Florida passes 6 week abortion plan
Comments
-
Most of Judaism and by default Christianity came via the Sumerians and Egypt. The One God was the new wrinkle long before Plato was in the wombcreepycoug said:
The Sumerians were polytheists. There is ample support for the idea that Plato was a monotheist. His "Form of Goodness" or "the Good" plays right into it.RaceBannon said:
Was Plato Sumerian?creepycoug said:
The real first Christian was Plato. But I digress.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
#saveryhall
#firstchristian
Paul visited Greece and gave an impromptu speech in their hall talking about their ode to "the unknown God" Paul said I know him!
The Greeks like My Vikings had a pantheon of Gods -
I'm not sure what yours is either. And you can help me by answering the fucking question I asked. What I asked you was simple - what do you mean by this?Blueduck said:
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore?
Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
...
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
It reads as though you're saying that the push of religion out of government (I believe you!!!!!!) is the reason we don't compromise on things anymore. Not the bolded language. That was the question. Or, instead, are you saying that eliminating religion paved the way for compromise, and that is the problem? I would think on an issue such as this, compromise is the last thing we need.
Setting that question aside, the more important question is also quite simple: where do you stand on abortion? First trimester? Conception? Never. Under any circumstances? Take a break from citing obscure Vatican records and just give me an answer to that one. I say no; but I have the balls to take a stand. Or would you rather pontificate on where to lay blame on the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus. -
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share.TurdBomber said:@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I do not know where you stopped but I had
Good grief!creepycoug said:
I'm not sure what yours is either. And you can help me by answering the fucking question I asked. What I asked you was simple - what do you mean by this?Blueduck said:
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore?
Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
...
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
It reads as though you're saying that the push of religion out of government (I believe you!!!!!!) is the reason we don't compromise on things anymore. Not the bolded language. That was the question. Or, instead, are you saying that eliminating religion paved the way for compromise, and that is the problem? I would think on an issue such as this, compromise is the last thing we need.
Setting that question aside, the more important question is also quite simple: where do you stand on abortion? First trimester? Conception? Never. Under any circumstances? Take a break from citing obscure Vatican records and just give me an answer to that one. I say no; but I have the balls to take a stand. Or would you rather pontificate on where to lay blame on the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus.
I covered what you asked, including where I stand on abortion...., you do not read so well or failed to read my direct reply to YOU at all!
Maybe you were too busy down voting my poast above to read it through...
Either way, I'm done, stick a fork in me... Is the bread done yet...yes I'm toast.
Good day. -
So Valhalla > Mt. Olympus?RaceBannon said:
Most of Judaism and by default Christianity came via the Sumerians and Egypt. The One God was the new wrinkle long before Plato was in the wombcreepycoug said:
The Sumerians were polytheists. There is ample support for the idea that Plato was a monotheist. His "Form of Goodness" or "the Good" plays right into it.RaceBannon said:
Was Plato Sumerian?creepycoug said:
The real first Christian was Plato. But I digress.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
#saveryhall
#firstchristian
Paul visited Greece and gave an impromptu speech in their hall talking about their ode to "the unknown God" Paul said I know him!
The Greeks like My Vikings had a pantheon of Gods
-
You started to, then you unanswered it with this:Blueduck said:
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share.TurdBomber said:@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I do not know where you stopped but I had
Good grief!creepycoug said:
I'm not sure what yours is either. And you can help me by answering the fucking question I asked. What I asked you was simple - what do you mean by this?Blueduck said:
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore?
Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
...
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
It reads as though you're saying that the push of religion out of government (I believe you!!!!!!) is the reason we don't compromise on things anymore. Not the bolded language. That was the question. Or, instead, are you saying that eliminating religion paved the way for compromise, and that is the problem? I would think on an issue such as this, compromise is the last thing we need.
Setting that question aside, the more important question is also quite simple: where do you stand on abortion? First trimester? Conception? Never. Under any circumstances? Take a break from citing obscure Vatican records and just give me an answer to that one. I say no; but I have the balls to take a stand. Or would you rather pontificate on where to lay blame on the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus.
I covered what you asked, including where I stand on abortion...., you do not read so well or failed to read my direct reply to YOU at all!
Maybe you were too busy down voting my poast above to read it through...
Either way, I'm done, stick a fork in me... Is the bread done yet...yes I'm toast.
Good day.
(I am Not going to argue for or against caveats such as rape incest health of mother carrying full term)
IMHO The basic principle should not be compromised, but I am not without understanding and compassion for exigent circumstances....
Those decisions and options should be discussed and made with family, doctor, religious and or psychiatric council.
And if you covered what I asked, I didn't see it. Of course it's possible I missed it, but it would take less time to just answer what you meant in the quoted language than to go on this whine fest. I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I'm sure you are quite intelligent on these matters, but your writing style is indirect and tends to talk around the issue. Did you mean that by removing religious influence from government proceedings that we have opened the door to compromise or hindered it? The passage I quoted was not clear. A simple clarification, not a prevarication, is what was asked of you. But you have a fork in you now, so I guess I'll never know.
Relating to your view on abortion, I'm sorry, but it's just terrible. It's "abhorrent," blah blah blah, BUT, doctors and psychiatrists should be consulted? Fuck outta here with that. Grab your balls and say it's ok or it's not. You can't decide to kill me with any justification by simply consulting your therapist. GMAFB. If that's your religious conviction, you can keep it because it's useless.
Just take a real fucking stance or bow out for real. You haven't said shit. At least Race and the others know they're going to hell. You seem to have deluded yourself. -
Those Greeks did. Plato didn't believe in the Greek Pantheon.RaceBannon said:
Most of Judaism and by default Christianity came via the Sumerians and Egypt. The One God was the new wrinkle long before Plato was in the wombcreepycoug said:
The Sumerians were polytheists. There is ample support for the idea that Plato was a monotheist. His "Form of Goodness" or "the Good" plays right into it.RaceBannon said:
Was Plato Sumerian?creepycoug said:
The real first Christian was Plato. But I digress.RaceBannon said:Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus
It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view
Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles
Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really
#saveryhall
#firstchristian
Paul visited Greece and gave an impromptu speech in their hall talking about their ode to "the unknown God" Paul said I know him!
The Greeks like My Vikings had a pantheon of Gods
Bible and Plato are contemporaries. Plato much smarter than a bunch of Iraqis. Ergo, the great idea was gleaned from Plato. Those idiots couldn't have come up with it on their own.
Pay attention to who is pointing up. We owe practically everything to the ancient Greeks. Even the Romans worshipped them. Plato lived long before Paul.
Of course, Paul was far from the only early Christian to adopt Platonism (or a form of Platonism) as an appropriate philosophical underpinning for Christian theology. Also evident in the New Testament is the Platonic influence upon the Gospel of John.
https://pursuingveritas.com/2015/05/22/platonism-and-paul/
#platowasfirst
-
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share.TurdBomber said:@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I do not know where you stopped but I had
Good lord you are an idiot! Directly above the part you quoted about caveats, I stated very clearly...creepycoug said:
You started to, then you unanswered it with this:Blueduck said:
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share.TurdBomber said:@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I do not know where you stopped but I had
Good grief!creepycoug said:
I'm not sure what yours is either. And you can help me by answering the fucking question I asked. What I asked you was simple - what do you mean by this?Blueduck said:
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore?
Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
...
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
It reads as though you're saying that the push of religion out of government (I believe you!!!!!!) is the reason we don't compromise on things anymore. Not the bolded language. That was the question. Or, instead, are you saying that eliminating religion paved the way for compromise, and that is the problem? I would think on an issue such as this, compromise is the last thing we need.
Setting that question aside, the more important question is also quite simple: where do you stand on abortion? First trimester? Conception? Never. Under any circumstances? Take a break from citing obscure Vatican records and just give me an answer to that one. I say no; but I have the balls to take a stand. Or would you rather pontificate on where to lay blame on the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus.
I covered what you asked, including where I stand on abortion...., you do not read so well or failed to read my direct reply to YOU at all!
Maybe you were too busy down voting my poast above to read it through...
Either way, I'm done, stick a fork in me... Is the bread done yet...yes I'm toast.
Good day.
(I am Not going to argue for or against caveats such as rape incest health of mother carrying full term)
IMHO The basic principle should not be compromised, but I am not without understanding and compassion for exigent circumstances....
Those decisions and options should be discussed and made with family, doctor, religious and or psychiatric council.
And if you covered what I asked, I didn't see it. Of course it's possible I missed it, but it would take less time to just answer what you meant in the quoted language than to go on this whine fest. I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I'm sure you are quite intelligent on these matters, but your writing style is indirect and tends to talk around the issue. Did you mean that by removing religious influence from government proceedings that we have opened the door to compromise or hindered it? The passage I quoted was not clear. A simple clarification, not a prevarication, is what was asked of you. But you have a fork in you now, so I guess I'll never know.
Relating to your view on abortion, I'm sorry, but it's just terrible. It's "abhorrent," blah blah blah, BUT, doctors and psychiatrists should be consulted? Fuck outta here with that. Grab your balls and say it's ok or it's not. You can't decide to kill me with any justification by simply consulting your therapist. GMAFB. If that's your religious conviction, you can keep it because it's useless.
Just take a real fucking stance or bow out for real. You haven't said shit. At least Race and the others know they're going to hell. You seem to have deluded yourself.
Abortion and taking of innocent life for poor decisions and lack of self control is abhorrent and should not be allowed.
If you cannot read that, and conclude I am against, not for, opposed to, abortion then you have bigger comprehension issues than can be fixed or you ARE baiting me by being purposely difficult to get a rise out of me for some argument you want to have of which I am not going to participate.
-
Moses lived way before Plato
Christianity is from Moses not Paul or Plato
It's why the Old Testament is included
-
@RaceBannon witnessed it all.RaceBannon said:Moses lived way before Plato
Christianity is from Moses not Paul or Plato
It's why the Old Testament is included -
Now that you've gotten very personal, I will reply in kind: you are a fucking moron. I read just fine. Are you so stupid as to think that at this point I'd be skipping lines? What a dumb fuckery comment.Blueduck said:
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share.TurdBomber said:@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I do not know where you stopped but I had
Good lord you are an idiot! Directly above the part you quoted about caveats, I stated very clearly...creepycoug said:
You started to, then you unanswered it with this:Blueduck said:
I appreciate that you took a moment to entertain the material I share.TurdBomber said:@Blueduck
I clicked on the link and read a bit of it, but I'm not so interested in credibility battles over religious matters.
The Jews could very well have ultimate responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. Or not. It really doesn't matter to me and it's not my issue.
I was poking fun at simpletons, including my own mother at times, who point to one or two facts in any conversation to seal their victory in their mind, even while leaving huge, gaping logical holes on the table they get up and walk away from.
Humans have done many strange and odd things throughout history for a million different reasons, and they'll continue on that path into the future.
Who killed Jesus really matters not at this point, except the point that when you afflict the comfortable and challenge prevailing fear-based narratives, you're putting yourself at risk of harm. Look no further than Matt Taibbi and the Twitter files.
Anyway, I'm not interested in competing on who knows more. I made some comments toward "conclusions" people reach which are not, and never will be "conclusive." Religion does that to people with its group-think (or else!) brainwashing tendencies. Many get so caught up in it, they lose all rational thought and objectivity.
That's enough. Let's return to talking about killing babies.
I do not know where you stopped but I had
Good grief!creepycoug said:
I'm not sure what yours is either. And you can help me by answering the fucking question I asked. What I asked you was simple - what do you mean by this?Blueduck said:
I'm not sure what your lack of comprehension is.creepycoug said:
I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.Blueduck said:
My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.creepycoug said:
I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.Blueduck said:TurdBomber said:
Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.creepycoug said:
Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.TurdBomber said:
At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.creepycoug said:
True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.TurdBomber said:
Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.creepycoug said:
You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.TurdBomber said:
Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life.PurpleThrobber said:
The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.thechatch said:I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.
I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.
For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.
Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.
Make it 16 to 20 weeks.
Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.
If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.
I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.
Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.
Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.
Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.
We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.
I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.
My $0.02
The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.
So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?
Take it or leave it.
Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.
In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.
So I ask, again, what you mean by this:
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
Do they not teach history in the public school system anymore?
Or are you trying to trap me into a circular argument that is unwinnable?
...
If you are still not clear on what I meant, then I cannot help you.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
It reads as though you're saying that the push of religion out of government (I believe you!!!!!!) is the reason we don't compromise on things anymore. Not the bolded language. That was the question. Or, instead, are you saying that eliminating religion paved the way for compromise, and that is the problem? I would think on an issue such as this, compromise is the last thing we need.
Setting that question aside, the more important question is also quite simple: where do you stand on abortion? First trimester? Conception? Never. Under any circumstances? Take a break from citing obscure Vatican records and just give me an answer to that one. I say no; but I have the balls to take a stand. Or would you rather pontificate on where to lay blame on the crucifixion of Jesus?
Jesus.
I covered what you asked, including where I stand on abortion...., you do not read so well or failed to read my direct reply to YOU at all!
Maybe you were too busy down voting my poast above to read it through...
Either way, I'm done, stick a fork in me... Is the bread done yet...yes I'm toast.
Good day.
(I am Not going to argue for or against caveats such as rape incest health of mother carrying full term)
IMHO The basic principle should not be compromised, but I am not without understanding and compassion for exigent circumstances....
Those decisions and options should be discussed and made with family, doctor, religious and or psychiatric council.
And if you covered what I asked, I didn't see it. Of course it's possible I missed it, but it would take less time to just answer what you meant in the quoted language than to go on this whine fest. I'm not trying to bait you into anything. I'm sure you are quite intelligent on these matters, but your writing style is indirect and tends to talk around the issue. Did you mean that by removing religious influence from government proceedings that we have opened the door to compromise or hindered it? The passage I quoted was not clear. A simple clarification, not a prevarication, is what was asked of you. But you have a fork in you now, so I guess I'll never know.
Relating to your view on abortion, I'm sorry, but it's just terrible. It's "abhorrent," blah blah blah, BUT, doctors and psychiatrists should be consulted? Fuck outta here with that. Grab your balls and say it's ok or it's not. You can't decide to kill me with any justification by simply consulting your therapist. GMAFB. If that's your religious conviction, you can keep it because it's useless.
Just take a real fucking stance or bow out for real. You haven't said shit. At least Race and the others know they're going to hell. You seem to have deluded yourself.
Abortion and taking of innocent life for poor decisions and lack of self control is abhorrent and should not be allowed.
If you cannot read that, and conclude I am against, not for, opposed to, abortion then you have bigger comprehension issues than can be fixed or you are being purposely difficult to get a rise out of me.
You may be against it, but you leave open serious gaps w/o justification "because you have compassion." Fuck you and your compassion. If it's immoral, then it's immoral, and consulting with clergy, shrink or doc can't save it from that fateful conclusion.
So your limp wristed answer is, "It's abhorrent!!!!!! But I have compassion, so if your counselor says it's ok, then another decision can be made." Go stand in line with the others who support infanticide "when appropriate."
JFC - you go on this 40 page history lesson about Judaism and Christ, making it appear that religion is important to you, then you make some rather unclear (as it still stands) rant about the the lack of religion in the political process, and then you pinch that one out of your butthole? For Christ's sake (literally); you are green lighting abortion on the basis of humanistic concerns. The whole point of religion is to express a tenet and then stick to it, even when it sucks doing so.
Coward.
@Sledog knows what I'm getting at.
