The horrors of abortion which our governments support

[User]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

There is no abortion law. So just like with wrong and evil how does the law enable someone.

Not sure if you are just playing dumb to be obtuse or if you really are not grasping what was said here... 

If there is no law against speeding through a school zone, then you are enabled to speed through a school zone. 

 

[herbie]

Then you're starting to get it. And no law says you cant pee if your bladder is full, so you can.
So if you want a law that says you can't, then pass one. Good luck at that - a Christian Heritage majority next fall?

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, herbie said:

It's not f*cking magic, humans are mammals.
When it is born. That means leaves the mother's body, then it's a baby. This is the accepted and legal definition. So there are no pre-born babies. It's as bullshit a term as pro-life is.

Too bad you don't "like it". You're a man, so if you don't believe in abortion don't have one.

Ok great, so the human vaginal canal has a magic wand that confers "humanity" that turns a "fetus" into a "baby" when the baby is born, suddenly giving "life" and "human rights" to the child.  Otherwise it is without rights and therefore can be killed.  This is an incredible scientific discovery.

"Honey, I can feel the fetus kicking!" says nobody ever.

Quote

Too bad you don't "like it". You're a man, so if you don't believe in abortion don't have one.

I'm not German or Jewish either and yet I have an opinion on the holocaust.  Guess I should just mind my business on that one too huh?

You have to dehumanize the victim by calling it a "fetus" in order to morally justify killing it, just like the Nazis dehumanized the Jews, and slave owners dehumanized Africans.

Edited August 6, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Do you think it would matter if the fetus could feel pain, would this be a consideration for most women

Probably not, but would be for lawmakers. Politicans, doctors.

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

there are millions of preventive solutions to not get pregnant

Some communities are horrible at administering them.

I look at the black community as an example. One of the highest likelihoods of HIV, single motherhood, and abortion. 

This is a cultural issue. The same can be said for the other minority communities plagued by the same issues.

Ideally, it would be best that condoms would be used.

Alternatively, I think a woman should have the right to admit she made a mistake and given lawful and humane means of correcting it, vs being forced to live with it, with an insanely likely scenario of her raising it alone, in extreme poverty.

Should she choose to raise the child like my mother did, she should lawfully be allowed to make such a choice, as well. It is her body, after all. I don't see either scenario as morally wrong, as I know women who have had to make either choices.

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

like...What we have given women is control over her reproductive status

A man can ejaculate inside her, and bail and leave her to fend for herself.

I don't understand how she shouldn't be allowed to gain control over her reproductive status.

Single motherhood is a difficult life, not everyone is mentally built for.

Especially not, if continuing an existing cycle of poverty.

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

advance...i don't think many babies would end up in foster care, but rather adopted right away....

Do yourself a favor. Travel to India. The Philippines, etc.

Go see the overwhelmed orphanages, filled with unclaimed children. The streets, filled with kids begging for food.

Its not an added strain you want to place onto the Canadian economy. 

We can barely control unwanted pet populations.

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

still a firm believer that every life is a gift. 

You haven't met enough unwanted kids, who experienced hell from birth.

Women born from rape. Only to be molested and abused all their lives. Placed into foster care. Dying in the streets.

Just because you haven't seen this world, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tell a woman strung out on hard drugs selling her body, unable to cope with her childhood trauma, that its a gift for her to be here. She should somehow appreciate not being aborted.

I have unfortunately seen the good, the bad, the ugly. Precisely why I strongly believe the woman should have a say on whether she chooses to keep or get rid of the fetus.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, User said:

Why don't you agree with them doing that?

It would be more practical and put less strain on our already overwhelmed medical industry for them to use a condom.

I can accept a one off mistake. But multiple abortions and pregnancies? You're then making others responsible for your inability to adult.

I see it as no different than one getting pregnant and putting all the kids up for adoption.

4 hours ago, User said:

So... do you think a woman killing her 5 year old is wrong?

There's a reason that would be illegal. It's not even a good argument.

4 hours ago, User said:

Do you think killing anyone is wrong for the mere convenience of it?

I don't feel an abortion is wrong. Regardless of the reason. I feel this should be a woman's right to choose. I may not agree with why, but respect the choice.

Its just not my say.

4 hours ago, User said:

On that note, is there any point in the pregnancy you think the unborn child is a human life with a right to life 

Yes there is. 

I agree with abortions done prior to that point. I have zero issues with abortions done prior to 24 weeks. None, whatsoever. Regardless of how one would moralize it. 

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, herbie said:

What law? There is no law. How can something that doesn't exist be wrong and evil?

That is a good point.  I am not alone in thinking there must be a law that legalized abortion, but perhaps that is not exactly the correct way of looking at it.  Perhaps I should have said there is no law against it.  However, law or no law, abortion is widespread and if I am correct it is not illegal.  There is no law against it.

However, when I say it is wrong and evil, I am referring to God's law or the Bible.  I am not speaking about earthly manmade laws or lack of them.  God's law or written revelation is higher than man's laws.  I hope you see the difference.

Man is not the final judge of what is right or wrong.  Some people believe man is the final judge.  But this is a mistake.  It is called secular humanism.  

[blackbird]

14 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I don't need an antiquated book to live righteously.

I don't need an antiquated book, to tell me wrong from right.

The term "antiquated book" is problematic for a number of reasons.  I don't know if we have the ability to really come to some understanding on these subjects on a forum such as this.  We can try, but it is difficult.

The word antiquated means:   outmoded or discredited by reason of age : old and no longer useful, popular, or accepted

unquote

I assume that is the definition you are using.

However, the Bible is unlike any other book.  It is more than a book.  Hundreds of millions of people have obtained copies of it over the centuries since the printing press was invented five hundred or so years ago.

The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years beginning about 1,200 B.C. and completed about 200 A.D.  Because there was no printing press prior to the 1,500s and it had to be copied by hand, not everyone had it.  But they did hear it read or taught by people who had copies.  The Jewish prophets wrote the Old Testament over a period of a thousand years or more and completed it about 400 B.C.  The New Testament was written by the several of the Apostles and prophets in the first century after Christ.  The four gospels are directly about Jesus Christ's life on earth and his death and resurrection.

There were many eye witnesses who actually saw Jesus Christ after the resurrection took place.  I would encourage you to consider this.  If this is the case, then of course the written accounts of Jesus Christ, what he taught and who he is would be the most earth shattering events in the history of man.  Now if he was not resurrected, then of course you would be correct in saying it was an "antiquated" or useless book.  This would seem to be the crux of the matter. 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ would seem to be the central issue here.  According to the Bible, beginning way back in Genesis, mankind rebelled against God and destroyed his relationship with God.  But God in his mercy sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to redeem lost man (and woman of course).  Many of the apostles died as martyrs for their faith or belief that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that he is really who he said he is, God or the Son of God in the flesh.  People don't go out and tell about something and be willing to die for it if it were fiction.  That just doesn't make sense.  It is recorded that they saw Jesus Christ with their own eyes and heard him after the resurrection.  I would think that is something to consider.

That fact alone would really be a good test of whether or not the Bible is an "antiquated book" or not.  

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2024 by blackbird

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I assume that is the definition you are using.

No longer useful. Relevant.

I was recently in the Philippines with the wife, and only now, is divorce being considered for a country where it is illegal to do so.

Many legal hurdles are still in the way of this becoming law. Its antiquated laws like this, that drive her to potentially become a politician, to change them.

Their religious beliefs, trump the human rights of many stuck in abusive relationships, with massive hoops to jump through to get out. 

Overpopulation is also due to religious belief, as the consummation of your marriage is something many abide by.

The lack of education some have, have many fearing the use of contraceptives--the similar ideals which have several countries in Africa being the HIV epicenter in the world.

Lots of things in the Bible are good, but to treat all in it as good as gospel when the realities thousands of years later are vastly different, are a lack of common sense.

The harder you push, the more you would drive someone like me to go against my instincts and vote Liberal, to silence voices I just don't feel should be given a platform.

Mercifully, Poilievre seems to be smart enough to know not to touch that small fire with a thousand yard stick.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

No longer useful. Relevant.

Did you read what I posted just a few minutes ago?  The resurrection of Jesus Christ means the Bible is completely relevant.  But it is up to you to consider it.  Nobody can force anyone to read it or believe it.  God does not force anyone to believe in him.  The Bible doesn't try to prove the existence of God.  It assumes he is.  

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I was recently in the Philippines with the wife, and only now, is divorce being considered for a country where it is illegal to do so.

That is interesting.  I understand what you are saying.  I grew up as a Catholic until the Lord saved me through the preaching of the gospel over the radio one evening.  Roman Catholicism is another story.  I don't think we should spend a lot of time discussing Catholicism at this point.  I will say I understand what you are saying about divorce.  I will be honest with you.  I know a fair amount about the RC church and their position against divorce.  That is a huge error.

I agree with you divorce is absolutely necessary in many cases and it is a form of abuse to tell people they cannot get a divorce.  Domestic abuse is rampant and many people are suffering from abuse.  Sometimes divorce is the only way out of an abusive situation.  We can agree on that.  Now here is my point on this.  The Bible does not teach divorce is wrong in all circumstances.  I have studied this subject.  The problem is the RC church does not follow the Bible on this subject.  They make up their own doctrines with church councils, etc.  Many people in the world blame religion or the Bible for the evils in the world, but the problem is ironically the opposite.  The problems often are caused because people do not understand or rightly interpret the Bible.  Many religious folks reject what the Bible says and think they know better.  This is the case with the RCC.  But that is another big subject.  

The point is Jesus Christ was seen by many eye witnesses after his resurrection.  He recognized Holy Scripture as coming from God.  So did the prophets.  So why men reject that and make up their own doctrines is hard to fathom.

[Boges]

There's a sliding scale to this debate. And those on either side always pick the most extreme examples to prove their point. 

Few believe a viable fetus should be aborted unless the health of the mother is in question. 

Few also believe a fetus under 10-weeks old resembles a human life. 

The grey area is that it may take up to 12-16 weeks for someone to find out they have an unwanted pregnancy. But still there is no objective standard to say aborting a fetus at that point is murder. 

Now on the extremes we have the policy in Canada where no abortion is illegal so, in theory, these late-term abortions are possible. 

But also, an extreme opinion is that a fertilized fetus could be considered human life. Some birth control allows for fertilization but doesn't allow the embryo to be implanted in the placental wall. 

Then there's the IVF debate. Are embryos life? Is the practice of fertilizing many embryos to assist a couple in having a baby a genocide? 

This is not a black and white issue. 

[User]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

It would be more practical...

Got it, just a totally efficent use of resources play. 

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

There's a reason that would be illegal. It's not even a good argument.

It was not an argument, it was a question. The point of the question was to get to some kind of moral framework we are both operating from, because you declared it just my opinion that killing an unborn child was wrong. The core of the pro-life position is that the unborn is a human life with a right to life... no different than a 5 year old. 

The point of my question was to get to some moral framework where you are not just saying, well, that is your opinion. You completely dodged the question. 

Do you think it is wrong for a mother to kill her 5 year old? Do you think it is wrong to kill anyone for the mere convenience of it?

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I don't feel an abortion is wrong. Regardless of the reason. I feel this should be a woman's right to choose. I may not agree with why, but respect the choice.

Its just not my say.

You completely ignored my questions again. 

I know you don't feel an abortion is wrong. We have already established where you sit on the subject.

Do you think it should be a woman's right to choose to kill her 5 year old too?

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Yes there is. 

I agree with abortions done prior to that point. I have zero issues with abortions done prior to 24 weeks. None, whatsoever. Regardless of how one would moralize it. 

So, you only think a woman should have a right to choose... before viability. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

There's a sliding scale to this debate.

Do you believe God has revealed his will and revelation to mankind?

If not, who decides what is right and what is wrong?  If God has revealed himself, what does he say about human life?

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Probably not, but would be for lawmakers. Politicans, doctors.

Some communities are horrible at administering them.

I look at the black community as an example. One of the highest likelihoods of HIV, single motherhood, and abortion. 

This is a cultural issue. The same can be said for the other minority communities plagued by the same issues.

Ideally, it would be best that condoms would be used.

Alternatively, I think a woman should have the right to admit she made a mistake and given lawful and humane means of correcting it, vs being forced to live with it, with an insanely likely scenario of her raising it alone, in extreme poverty.

Should she choose to raise the child like my mother did, she should lawfully be allowed to make such a choice, as well. It is her body, after all. I don't see either scenario as morally wrong, as I know women who have had to make either choices.

A man can ejaculate inside her, and bail and leave her to fend for herself.

I don't understand how she shouldn't be allowed to gain control over her reproductive status.

Single motherhood is a difficult life, not everyone is mentally built for.

Especially not, if continuing an existing cycle of poverty.

Do yourself a favor. Travel to India. The Philippines, etc.

Go see the overwhelmed orphanages, filled with unclaimed children. The streets, filled with kids begging for food.

Its not an added strain you want to place onto the Canadian economy. 

We can barely control unwanted pet populations.

You haven't met enough unwanted kids, who experienced hell from birth.

Women born from rape. Only to be molested and abused all their lives. Placed into foster care. Dying in the streets.

Just because you haven't seen this world, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Tell a woman strung out on hard drugs selling her body, unable to cope with her childhood trauma, that its a gift for her to be here. She should somehow appreciate not being aborted.

I have unfortunately seen the good, the bad, the ugly. Precisely why I strongly believe the woman should have a say on whether she chooses to keep or get rid of the fetus.

 

I think that the politicians and doctors know this information already, i mean it is public info, and yet we still provide the service knowing that these babies feel pain...not all doctors agree with the providing the service, and some that have performed it have quit doing it...there must be reasons...

Are you saying cultural reasons can not be solved or changed....

Ideally yes the use of condoms should be used or perhaps one of the million other contraceptives' out there...perhaps instead of putting tampons' in men's washrooms there could be free contraceptives' made available and in some provinces they already do this...

I'm not in any way saying all abortion is off the table, what i'm saying is there are always going to be cases that abortion can be performed, Rape, medical reasons, should be automatic, any other reasons should be discussed with professionals before any treatment is administered...Keeping these babies is a matter of choice, there are other options made available to each mother, such as adoption...

Sure single motherhood is difficult, if they choose to go down that road...like i said there are many different options out there like adoption, even financial assistance until the baby is born.....

Is it morally wrong, your asking the wrong guy that question, i've struggled with that question since i joined the military, the Military dehumanize the enemy to make killing easier...that and many other things....but how does one dehumanize the act of abortion for the doctor, or how does one dehumanize the entire journey for the women who receives the abortion..If it was not morally wrong why do so many struggle with the  process...

In some cases that is where the males responsibility ends, if the mother does not know the Childs' father...but in most cases the mother has the option to take the dad to court for child support...for good reason it is the law, to ensure that child has a chance at life. You sound like an well educated man, and your mom must have been a strong women, to raise you into the man you have become. I get it, i to come from the other side of the tracks, being poor was not fun at all, but my parents did the best the could to make sure my brothers and i received all the basics, got educations, got good jobs so i know it can be done...

I have traveled to some of the shittist hell holes on the planet were being that poor there is something we can not fathom, Afghanistan, Haiti, Sinai desert, Egypt, Syria, Somalia,  and a few others. so i really have experienced or seen what it is like to be poor. But we don't struggle with that here in Canada. Nor can we really point to this small group here in Canada  when most Canadian women do it because it is convenient, or they got lazy nothing more. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

The resurrection of Jesus Christ means the Bible is completely relevant. 

Dwindling numbers of those who consider themselves believers, speak of otherwise.

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

The point is Jesus Christ was seen by many eye witnesses after his resurrection.

Isn't that like the news using "sources"?

Thats no different than a "trust me", from a used car salesman. 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

If it was not morally wrong why do so many struggle with the  process

They aren't sociopaths.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

but in most cases the mother has the option to take the dad to court for child support

You know as well as I do, that if the man is smart enough, he can evade child support.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

they got lazy nothing more

I see it as a lack of education.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Dwindling numbers of those who consider themselves believers, speak of otherwise.

I don't know if numbers are dwindling or not.  I have no way of knowing.  Either way, it does not change the facts.  The Bible says many are called;  few are chosen.  That is just a fact of life.  When considering spiritual (Biblical) matters, if you base your beliefs on the number of people in the world who follow it, that is a fatal mistake.  Most of the world could be on the road to hell.  Remember there is a verse about this:

"13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."  Matthew 7:13 KJV

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Isn't that like the news using "sources"?

Thats no different than a "trust me", from a used car salesman. 

Not the same at all.  The justice system is built on eye witness accounts of events.  Often eye witnesses are the only source verifying the truth of something.  If you dismiss that, what do you have?   Nothing.

Practically all historical events recorded in history depend on the eye witnesses who lived at the time and saw what happened.  There is no other way to know the actual details.  

Of course this is not the same as somebody simply saying trust me to sell you something.  That is like comparing apples with oranges.  Not the same at all.

Edited August 7, 2024 by blackbird

[Guest]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't know if numbers are dwindling or not

Statistics show they are. Rapidly.

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Most of the world could be on the road to hell.  

Not sure if you have walked downtown in just about any Canadian city or seen the current state of global, religious and political conflicts.

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Remember there is a verse about this

Most people nowadays won't give two s***s about a Bible verse, and likely not western lawmakers, either.

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Not the same at all

Many see religion as a form of population control, so western democracies tend to shun it in growing numbers.

Heck, they even worship the dollar under guise of God's name in the US:

 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Statistics show they are. Rapidly.

That might be the case in some countries.  This wikipedia article says they are not in decline in Africa or Latin America.  The numbers may be more stable in developing countries.  It says the numbers are in decline in industrialized countries such as the western democracies for some reason.  However it says there are between 2 and 3 billion nominal Christians in the world, which is a huge number.

All of that doesn't have any relevance at all to the truth of the Bible or Biblical Christianity.

Biblical Christianity is not a popularity contest.

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Not sure if you have walked downtown in just about any Canadian city or seen the current state of global, religious and political conflicts.

Not sure what your point is here.  Bible believing Christians are a relatively small number out of the huge population of nominal Christians in the world.  The world is a fallen, corrupt place with much crime and corruption.  That has nothing to do with the truth of the Bible.  The world is full of false religions and conflicts of various kinds.   Again,  what does that prove?   I am not sure why you mention it.

God or Biblical Christianity is not an attempt to build a utopia on this present earth and the Bible says nothing about the whole world converting to Christianity.  That is obviously not happening.

4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Many see religion as a form of population control, so western democracies tend to shun it in growing numbers.

Heck, they even worship the dollar under guise of God's name in the US:

That might be true, but Biblical Christianity has nothing to do with population control.  There are countless different religions in the world.  All of them are false except Biblical Christianity.  You would have to learn something about the Bible and Christianity to understand what it is about.  I don't recall anything about population control in the years I have been involved.

[Boges]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Do you believe God has revealed his will and revelation to mankind?

If not, who decides what is right and what is wrong?  If God has revealed himself, what does he say about human life?

The question is what constitutes human life. 

There's no objective standard for that, even if one does believe in God. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

says they are not in decline in Africa or Latin America. 

Housing many countries with rampant back street abortions being performed.

Patriarchal societies. 

Sounds about right.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

It says the numbers are in decline in industrialized countries such as the western democracies for some reason.

Women's rights have been elevated, so am not surprised a religion that tries to strip some away would be pushed back on, if challenging this in any way shape or form.

Homosexuality. All things not only accepted, but literally celebrated in the west.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Biblical Christianity is not a popularity contest.

Correct, but if you lose touch with the common folk, you literally lose the purpose of your mission and lose the room it its entirety.

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

All of them are false except Biblical Christianity. 

*Everyone* has the best religion.

Wonder how that could cause conflict. 

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

You would have to learn something about the Bible and Christianity to understand what it is about.  

I hope you appreciate, that it is me reading about the Bible, that made me weary about it. I renounced my religion many years ago.

I don't reject it, as I do go to church with the wife, but its precisely that understanding that made me reject its teachings. 

The inability to question everything, was one of many deal-breakers to me.

Am a free thinker. By default, I question everything. Am a rebel by nature. 

Especially if it has to do with revoking some of the rights women have enjoyed.

Again, conservative leaders pushing this garbage that a woman doesn't or shouldn't have reproductive rights, literally will risk losing the room, and elections.

Its literally reverting to levels where you look at countries that are developing, are passing you in terms of human rights.

That's down right disgraceful.

"What would Jesus do" is a horrible basis for amending and or creating new laws. Especially if they relate to social media.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

The question is what constitutes human life. 

There's no objective standard for that, even if one does believe in God. 

There are many different gods believed by hundreds or thousands of different religions in the world.  Most of those religions do not believe in or have the Christian bible and do not believe in Jesus Christ as God.  

The fact is Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and after the resurrection was seen by many people.  The eyewitnesses include the apostles and prophets who wrote the New Testament which includes the account of what they saw.  Some died for what they saw and believed.  Jesus Christ was a firm believer in the Holy Scriptures, that is, the Bible.  He claimed to be God and proved it by being raised from the dead.  He also proved it by the accounts in the four gospels of the miracles which he performed while on earth.  These are eye witness accounts. 

That being the case, we must accept the Bible as being inspired by God.

"16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. "  2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

The question is then, are you willing to accept the Bible as an objective standard?

[blackbird]

46 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

*Everyone* has the best religion.

Wonder how that could cause conflict. 

I don't think it is productive to turn the discussion into something like a chess game where one just takes each point and tries to make a counter argument.  We should be able to discuss this in a more useful way.

Are you operating from the premise that every comment must be countered with an opposite comment?

You made a number of comments that seem to indicate you don't really understand what Biblical or Fundamental Christianity is all about.

You did say you renounced your religion many years ago.  This needs some clarification if you are willing to explain in more depth.   What religion did you renounce?  You said you attend a Roman Catholic church with your wife.

What do you know about the Christian religion?  Can you describe what you believe is the basic belief in Christianity from what you learned when you were involved in it?  Was it in the RC church?

[Boges]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There are many different gods believed by hundreds or thousands of different religions in the world.  Most of those religions do not believe in or have the Christian bible and do not believe in Jesus Christ as God.  

The fact is Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and after the resurrection was seen by many people.  The eyewitnesses include the apostles and prophets who wrote the New Testament which includes the account of what they saw.  Some died for what they saw and believed.  Jesus Christ was a firm believer in the Holy Scriptures, that is, the Bible.  He claimed to be God and proved it by being raised from the dead.  He also proved it by the accounts in the four gospels of the miracles which he performed while on earth.  These are eye witness accounts. 

That being the case, we must accept the Bible as being inspired by God.

"16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. "  2 Timothy 3:16 KJV

The question is then, are you willing to accept the Bible as an objective standard?

I think the Bible is a very flawed guide to know what God really wants. Especially when it doesn't outright condemn slavery or summary execution.

Where is this objective standard to say a Fetus is human life? And wouldn't any objective standard for life beginning at conception also include fertilization? So Embryos are also human life? IVF is mass genocide? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

We should be able to discuss this in a more useful way.

The most useful way, would be to look at what would make it a bad idea to give women rights over their bodies outside of religious belief.

Because God said so, is bad policy  and a worse argument.

Present data and statistics that support your point. Science. Logic.

This is how you would be debating in a useful manner. You debate my data and statistics, with yours. Quoting the Bible isn't a solid argument.

Instead of shaming women, being pragmatic based on what is existent, and data that either supports or denies your point of view.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

What religion did you renounce?  You said you attend a Roman Catholic church with your wife.

Why should it matter which branch of Christianity that I belonged to? Its definitely not the same one as my wife.

Like yours is the only valid one? 

Only your Bible is the truth? Isn't that like telling me my Asics or Puma sneakers aren't the same as yours because they aren't Nike? Because you happen to believe in their superiority?

That is purely based on your opinion.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

What do you know about the Christian religion? 

What is this, the religious intervention? 

I don't need God in my life. I live the best life I can, am humble and am appreciative of everything that I get.

I don't need a Bible to be a good human being. Nobody does.

Should one choose religion, all the power to you.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

I think the Bible is a very flawed guide to know what God really wants. Especially when it doesn't outright condemn slavery or summary execution.

Let's start with what you said there.  How do you know it is a flawed guide?  If you don't believe it came from God, then of course you would say that.  In that case it would be purely human ideas and inventions.  But millions of people for thousands of years have believed that it was inspired by God. The contents of the King James Bible itself give strong proof it is God inspired.   Do you have any information to dismiss that or just off the cuff opinion?

How do you know what it says about slavery?  Have you studied it?

How do you know it is wrong about execution?  Do you know what it says about it? 

You made some strong generalities without any facts to back it up.

You couldn't convince anyone without backing up such claims.

Edited August 7, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

Especially when it doesn't outright condemn slavery

"Jesus and the apostles did not outright condemn slavery. They didn’t need to. The effect of the gospel is that lives are changed, one by one, and those changed lives in turn bring transformation to entire families, clans, and cultures. Christianity was never designed to be a political movement, but, over time, it naturally affected political policy. Alexander MacLaren wrote that the gospel “meddles directly with no political or social arrangements, but lays down principles which will profoundly affect these, and leaves them to soak into the general mind” (The Expositor’s Bible, vol. VI, Eerdmans, 1940, p. 301). In nations where Christianity spread and took firm hold, slavery was brought to an end through the efforts of born-again individuals.

The seeds of the emancipation of slaves are in the Bible, which teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27), which condemns those who kidnap and sell a person (Exodus 21:16; cf. 1 Timothy 1:8–10), and which shows that a slave can truly be “a brother in the Lord” (Philemon 1:16).

Some criticize the Bible because it did not demand an immediate overthrow of every ingrained, centuries-old sinful custom of the day. But, as Warren Wiersbe pointed out, “The Lord chooses to change people and society gradually, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the truth of the Word of God” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, David C. Cook, 2007, p. 245)."

Does the Bible condone slavery? | GotQuestions.org

Understand Christianity is not a political movement.  It is not some kind of revolutionary organization that is going to get rid of all the evil in the world and impose some kind of uotopia.

The world is an evil place because man rebelled against God and fell into a state of rebellion against God.  That happened when Adam and Eve listened to the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit.  But God in his love and mercy for mankind sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to make atonement for mankind.  That he did when he was crucified on the cross.

Edited August 7, 2024 by blackbird