed on the moon… I’m betting we’ll figure something out.

1072

[quote]confusion wrote:
look. I am no christian,but let me ask you this question? You are debating this point on the internet,would you walk up to some big guy,that looked like he might hurt you and say all these things? And keep prodding til you got him to kick your butt? I think that might be a fair example. That being said,you are making a fair point about shouting,slandering,and yes hating women that are going to an abortion clinic. They aren’t scary,so they can be abused.[/quote]

This is a place where we come to discuss all kinds of things we wouldn’t do in normal polite conversation. That’s the point.

1073

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And yes, in the past the predictions never came to pass because of new agricultural techniques and technology, but that can only go so far. We’re now reaching the point where we’re not going to be able to manage the population increases.[/quote]

right. I have more faith in our ability to adapt I guess.

I’m also more pro-freedom than to agree to population control measures. If it’s a problem, it’s one we have to face, but not by limiting freedom to that degree. [/quote]

My advice is to look into it yourself with an open mind and not just accept it because it’s conservative scripture. See attached graph. In the past the population growth rate that we had to adapt to was minuscule compared to today. Remember, population growth is exponential. Look at the numbers. Do the maths. Peak oil. Fresh water. [/quote]

End of the day, the only “cure” for this that doesn’t involve destroying freedom is

a) Incentives through taxation - well given our dire straits, I don’t see that being enough.

b) Technology - Seeing as I hold more computing power in the palm of my hand than they had when they first landed on the moon… I’m betting we’ll figure something out. [/quote]

I hope you’re right there.

1074

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
look. I am no christian,but let me ask you this question? You are debating this point on the internet,would you walk up to some big guy,that looked like he might hurt you and say all these things? And keep prodding til you got him to kick your butt? I think that might be a fair example. That being said,you are making a fair point about shouting,slandering,and yes hating women that are going to an abortion clinic. They aren’t scary,so they can be abused.[/quote]

This is a place where we come to discuss all kinds of things we wouldn’t do in normal polite conversation. That’s the point.[/quote]

true,I was trying to use it as an example to counter his question about taunting gang members. I should have used a better example. Confusion

1075

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is abortion focused on more than say gang murders or domestic violence related murders?[/quote]
-Abortion is legal.

-Abortion is legal.

-This sentence does not make sense. How often do people stand outside of abortion clinics and heckle women that turn up in Compton and heckle grape street crip members? An abortion clinic seems like a strange place to protest against women that heckle gang members.

Abortion is legal, and it’s not unheard of for a woman to regret having aborted a child earlier in her life. Most forms of violence are already dealt with by the legal system.

Your argument is pitiful.

1076

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is abortion focused on more than say gang murders or domestic violence related murders?[/quote]
-Abortion is legal.

-Abortion is legal.

-This sentence does not make sense.

Abortion is legal, and it’s not unheard of for a woman to regret having aborted a child earlier in her life. Most forms of violence are already dealt with by the legal system.

Your argument is pitiful.[/quote]

I’m not taking one side of the argument; just pointing out that Lex iniusta non est lex, which means “I’m a smarty pants and here’s my fancy way of saying an unjust law is not law.”

1078

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Also, we do focus on gang violence. We just call it murder and put people in prison when they commit it. [/quote]

And killing pregnant women often gets you a double homicide conviction as in the case of Scott Peterson. [/quote]

Ya, I point that out earlier and no one seemed to care…